User talk:Andrew Davidson

Page views

These are the page views for my user page.

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:The Adventures of Tintin were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Prhartcom (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:DTTR. Further discussion should take place at the talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that your version of the graph will rapidly go out of date and be meaningless in months to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, the graph updates automatically. For example, see Talk:European_migrant_crisis which I updated a month ago. The template therefore belongs at the head of the talk page with the other permanent features. We just need a good way of presenting this with the other standard talk page templates. It's a new feature and we don't seem to have a standard approach for its use yet. Andrew D. (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so the blip will soon not feature, so your graph placement and associated commentary are pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The presentation can vary as appropriate, depending on the page and its traffic. In the case of the European migrant crisis, we see a steady decline in the page's modest traffic. If it spikes again then this is a clue that something is happening. In the case of the Tintin page, we had a massive spike in interest making it the #1 popular article. The reason for this was not explained at all on the page until I spotted this and added an update. Andrew D. (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And once the blip moves off your graph, it and you comment relating to it become pointless. You need a snapshot of the pageviews, not a live graph which will render your entry meaningless. As for most popular, see WP:TOP25 which is regularly sent to Signpost readers. It's mostly tabloid garbage, as you'd expect, far from what is expected from an encyclopaedia to be presenting on its main page I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just above, TRM was complaining that the graph view would go out of date. Now TRM is complaining that it won't. There's no pleasing some people. Myself, I shall continue to experiment with this and other new features. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• What? I have said the pageview graph will go out of date, in all instances, and as such comments relating to it on any given day will become outdated and then irrelevant. If you want a graph to be relevant to associated personal commentary (as you seem to desire, at the top of article talk pages for some reason), you need a snapshot of the graph to avoid the personal commentary becoming unrelated to the graph. You are of course welcome to experiment in sandboxes etc, but do not use the encyclopaedia for such joyrides, particularly when you're not actually doing it correctly. And feel free to attempt to tout the garbage on the top 25 list as what an encyclopedia should be featuring on its main page. Perhaps you should consider a career with something even more stately like Britannica as you clearly have such standards in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Did You Know

Completed DYKs are archived at User:Andrew Davidson/DYKs.

Aviation in Indonesia

Hi Andrew: Thanks for your opinion at the discussion page. I had to base my review upon the rules; so it goes. Per your IAR notion there of possibly moving forward with the nomination anyway, here's some ALTS I initially provided at the nomination page, prior to realizing that the article ultimately doesn't qualify per the rules. ‹The template Facepalm is being considered for deletion.›  Facepalm North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks but I reckon there must be a better hook out there there we still haven't found. Something about kite fishing, perhaps ... Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham Koran manuscript

What is it they say, about systemic bias? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: I have nominated this for DYK, as suggested. Myself, I'd now like to work upon floccinaucinihilipilification but find that it is fully protected to prevent me. What they say is that this is now “The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite. BTW, there is now a news story about how big a news story the manuscript has become. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To further highlight the inanity of the decision not to include this in ITN, the French Wikipedia currently features the manuscript in their equivalent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: That's interesting, thanks. It will be interesting to compare the effect on the traffic. Currently, the French page has had 3745 hits while the English one is still ahead with 4624. ITN isn't essential as readers will tend to find their way to topics in the news by other routes. It's a shame that you weren't at the AGM yesterday as I was hoping to talk to you about this and the RSC topics. Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK hook

Thanks for nominating the DYK about the oldest manuscript of Quran. I'm here to suggest you to change the hook, although the current one is accepted to step toward main page. My suggestion is as follows:

...that the oldest manuscript of Quran (pictured), dating back to muhammad's era, is said to prove that "the text has undergone little or no alteration?"

My suggestion conveys what the current DYK is meant to say while has another important point within. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• By choosing a bland, uncontroversial hook and moving quickly, a fast review and approval was achieved. Reopening the nomination is not a normal process and would invite dispute and delay. Perfect is the enemy of good. Andrew D. (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

my proposal does not seem controversial as it is an statement derived from the News. Yes, it gets its way with delay, but I think it is worth trying! However, it's up to you. Mhhossein (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: After further consideration, I have reopened the nomination to propose an alternate hook. The discussion is open to all so you can propose your suggestion there too. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I made my proposal. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Peter Williams (dance critic)

Hello! Your submission of Peter Williams (dance critic) 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update. Another editor did a lot of work which needs a copy-editing pass. I'll get to it in due course... Andrew D. (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Tourism in Brunei

Hello, Andrew Davidson. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Tourism in Brunei.
Message added 20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Human3015^TALK  20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have no immediate plans or time to work on the topic but I'll keep an eye out for better sources. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

DYKs at AfD

What's the usual procedure for dealing with DYK nominations that then get taken to AfD? I know Abbie Hutty was one, and it seems Line the Label is another. Do we just sit around and wait for the AfD to close before doing anything? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: In my experience, there's a time-out for the DYK process while the AfD is resolved. This mainly matters for the qualification period, which usually has a 7 day limit. People will usually accept an extension if time is needed to sort out the AfD. Articles for which the DYK and AfD were close together include Bali Mauladad; De Hems; Divine countenance; Dog and Duck; Hill Street; historical figure; idiom dictionary and Teletubbies say "Eh-oh!". Typically, the AfD would generate activity which made the article good enough to take to DYK. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, per WP:DYKSG#D5: Articles nominated for deletion must go on hold until they have survived the deletion process. So for articles that are already DYK nominated, we just sit around and wait for the AfD to close. It's usually best to put a slash icon on the nomination page and say that it is on hold until the AfD has concluded. However, if this is a question about nominating the article, you still do want to nominate it within the seven-day window even if it is at AfD, otherwise it will fail the newness criterion—but you may want to hold off doing the QPQ until you're sure it will be needed. So in this case, submit the nomination before the seven days are up; I'd mention the AfD on the Comment line. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Done - DYK filed, reference to the AfD put on the comment line - as per Abbie Hutty. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech and tools

A new reference tool - Citoid

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No PNG for photos

When you corrected the orientation problem on File:Rock on Top of Another Rock south.jpg you did so by uploading File:Rock on Top of Another Rock south.png. The objections to using PNG are: the file size increased from 1,322,852 to 8,680,934 bytes with no increase in information content and all the EXIF metadata was thrown away. If the situation occurs again, upload to the Commons (which is where you should be uploading anyway) and use the "request rotation" facility which is available there - or ask me to do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• My impression is that it's the EXIF data which can cause the rotation problem as there's an orientation tag in it which is not well-supported. As for the rocks, they have gone now, alas. I cycled past the Serpentine on my way to the Tweed Run recently and made a point of checking. Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Team editing experiment

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

• I have commented on that talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Collections

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Blofeld's barnstar

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I'm glad that at least you see the value in my stubs and what is most important on wikipedia (identifying notable subjects and addressing systematic bias and working towards improving them)! Thankyou Andrew.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember if you said you're interested in Stanley Kubrick at all but I've updated the main article and will be working on getting it up to GA n the next few weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks but I'm not especially interested in Kubrick and iirc that topic already has too many cooks. I'll put it on my watchlist and just lurk in case more voices are needed to resolve some dispute. I'm much more interested in Al-'Abr which seems quite a fascinating place - rich in ancient Arabian history and then a far-flung outpost of the British Empire. But today my priority should be the boat race and I need to get ready for that... Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd thought it was you who mentioned Kubrick previously, I must be mistaken. A lot of editor interest, yes, but very few actually coming up with the goods! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting new stub, Orm Storolfsson..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

In the News

Andrew, just a quick question, are you aware how WP:ITN functions? It appears from some of your recent posts that either your account has been compromised or you have an inherent misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia and the ITN section of the main page operates. Feel free to ping me so I can clarify things for you, right now some of your edits are being potentially misinterpreted by others as naivety or worse, I'd like to help you with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's not clear whether ITN is functioning well or not because there don't seem to be any measures of success. At DYK, one can assess the effectiveness of a hook from the spike in readership. This doesn't work with topics in the news because people will read them regardless of whether ITN lists them or not. For example, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge has been snubbed at ITN but still has a bigger spike in readership than the Kentucky Derby. Even the cleanup aspect of driving improvements to the articles seems quite haphazard. The Kentucky Derby has had a cleanup banner tag since 2014 but was listed regardless and so Princess Charlotte seems to be doing better in that respect too. Andrew D. (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• That wasn't my question. There's little doubt that all processes across Wikipedia could be improved. It seemed to me that you are unaware as to how ITN currently works, not how you think it should work. In any case, just so you know, the focus is on the bold linked article in a blurb, so that's why the Kentucky Derby item was listed. Charlotte wasn't listed because no consensus existed to post a royal baby, predominantly because she most likely will never be reigning monarch and also because this is English language Wikipedia, not British Wikipedia. Popularity of articles doesn't equate to encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• The archetypal encyclopedia is Britannica. If you visit their home page right now, their lead item is a "Behind the News" feature — "British Royals Reveal New Princess’s Name". Q.E.D.

If you click through to "More Behind the News", they offer three more - "Fight of the Young Century", "Messenger Mission Ends", "Pakistan jails 10 for Malala attack". The Kentucky Derby doesn't make the cut. That's the judgement of a real encyclopedia: a new princess is more important than a horse race. Most other mainstream sites seem to agree. The only exceptions I found in a quick survey were Al Jazeera and Russia Today. That's the company we're keeping — partisan propaganda, not encyclopedic values. Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and how many main page hits does Wikipedia get compared with Britannica? Once again (for the third time?), if you don't want to see horse races on ITN, start the discussion at WT:ITNR, don't just take the easy whinging way out and ignore that a process exists to achieve exactly what you want because you can't be bothered to do anything about it. It is oh so easy to sit back and bitch about the state of affairs, it is much harder but much more useful to actively do something about it. You know the phrase "put up or shut up" I assume? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So, you're now saying that it's page views that matter, not encyclopedic values? Wikipedia seems to get about 20 million hits per day on the main page but my impression is that few of the many blue links on the page get clicked through. Britannica has a much cleaner look with far fewer topics. The prominence it gives to the new Princess is therefore even more significant.

As for WP:ITNR, that seems dominated by a long list of sports. It's more like the back pages of a newspaper than an encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not saying any of that. What I'm saying is: if you care enough, do something about it. If you don't, stop bitching about it. Simple as that. If you prefer to work at Britannica, please do so, that would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems contrary to the guidance at WP:ITN/C which states, "Please do not add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes". Commentary is therefore expected as part of the !votes there. My comments seem consistent with others there such as "Oppose long-serving politician gets old and dies. Ten a penny I'm afraid..." Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, deliberately or not, you're missing the point. You opposed ITN/R items at ITN/C. Wrong. But I'm clearly wasting my time (as you have been). The Rambling Man (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Your original post above said nothing of ITN/R and ITN/C and instead seemed to suggest that my account had been compromised. If you wish to avoid wasting time, you might try getting to the point more directly. Myself, I have enjoyed this conversation. It's usually quite quiet here and it was interesting to look at Britannica's equivalent. Today, they lead on another "Behind the News" item: "British Go to the Polls". That seems quite topical as the election hasn't been out of the news for a month. But, apart from all the sport, ITN is discussing the Alberta general election, instead! Britannica again seems much better at highlighting what's actually in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ITN will certainly feature the British General Election, once the results are known and once the article is up to scratch. That's how unpaid volunteers who pull together to create a free encyclopedia work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that there's an editathon for this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ebola

I don't know if you're looking for an entry in your block log or at WP:LAME, but honestly you're exhausting my patience and I'm an extremely patient Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• The item in question was removed from the main page several hours ago and so the matter is moot here for now. Andrew D. (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• The existence of the item on the main page may be moot, but your disruptive behaviour is clearly not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• 4 Apr 2016 – WHO Update – "These latest cases in Liberia mark the country’s third flare-up of Ebola virus disease since its original outbreak was declared over ... Nearly 1,000 WHO specialists remain in the region."

Inns and public houses

List of pubs in London

The Swan, Hammersmith – a Grade II listed public house

A topic that I suspect may be of interest to you. Feel free to help expand this new article if you're interested. Some entries would benefit from descriptions, such as those housed in buildings that are Grade II listed. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it has crossed my mind to create something like this but I never got around to it. I'll help expand it but Edwardx is the the one we really need to get involved as he has created many of the individual articles. Andrew D. (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply, for pinging a potentially interested user, and for your additions to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Gladstone Arms

On 3 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Gladstone Arms, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an MP crawled to save The Glad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Gladstone Arms. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Gladstone Arms), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Black Swan, Oldstead

On 26 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Black Swan, Oldstead, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Black Swan at Oldstead is rated the best restaurant in the world by TripAdvisor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Black Swan, Oldstead. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Black Swan, Oldstead), 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) 00:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Safety behaviour

Requested a dispute resolution here for an outside opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Safety_behaviors If you can, please add your side of the dispute so that this problem can be resolved. Thanks! GoldenCirclet (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am responding at the relevant talk pages. Andrew D. (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Rider ranger47 ^Talk 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

“I Was Kaiser Bill’s Batman”

Dear Andrew Davidson, on 6 March 2010 you created the article “I Was Kaiser Bill’s Batman”. That day you wrote there, among other facts, that John O’Neill was the whistler of that song. Later another Wikipedian was quite adamant on three occasions (17 July 2013, 12 August 2013, 19 May 2015) to remove John O'Neill from the article justifying this change by referring to the very same sources that you had put in there in the beginning. I’ve contacted the mentioned Wikipedian on his talk site but he insists on being right regarding the changes. But the current statement in the article (“This was credited to Whistling Jack Smith provided as a session musician by Mike Sammes of the Mike Sammes Singers”) sounds like Jack Smith was a real person and it doesn't say anything about the actual whistler of the song. But you are more knowledgable here. So, what do the mentioned sources actually say (Then, Now and Rare British Beat 1960-1969; Whistling in the wind for a good tune)? I don't have them. I got my knowledge regarding that article from some websites on the internet which might not be recognized as reliable sources by Wikipedia. Could you look at the article once more to clarify and correct it? (A couple of days ago I wrote you on your Colonel Warden talk site. But I'm not sure if you still use that account and regularly read messages there.) Best wishes (Stillbusy (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC))

• Thanks for your persistence. I have the information you seek and will get to this in due course. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfA

NeilN

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		To Andrew Davidson, for expressing his opinion calmly under pressure. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I am dismayed to see the amount of hostility that you are receiving at the current RfA. Even though your viewpoint is clearly a minority one, you raise legitimate points. I myself !voted in support of the candidate, but I recognize that a difference of opinion should be respected. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Axl: Thanks. Such badgering of opposes is normal at RfA so I'm accustomed to it but it's good to have your support. And, whatever the immediate result, I sometimes get more accolades later. Recent examples from my career as Colonel Warden include: "Particular credit to the illustrious Col. Warden who noted during the RFA..."; "At this point Colonel Warden's sole Oppose turns out like some kind of genius..." Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You've always spoken your mind at RfA, and I know you do a lot of content work and are a good editor. Nothing wrong with stating your opinion whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

APerson

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Wise words on here, agree completely. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose you mean this, right? You're very welcome. When's your turn in the stocks...? Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thine Antique Pen

I thought you should know that you were mentioned here, as it didn't seem you had been notified by ping or otherwise. Samsara 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I am quite busy currently but will try to respond briefly. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Eclectic variety

Hi Andrew. I thought I'd bring conversation over here as I detest long threaded discussion at RfAs - it's just not fair on the candidate. I hope you don't mind. You mention that Thine Antique Pen's contributions are formulaic, I do agree that he does spates of formulaic creation, and I believe that's been a way of participating in the Wikicup. But the articles he's written well don't appear to be formulaic at all - paintings, volcanoes on the moon, Wheelchair basketball players, military history. All are a selection the good articles he's written over the years. I struggle to see how he's got a narrow approach in general. Worm^TT(talk) 13:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I take your point and will look through these and other articles when I have more time. But the comments of user Yngvadottir also concern me - the candidate may still too much of a point-scoring attitude and this might carry through to their behaviour as an admin. I'll keep an eye on the RfA and reconsider after we have more input. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  No worries, I'm not trying to change your vote - I have no problem with the oppose, just the idea that he's been creating articles by rote goes directly against my nomination and I thought I should address that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Worm That Turned: I have just studied those topics more closely. I give the candidate full marks for attempting varied and difficult topics but am now quite concerned about some aspects of this work. The Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly is a challenging technical topic, which seems to have been written from scratch. If we look at the state of it before other editors got involved, it seems quite weak to the point of being incoherent. For example, the sentence, "It only appears when there is the highest amount of concentrated Thorium possible." doesn't make any sense and so seems to have been written without understanding.

The article Battle of Besançon starts better but seems to have been translated from the French wikipedia. For example, consider the translation of the following sentence:

La majorité des protagonistes protestants parviennent cependant à s'enfuir ; les assaillants capturés sont quant à eux pendus avec les Bisontins réputés traîtres.

The majority of the Protestant army managed to escape, but those who were captured were hanged with traitors.

That doesn't read quite right because the context for the word traîtres has been dropped. Another editor then comes along and copy edits this and the original meaning is then garbled:

The majority of the Protestant army managed to escape, but those who were captured were hanged as traitors.

What's especially shocking, in this case, is that there seems to have been no attribution of the original authors of the French article. This is contrary to the best practice given at WP:CWW#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. As the candidate has claimed both DYK and GA credit for the article, without seeming to mention its origin in those processes, this seems to be unacceptable plagiarism, "Do not make the work of others look like your own. Give credit where it is due." Andrew D. (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught

Andrew, I'm saddened to see you pursuing you usual manner of participation at RfA. I realise that you very occasionally support candidates but this vote once again demonstrate a clear pattern that has emerged over the years including your work as Colonel Warden. We are trying to make adminship a more interesting prospect for users of the right calibre but the style and relevance of the voting is exactly what discourages them. I'm sure you will understand that I and other users now feel it is possibly getting close to the time for the broader community to comment in another venue on what appears to be your agenda. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on at the RfA, but I'd like to add that implying the candidate's gender, or disclosure thereof, has anything to do with their suitability as an admin is totally inappropriate. Sam Walton (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• This RfA is still open and so it seems best to keep discussion over there. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you move this discussion halfway up your talkpage? Is it because you don't wish to continue discussion over your clearly odd position at this RFA? Perhaps you have something to hide? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• To bring related topics together. It's how I tend to file topics which I'm keeping. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Hopefully by now you see the error of your way here. If not I sure the community will disregard your future attempts to contribute at RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Each case goes differently, depending on its merits. We shall see... Andrew D. (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. It's clear that you have no alignment with the community, which is fine, but as a word of friendly advice, you need to address your discriminatory tone in future, unless you wish to lose any credibility you thought you had. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Your userpage is on my watchlist (as you may now have guessed) and I accidentally clicked the rollback link. I apologise for that, I think it's fixed now. BethNaught (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• @BethNaught: Thanks for the explanation. Accidents will happen – especially on a touch-screen device such as a tablet, I find. If, as seems likely, you become an admin, you should please be careful not to block editors accidentally – this seems quite easy to do and is harder to undo, I gather.

Our discussion at the RfA was hatted so if you've anything more to add, feel free to continue here. But I already expect your prior history was as you indicated. If you have a maths background, then you probably took to wiki-markup and conventions quite quickly. I have an aptitude for maths and coding too but have still found the learning curve to be significant and so had trouble understanding how you would learn so well as an IP. No doubt we have a different approach...

Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll be careful, I promise! But for now I have used CSS to remove the rollback links from my watchlist. As for my learning approach, I guess I spent a lot of time reading the manual. BethNaught (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, for your information Andrew, blocking people involves multiple clicks and selections of drop downs, whereas rollback can be achieved in one or two clicks. Unblocking people is as straightforward as blocking them, it's the same process as blocking them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This information is available at WP:ADMINGUIDE/B. Using rollback and blocking/unblocking editors are very different processes. Also, a standard unblock is arguably less complicated because there are not as many inputs required. Mkdw^talk 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If Andrew is unaware of these differences, then perhaps his "judgement" in who should and should not make an admin is in even further doubt than it already is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a fresh example of someone being accidentally blocked. I trust BethNaught will do a better job. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• That's an inevitability of the IP address structure. Sometimes editors with accounts will be blocked when a range block is made across a particular IP address. It happens. (If you'd done your homework, you'd have seen that the editor's account wasn't blocked). But I guess you can (and will) use it as a reason to oppose other good candidates in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• P.S. Just for your education, in order to determine which users use which IP addresses to edit Wikipedia, the Checkuser flag is required. Just in case you went off to blame other admins for not being able to do this task... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It shouldn't happen in such cases. As I understand it, a soft block would have been better. It's perhaps hard to assess performance with such admin-only functions at RfA but one might look for a cautious, careful demeanor. Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• If the vandalism comes from a small range of IP addresses (which is commonplace) then a rangeblock is the best answer. I see that you were indefinitely blocked a while ago, perhaps that this sort of thing stings? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• My understanding is that range blocks do not have to include logged-in accounts and should not normally do so because of the high risk of collateral damage. As for myself, I have been blocked several times but I am quite thick-skinned. Others are not so phlegmatic, though. For example, I came across someone I once knew on Wikipedia; a quite respectable professional. I didn't get to do much with him here because it wasn't long before a single block resulted in him walking away from the project completely after 8 years work. My impression is that such incidents result in the loss of thousands of editors and so are responsible for the general decline in participation. This attrition of the more sensitive souls then naturally results in the survivors being quite hardened. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• You'll need to provide more than just "your understanding" if you're going to claim that a rangeblock results in the loss of thousands of editors. The example you give is a gross misuse of tools and was a good block. To throw ones toys out and leave, well that speaks more of the editor than the blocking admin. And somewhat archaic that he would quote a "25/0/0/ admin vote" when these days RFAs have usually around 200 participants. Getting adminship back then was just a matter of asking your mates for it. Odd you would talk about attrition of "sensitive souls" when you yourself have shown unlimited insensitivity toward BethNaught. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Relations between BethNaught and myself seem just fine. They refunded an article for me today and I thanked them for the service. All's well that ends well... Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

78.26

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Note that, by coincidence, I've been researching an old 1912 12-inch single recorded by the Victor Talking Machine Company. Andrew D. (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Egads, this time period was a bit busy for me, and I missed this correspondence. Are you still working on this? I likely have some sources on this that may help, although DAHR is simply one of the best available. This was issued twice, first as a single-sided "purple label" disc, and then as a double-sided "blue label" disc. These were series that were considered prestigious, but not as "high-class" as one of their "Red Seal" series. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• @78.26: Christmas Day in the Workhouse appeared on the main page on Christmas Day of 2015. It got another good spike of traffic this recent Christmas but that's not surprising. I've not done much more with it myself but I did write up an interesting pioneer of sound recording last year – Alfred Clark (director). I have moved on from that topic since it appeared as a DYK so please feel free to pick it up and add more, if you have some specialist knowledge of the period. Andrew D. (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. My apologies for sounding prickly on James Chadwick. Understanding something doesn't always make it easy to explain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Widr

Hi Andrew, I like your posts at RfA/Widr, especially your rationale about the responsibility of admins (of 22:41, 18 March 2016) and the reply to Jdcomix, which combines being informative with humour and brevity.

I was led to the RfA page by a message on the main page. I didn't know that individual RfAs are announced there, too now. This may may explain the observation someone made (which is loosely connected to Jason Quinn's observation about "anchor bias") that people come here towards the end and add a lot of "support|oppose per ..." votings. — Sebastian 18:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sebastian. After the Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform (Phase II in particular), RfA's are now announced on user's watchlists and on the {{Centralized discussion}}. Is one of those what you meant by "main page"? The watchlist notice should go up near the beginning of the RfA after a short initial grace period, so it shouldn't be directly responsible for the late voters but it surely is responsible for the larger turnout we've been seeing. — Jason Quinn — continues after insertion below

I meant the Main Page, I thought it was in the banner on top that is often used for announcements such as ArbCom elections or donation appeals. But it's possible that I misremembered; it was already a couple days ago, and can't check it in my history, because it updated the access dates since. — Sebastian 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmph. I didn't see anything on the main page and I'm not aware of such a thing but it's perfectly possible that it's something that occurs now and I just missed this developement. I'll keep on eye open. Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the late voters, I think many of them (like me) tend to "sit on the fence" and make a decision near the end. When I glance at the late voters, I see many highly active and respected editors that I am certain were following the discussion closely since the RfA commenced. These are people who simply don't like making a decision until they have the most information.

Regarding bias, bias at RfA has been something I've been contemplating for a while now. Anchor bias would affect later voters more than earlier voters since there's a feedback loop where each subsequent voter is biased not only by the initial comment but also by the prior bias-contaminated comments. The bias is "stacking" so to say, although the size of the effect on an individual comment likely approaches a saturation level asymptotically. The only way to defeat anchor bias is to randomize the order of the comments or to hold all comments until the end but this is incompatible with the current RfA format, which I think may be the best possible despite its susceptibility to anchor bias. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the natural anchor bias you're describing; partly, because I think the distinction to reasonable change of opinion is hard or impossible to do. Take Andrew's vote, for instance. Of course his well thought out arguments are apt to influence me. But why shouldn't I be influence by them? Sympathetically listening to each other's arguments is good behavior in any reasoned discussion; humankind has done that pretty well at least since the rhetoric schools of Athens; why worry about it now? — Sebastian 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and I'm glad that Sebastian understood me so well. It's good to get such feedback because opposes at RfA are more usually subject to considerable insult and intimidation. I suppose that most !voters prefer to sit on the fence for fear of attracting such opprobrium. See groupthink for more on this. I would prefer a secret ballot more like the arbcom elections to counter this. Andrew D. (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Re groupthink, I used to call it "sheep vote" back in 2005. This was the last edit to the essay. (Can you see it? Not sure if diffs to deleted pages work for you). In 2012 I deleted the page, because I felt "doesn't represent my view anymore". I'm more worried about groupthink among administrators; I think I wrote about that on WP:AN on occasion, but I can't find that now. — Sebastian 02:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see the diff when logged-in because I'm an admin. I was curious if it could be seen while logged-out, and when I tried it it gives shows the Special page "Permission error" that says:

You do not have permission to view this page's deleted history, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers.

So there's no security hole. I haven't been able to find any matching interface page for this message so it may be hard-coded into MediaWiki. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this the page you're looking for? sheep voting Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one, as the hatnote states. — Sebastian 07:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru

Re this edit, it required no "admin powers"- any editor could have done the same thing. I made the edit because as a Wikipedian I care about WP:BLP and as a Bureaucrat, I care about RfA. BLP mandates no need for discussion nor consensus, more it directs us to remove breaches "immediately" - I suggest you read the policy. Incidentally, I'd have done the same, if I saw it, for a similar comment from any editor. I'm not sure why you think that your helpfully improving my text at WP:ERRORS would mean I'd single you out for specially nasty and vindictive redacting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• When I saw your comment in the oppose section, it took me a while to figure out what it meant. I checked the edit history but, for some reason, I couldn't see the update – perhaps a cache needed refreshing or perhaps I couldn't see for looking. I then supposed that it was some sort of hidden revdel/oversight action. Now I look again, it's clear as a normal edit so thanks for the explanation.

I can't see the point of doing this via ordinary editing though as that will tend to draw attention to the redacted text per the Streisand effect. Anyway, I wondered if it was something to do with the article being an FA but then recalled the WP:ERROR incident. If that's got nothing to do with it then that's fine. It might help avoid confusion and speculation if the nature of such edits was made clearer. If it is an official bureaucrat clerk action then perhaps this could be indicated by a different colour?

As for BLP, it seems quite a stretch for it to be applied in this case, as one would not normally put citations to sources in such a discussion and RfA will become quite complex if we start having to do this any time we're discussing such a subject. Otherwise we'll start having to use euphemisms like "the d-word" and that will get confusing too. The NYT interview indicates that we do have to watch what we say about Kagame though and so it's good to be reminded of this. Andrew D. (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Several dissidents said that Rwanda fields a lethal intelligence service with assassins who can operate anywhere. Rene Claudel Mugenzi, a Rwandan human rights activist living in England, told me that in March 2011, Kagame was on a BBC radio show when Mugenzi called in and asked a provocative question — whether an Arab Spring-like revolution could erupt in Rwanda. A few weeks later, two Scotland Yard bobbies rapped on Mugenzi’s door to deliver a letter. “Reliable intelligence states that the Rwandan government poses an imminent threat to your life,” it read. Mugenzi was stunned. “I never thought they would try to kill me in the U.K.,” he said.

— The Global Elite’s Favorite Strongman, Jeffrey Gettleman, 4 September 2013

If you'd like to amend our BLP policy, start a discussion at WT:BLP. Until then, we are mandated to remove immediately breaches of the policy wherever they appear, not just in article space. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah

I did my Ph.D. and a postdoc in astrophysics. While "in the constellation X" is great grammatically, astronomers say "located in the constellation X" all the time. I recommend you strike this objection from your oppose in Oshwah's RfA. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• When one makes an appropriate search, there don't seem to be any cases where the word "located" is used in this way. They all seem to say just "in the constellation Sagittarius" or "in Sagittarius". My view remains that adding the word "located" is not an improvement and the candidate should not be claiming GA credit for such edits. I qualify my doubts by using the words "debatable" and "arguably" and this seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposals

FYI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal. Sam Walton (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• That went better than I expected. My thanks to the participants for their fair-minded stance. Andrew D. (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Some additional links, for the record

1. Discussion of Cyberpower678's close
2. Final AN archive
3. Samwalton9's further thoughts on the matter

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Everymorning (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Andrew_Davidson_and_RFAs:_time_for_a_topic_ban?. Alex Shih (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I have closed this discussion as "no consensus"; however I see a common theme that even those opposing an outright ban have said your views at RfAs tend to be ill thought out and are generally ignored. I would advise reading Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters carefully, otherwise you are likely to find RfA a waste of your time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Final AN archive

Cullen328

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ansh666

Hi Andrew, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh666 23:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Muboshgu

Please withdraw your question, as it is clearly out of line. You simply cannot just speculate without any facts. The right thing to do was to simply ask for clarification, as I do agree it wasn't clearly expressed in the nomination statement. As I handled that RevDel request, the content was a paragraph of gross BLP violation that needed and should have been handled immediately. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any objections to this question being removed, I'm inclined to move it and the follow up discussion to the talk page and collapse it. If so you are welcome to ask new questions (and not have that count towards your 2 questions); multiple admins have reviewed the revdel now, and support the removal as-is (I also reviewed it). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Muboshgu#Q7, I've left the majority of the question in place, but redacted the specific article information. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Noted. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on your comment on Signpost

In the comments about the Signpost article (re: incorrect information in DYK articles) you mentioned the exact time of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon, and suggested confusion about why 09:37:46 would be shortened to 09:37 instead of 09:38. I believe the answer to this is the fact that time and date notations do not necessarily refer to exact moments, but to ranges of time. If a child was born in December of 2014, we wouldn't round that and say she was born in 2015 just because the first day of 2015 was closer to her birth than the first day of 2014 was. Likewise, it is 09:37 from 09:37:00.0 until the moment the clock hits 09:38:00.0 and it is Saturday right up until it becomes Sunday, and not one second early. Anyway, happy editing! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Etamni: I take your point but it depends on the context. If we were to agree to meet at 3 o'clock, you might reasonably be upset if I didn't turn up until quarter to four. In the case of Flight 77, those 46 seconds make quite a difference as the plane would have flown about 7 miles in that time. If you're watching a video of the event (which the article has) then waiting 46 seconds to reach the exact moment seems like a long time. So, it's best to be accurate and consistent in this case. Andrew D. (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more concise to specify the exact second of the impact. Regarding the 3 o'clock analogy, a quarter to four is just being fashionably late :) Actually, "3 o'clock" is usually considered to be the minute of 3:00:00.0 until the clock hits 3:01:00.0, so showing up at a quarter to four is fairly late. Although the range analogy works for most time and date terms, in English, we don't have good terms that refer to the hours, except by explicitly mentioning that we mean the hour (e.g. between three and four, or the six o'clock hour) but yes, context is king. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikimeets

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Great Turnstile

On 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great Turnstile, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Great Turnstile (entrance pictured, right) was originally built to keep cattle out of Holborn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Turnstile. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Great Turnstile), 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) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I enormously enjoyed this new article. The evident pleasure you have in writing your new articles communicates itself to the reader. Smashing stuff! Tim riley talk 21:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's kind of you to say so. I tried to get it into good shape for the Meetup there today (pictured) where it made a good talking point. Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Accounts

Per this policy, please connect your alternate accounts to this account. BMK (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I put templates on them already but if you want to check them out, the list is

• User:Colonel Warden
• User:Yes We Can Do it!
• User:Can We Do It?
• User:Do It, We Can!
• User:Major Vex

I used Colonel Warden as my main account for a while for privacy reasons while the others were used in a limited way for testing and training. Andrew D. (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your "Major Vex" account is linked to "Colonel Warden", not to your current account. BMK (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• That account was not active then or now and so is just listed for completeness. Colonel Warden was my main account at the time and is semi-retired. I still look in on it to check its notifications as it gets quite a lot. The priority right now seems to be RfA, as that's on a timetable. Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• To test WP:ACTRIAL, there's also User:We Cannot Do it! Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• I have also created accounts for other new editors, as an event coordinator. Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

5 million

	The Special Barnstar
	For almost making 5 millionth article. It shouldn't really matter who "won", but somehow, apparently, it does... Samsara 13:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's my notes on the event. I warmed up on the previous day by creating several fresh articles:

• Harry the Hermit – I'd read about him in a local newspaper that week. He'd been deleted previously but seemed worth bringing back as his story is the basis for a Hollywood movie now.
• Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans – I saw this mentioned in a list of significant journals in an amusing story: Which philosopher would fare best in a present-day university?. I checked to see if we had them and found one was missing. This then led to a couple of supporting articles:
• Reinier Leers – publisher of the journal
• Henri Desbordes – publisher of its predecessor. Having finished with these articles inspired by the press, I then turned to a book about fish and chip shops which I'd picked up at the bookshop of the Wellcome Collection, after an editathon there. I've been meaning to write about some of my favourites for some time and this seemed a good opportunity to get started.
• Seashell of Lisson Grove – patronised by numerous celebs and usually rated the top fish and chip shop in London.

At that time there were about 700 articles to go and I supposed that there might be a big surge at any time. By creating articles throughout this period, I hoped to strike lucky but the surge didn't happen that day. As the pace still seemed quite slow – about one a minute – I went to bed as usual. The following morning the pace still seemed slow. I had brunch while browsing around and it was during this session that I found this page (WP:5MILLION) This seemed useful for tracking progress so I watched it while wondering whether I could go out, as planned. I had several drafts prepared offline and so started to get them ready. I then noticed Dr. Blofeld start his batch of Turkish villages and we were off to the races.

Blofeld's bot didn't seem as fast as I'd feared so I had plenty of time to get ready. I had three drafts prepared

• Kerbisher & Malt – my favourite fish and chip shop
• Brush pot – an object I'd seen on Antiques Road Show on the previous Sunday. A good antique example might be worth a million dollars.
• The long march through the institutions – a spinoff from the big deletion debates about Cultural Marxism. In browsing around that topic, I came across an article about this on the German Wikipedia and so thought it would stand up as a topic over here.

Cas Liber then joined in with his shrubs but the pace was still quite moderate and so I had time to add another fish and chip shop to my batch, cloning it from one of the others. These were set up in separate browser tabs where I previewed them to check the format so that they just needed saving. I expected the rate to spike as it did and so started saving when there was about 21 articles to go. My batch then bracketed the 5 million mark quite nicely. Close but no cigar...

Brush pot

Another interesting article, I have tried to expand it and was able to make it eligible for DYK. I took the liberty to nominate it myself, hope you didn't mind? And thanks again for starting this interesting articles! Looking forward to work with you again. Jim Carter 11:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• You are very welcome. I'll take another look myself and perhaps pop into the British Museum to see what they have on display there. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I really haven't noticed that. Jim Carter 17:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Henri Desbordes

Hello Andrew, thanks for creating that article. I was able to expand it but I couldn't make it expand any further than 1,350 characters. I thought it would be nice to get the article to at least start class and possibly a DYK. But I couldn't found anything else to expand the article. Do you found anything else in a search? I don't have access to HighBeam or Jstor, maybe there could be additional sources. Jim Carter 15:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your good work. I will add what I can to the article. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Royal Rock Beagles

Much appreciated if you could list where you obtained this  :File:Royal Rock Beagles by John Dalby 1845.png in the relevant field on the page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have created an article about the artist John Dalby (painter). Andrew D. (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Being Human - Revealing Local History

Andrew, we're a bit thin on attendees: Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Senate House Library Nov 2015. All publicity welcome! Edwardx (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Edwardx: My thought is that you should ping editors who are active on London topics. People like Chiswick Chap and the crowd that edit articles like Sutton High Street. Of course, be careful what you wish for ... Andrew D. (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• We now have five signed up, plus there's a GeoNotice, not to mention the 16 signed up directly via EventBrite that I've just heard about! Famine to feast in no time at all. Edwardx (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Pottery Throw Down

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work on The Great Pottery Throw Down and Keith Brymer Jones articles, I created Kate Malone last night and planned to do the other two tonight, you beat me to it! Theroadislong (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Sorry to steal your thunder but I started the Great British Bake Off and Paul Hollywood when they were unknown and this show seemed a worthy successor. Andrew D. (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE, etc.

Hey. I wanted to stop by your talk page, and see if I could address your concerns away from the heated discussion on the WP:N talk page. I spend more than half my time editing sports-related articles, and we make frequent reference to WP:ROUTINE in sports-related AfDs in determining the notability of athletes, games and rivalries. For daily news coverage of events, I see WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE forming an overlapping, interlocking and usually complementary set of principles regarding news events and the persons covered as part of them. Sometimes, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E may into play, too. None of these guidelines are intended to exclude obviously notable events or persons, and usually only come into play for subjects of very marginal notability. So, talk to me -- I want to see if we can thrash this out and address what concerns you may have. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't focus on sports so much and so suppose that we have different perspectives for this reason. One concern I have is that a simple word like ROUTINE might easily be interpreted in a non-sports context and so we'd get considerable creep. But these points are best made at WP:N where there's a particular issue under debate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, WP:ROUTINE is commonly used in non-sports contexts too, but probably not as frequently as in sports. Events like Prime Minister's Questions for December 2, 2015, an individual Monday Night Football game, and last week's Arsenal vs. Tottenham match are clearly intended to be excluded, because there is almost no in-depth coverage beyond the typical news cycle, and they are often better covered as part of a larger topic. I'm happy to move this back to the WP:N talk page, but I don't want you to think I'm trying to hoodwink you into a result you're trying to avoid. Sometimes user talk page discussions are calmer and more personal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• For sports, commonplace fixtures are included but they seem to be distilled into pages such as 2015 New York Yankees season. I expect that this is done mainly for practical reasons – baseball is played every day and it would be too much work to create pages at that rate. Such pages of results are contrary to the intent of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK but the fans create them regardless. So it goes. Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Correct. Season articles are one of the outlets for content related to regular season games; if something particularly noteworthy happened in a particular regular season game, it can almost always be covered in a sentence or two in the season article rather than creating a stand-alone article for an individual regular season game. The season articles are analogous to lists in that regard. There will be occasional exceptions for individual games whose coverage clearly exceeds the threshold standards of WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and for which stand-alone articles are appropriate. The season articles should not exist as bare lists of game results. Of course, the problem is that many editors find it easy to add game results to schedule tables, but difficult to write the accompanying narrative text that explains the results in the context of the overall season. I share your frustration in that regard, and have made a bit of nuisance of myself around several of the sports WikiProjects by suggesting that if editors can't be bothered to add several paragraphs of meaningful sourced text to these season articles, they ought not to be created at all. You can imagine how that has been received. And so it goes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Asian Month

	The Asian Month Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I started with Methodist Girls' School, Ipoh. That then led to Sarah Crosby, which was helpful for the Women in Religion World Virtual Edit-a-thon. Sarah Crosby then led to The Foundery, which the best so far. "Only connect!" Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Foundery

Allen3 ^talk 00:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016

Wikipedia Asian Month

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Sign up now

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Caste issues

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Hello Andrew: I don't know if you are aware of the discretionary sanctions authorized for articles related to caste by the community. This message is prompted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samra and the sourcing discussed there. I really do not want to hand out topic bans, but you should know that the sourcing you consider to be acceptable is not considered such by others, and that lengthy discussions based on such sourcing becomes disruptive, as the AN discussion made abundantly clear. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Lengthy discussions are disruptive – got it and I agree. I shall say no more there and had already moved on. Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• You know that's not what I mean, Andrew. You know that I know that you know what I mean. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hanwell Band

Hello again, this is really an interesting subject. I was able to add a photograph, I will try to expand it further in a few days. Thanks! Jim Carter 18:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Thanks for the image; that's interesting too. It was taken at the Viaduct public house, which still exists and I pass it regularly. It's named after nearby Wharncliffe Viaduct which is home to a colony of bats. Andrew D. (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

James Smith & Sons

Great article. How on earth has it taken this long to be created? I passed through this garden hundreds of times before I looked for it on here!. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I work in that part of London and usually look in the umbrella shop when Christmas shopping. I've taken photographs and have been meaning to start an article for some time. The trigger for action was noticing that Edwardx was moving into that domain - see Arnold Fulton. As for your garden, I'd never heard of it but will look out for it when I'm down that way now. Thanks. Andrew D. (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

2012 Budweiser Shootout

I had to remove it, because it's not technically an error, but I'm sympathetic to the points you raise. You can help with checking "old" FAs to see if they're [still/ever] worthy of the status by checking the list at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• The term "stock car" still seems erroneous but such language is slippery stuff – see auto-antonym, which is also a nice pun. I also think that sponsorship names are an issue too, as they pay money to have their name splashed around in a way that we should not encourage. For example, the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race currently pretends that it's called the "The Cancer Research UK Boat Races" but that's nonsense. The BBC used to take a strong line about commercial intrusion and their website doesn't give much recognition to such fake names – see Boat Races 2015, for example. If the FA establishment can't do anything, I'll try Jimbo. Anyway, for the record and context, here's what I posted at WP:ERROR:

  The current FA is 2012 Budweiser Shootout. This turns out to have nothing to do with beer – that's commercial sponsorship, contrary to WP:SOAP. It doesn't have anything to do with shooting either – it's actually a car race. In reading the blurb and then the article, I was puzzled that almost nothing was said about the winning car. Was it a Ford, a Mercedes or what? The article says that it was a stock car race but after I go digging deep into other articles, I find that this is a complete misnomer; that the cars aren't stock at all – they are custom-built to an identical racing specification. The article doesn't tell us what the specification is and doesn't even have a picture of any car, let alone the winner. The article does give some details of the racing – talking about pack and tandem issues which it doesn't explain and which I don't really understand. So, this article seems to be written purely for fans who only care about the personalities involved – the drivers. And it's not even clear what the winner got out of it; a prize, a trophy, a medal, or what? This seems quite hopeless as an article for a general audience, being contrary to WP:JARGON. It does not represent Wikipedia's best work; it is not comprehensive and so should not be featured.

Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Cancer Research UK Boat Races" but that's nonsense. Well that sums up your erroneous position perfectly, thank you for the final nail. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was much more interested in your comments about the quality of the article than its name, which either follows policy or doesn't. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, when you conclude your erroneous error report with It does not represent Wikipedia's best work; it is not comprehensive and so should not be featured., all I can suggest is that you get more involved with the WP:TFA and WP:FAR and WP:FAC processes, which don't seem to feature in your interests here. You can actually do something practical about it but you choose not to, it would appear. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The page in my userspace is also a very easy way to be involved. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• I browsed through that page and selected four topics which have been added to my watchlist:

1. Amazing Stories
2. Brian Horrocks
3. Greater Manchester
4. Sinestro Corps War

I'll keep an eye on them ... Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Black Women's History

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Althea McNish requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Christian75 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the Black Women's History edit-a-thon
	February 2016 More than 170 articles were created Hosted by Women in Red (... check out our next event)

--Ipigott (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Just for the record, I worked on the following during that period:

1. Althea McNish
2. Black music
3. Female Vigilant Association
4. Hetty Reckless
5. Merikins
6. Williston School

The work continues ... Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Thank you for everything you did to make the Black Cultural Archives day a success. We couldn't have done it without you. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you're welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hetty Reckless

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andrew; did you miss this? (Talk:Hetty Reckless/GA1) No rush, I just want to know where we are. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• That review page wasn't on my watchlist but I've added it now and will work through your comments. Thanks for the review. Andrew D. (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Althea McNish

Andrew, this nomination is currently in limbo, waiting on whether you will be sufficiently expanding Merikins or not. I see you added a fair amount of material, but at 1260 prose characters, the article is not quite there yet. The problem is, the prep areas for April Fools will probably start being filled in a day or two, at which point you'll want this to be ready for promotion. Please let us know your plans on the nomination template as soon as possible—the end of the weekend at the latest—or what may happen is that it just sits in limbo and misses April Fools altogether, at which point it will be treated like a regular older nomination and reviewed as it is (without Merikins) and proceed that way. (We don't hold over April Fools for another year.) Remember, while April Fools hooks have an exemption from the seven-day rule, regular ones won't, and at this point Merikins won't be eligible for regular DYK after March 27 without a 5x expansion from 1260 characters or a GA, both of which seem unlikely at this point. Thank you, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: Thanks for the warning. I was aware of the general timetable and planned to do some work on that article later today. I'll ping you with an update later. Andrew D. (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: I've expanded Merikins some more so it now passes the x5 DYK check. I'll do some more tomorrow but the technical requirements are satisfied now:

Prose size (text only): 2824 characters (472 words) "readable prose size"

Article created by Andrew Davidson on February 13, 2016

Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 9 edits ago on March 20, 2016

I've made an appropriate note at the nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Great! I added the "review again" icon, and also added it to the list of not-yet-approved April Fool's Day hooks on the AFD page. I hope someone takes it on soon. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Time is running out: the remaining April Fool's Day hook sets will be assembled any minute, and you still need to supply the QPQ for Merikins. Please do so right away. It would be a great shame if this nomination failed for that reason. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset:. Thanks for the reminder. I had already reviewed our oldest nomination, Gui Minhai, but hadn't gotten to post the update at the Althea McNish yet. I have just done so. I'll bank a couple more reviews now so that I'm nicely in credit in case we get any last-minute issues. Andrew D. (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) ‎

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Supid Bose

Is there any chance you posted the wrong link in your AfD comment? That article appears to be about an advertising executive named Dave Linne :) Thparkth (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's about Dr Bose too. Read on... Andrew D. (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup I see it now. Obviously the article does talk about him so I was wrong to call you out on it. All the same it's pretty weak in terms of establishing notability - only a few paragraphs in the article are about him. Thparkth (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't agree. In any case, I went on to find another source: 2009 2010 Class of White House Fellows. When people like Michelle Obama are bestowing such honours, it seems absurd to claim that the recipients are not notable and notability doesn't actually seem in dispute. The nomination seems to be a blatant case of WP:POINT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Trouble at t' Mill *Email to LCC

We have contacted Jo at LCC, and she hopes to talk with MikePeel at Liverpool Wikimeetup this Saturday. More news then. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Goats

What got you interested enough to start the biography of William Patrick Kenney? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• The story about using a goat to deliver newspapers is good. Goats make good copy -- see Rose the goat, for example... Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Did a goat hook yesterday - The Goat, Kensington. Edwardx (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nice one. I'll chip in to that when I get a moment but right now I've spotted another one. Andrew D. (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• And that reminds me of Timur... Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• And it's not new but, for completeness, let's not forget Goats do Roam... Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thomas Thwaites is in the news, e.g. Living as a goat? It makes a change from being human. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• There's a goatification trend at Wikimania 2017. It's on

1. Twitter
2. Wikimania
3. Wikidata
4. Phabricator

Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Evening Snow on the Heater

Hi Andrew. Well done, that's a really informative and useful article to support a Main Page image. And one you created at really short notice. I have two questions, which I thought might be better placed here than at the article Talk Page: 1. What is silk floss? - the silk article does not explain. 2. Is that really wadding for a gun, that the woman is preparing, or is it merely this type of wadding? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: Thanks for the feedback – it's good to know people are reading. Silk floss is the raw silk from the cocoons, before it is spun into thread – see here for a picture. You're right that batting is a better link than wadding as I suppose the silk was used for padded jackets, duvets and the like. Thanks for spotting it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Cataracts

Page numbers are generally needed for books.[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Doc James: Thanks for paying attention – it is gratifying to have one's edits read by someone who actually understands them. That diff shows that I am adding page numbers in most cases. The exception was the book Essential Principles of Phacoemulsification where the statement appeared in a general blurb/preface. I have added another citation with a specific page reference.

It may help to understand what's being done here. There's a new development in cataract treatment which was recently published in Nature and reported by the BBC. This seemed a good thing and so I started a stub about lens regeneration and nominated it to appear at WP:ITN, as it's in the news. The matter is the subject of discussion there where one has to deal with editors who are more familiar with sports and video games. They want to see more citations and so that's what I'm giving them. This is arguably the blind leading the blind because none of us are qualified eye doctors but I strive to be the one-eyed man by dint of finding such sources. I did take a look at the Ophthalmology task force but that doesn't seem to be active. I also thought of pinging you but didn't want to bother you again, as you're a busy guy. But now that you're engaged, do please contribute to the discussion.

Andrew D. (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

K will take a look as I catch up on a few things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, Lens regeneration should not exist. OK, please pause and take a breath. Here is why - this is based entirely on a primary source and the corresponding hype in the media. There should not even be content anywhere in Wikipedia about this yet. Please read WP:MEDREV which describes exactly this kind of situation. Please also read WP:Why MEDRS?. As an example of the dangers of doing as you have done, please bear in mind that this happened. Then all of this. At the same time, this. Then this. Then this. Terrible. We actually have a whole article about the scandal now. The mission of WIkipedia is to provide the public with accepted knowledge. Will you please consent to the deletion of that article? Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• The topic does not depend upon one source. The latest study and trial builds upon other work such as Lens and retina regeneration: transdifferentiation, stem cells and clinical applications (2004) and Lens regeneration in New Zealand albino rabbits after endocapsular cataract extraction (1993). For an example of a review, as recommended by WP:MEDRS, see Lens regeneration in mammals: a review (2006). I might have added such material to the article already but I've been quite busy this week. Any attempt to delete the page in question should first please follow the process described at WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Will you please respond to what I wrote? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just did. Perhaps the indentation gave a different impression so I have adjusted it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You did not. Above you describe this as an article about a new treatment and it is not a treatment - it is extremely far from being a treatment. That is where all the hype dramatically misleads people. This particular hyped thing is something that has been explored for (as you note) over ten years, and has still not become a clinical treatment. And literally every paper is met with hype like the BBC article you originally cited along with the primary source. You do not seem to be understanding this... you fell for the hype that WP:MEDREV explicitly warns us against. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Lens regeneration 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Andrew D., this DYK review has been sitting unanswered for nearly two weeks. Please respond. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I only just noticed this prompt as it has been a busy weekend. Please allow me a couple more days to deal with this. Andrew D. (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

On 30 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lens regeneration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in one study, a newt was able to regenerate the lens of its eye eighteen times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lens regeneration. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lens regeneration), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Awaken the Dragon

..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon starts in 4 hours, still time to sign up! Or just contribute as a participant if you like.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Things are already hotting up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Scoreboard!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April Fool

Hi Andrew Davidson: A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

The "Note" here says it all. EEng 09:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• The article in question (Scandals of Prince Harry) has already been speedily deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more ... Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

  — Henry V

My amazement was at the nominator's idea that it "could be fun" to carry this item as a DYK on VE day. Fucking hilarious indeed that would be -- shows a complete lack of taste and judgment. EEng 18:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! (Robert Provan)

Hi Andrew Davidson Thank you for defending the Robert Provan article, and if you'd be so kind, would you please review the Tim Lokiec article and its very complicated AfD? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I tend to stay away from discussions of people I've never heard of as there are so many of them but if that case is complex, I'll see if I can help. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet

I appreciate your help so far, we can use all the volunteers we can get, but what you're doing today isn't helpful. Please stop waiting until the very day that a TFA goes live to make whatever point you want to make. TFAs are typically scheduled at least two weeks in advance and often more; see WP:TFAA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You could also spend a lot more of your time at FAC which I'm sure would be appreciated. After all, the community consensus upon the promotion of today's article was to include the paragraph you have summarily deleted. Clearly your approach differs substantially to the rest of the FAC community so I'm certain your input would be considered helpful, especially well in advance of such perceived "errors" going live on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I browse the main page every morning. This is not especially focussed on any of the sections or articles; I just fasten on whatever catches my eye. This might be the FA, the featured picture, a DYK, an ITN headline or whatever. For example, I recognise the FP today too and recall raising some issue about that in the past but don't have the relevant link at my fingertips. Anyway, if I spot a fresh issue with something, then it is my duty to report it, right? This doesn't make me responsible for fixing everything that has led up to that point because this is a collaborative effort covering numerous articles and other pages. My own development efforts tend to be focussed on my own articles such as the DYK which has just gone up. I have just been active to see if we can get a free image for that while it's still up. I expect that to be a struggle but so it goes. And, of course, I have plenty of other non-Wikipedia things to do too.

See also shooting the messenger. :)

Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, most of the time you're not delivering bad news, you're just wasting time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, in my experience the single most common mistake made in contentious community discussions is the unchangeable belief that a person knows what the point is, what everyone should be focusing on, and the certainty that anyone who thinks different is irrelevant. In contentious RfCs concerning policy, it's more often true than not that the participants can't even agree on what questions should be under discussion. You're making a mistake here because I know what's happened at ANI in the past when a person kept waiting until the day FAs showed up at TFA to make a point about perceived flaws in those FAs ... but if you don't hear what I'm saying, I'm not going to hold it against you because this mistake is so common on Wikipedia. I'll just be sad, because you could otherwise have been a great contributor to the process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dank, Rambling man, this account has basically been trolling for a number of years, or AGF wrong 100% on everything, every time - ignore/discount and just work through. Time sinking seems to be the aim. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Dank seems to be referring to some previous case that I don't recall or am not familiar with. Please provide details, if you think it will help. There seem to be various editors who regularly point out errors on the main page. Dealing with these seems unavoidable and that's the point of the WP:ERROR process. It would be nice if we could catch everything before it gets put up but I doubt that we're ever going to achieve such 100% perfection. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• See also The Boy Who Cried Wolf... ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I urge Dank not to provide details, and just walk away. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Any long-time observer at ANI will know the incidents I'm talking about. You can probably pull them up by searching for "TFA" at WP:ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I try to avoid observing ANI and when I try the suggested search I just find some fuss about Pigsonthewing and infoboxes, which doesn't seem relevant. What we have here is a vital topic that doesn't seem up to scratch. The period is generally in the news because of the Shakespeare anniversary and so we should be dealing with such issues as they appear. The idea that we should be sweeping them under the carpet instead seems quite bizarre. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you know by now what you're doing isn't right, let's hope we don't need to take it further. Looks like Ceoil hit the nail on the head. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for action to be taken at WP:ERRORS where both TRM and Dank indicate that they are unwilling or unable to resolve the reported error. It's puzzling that such a straightforward content issue should prove so difficult but perhaps some editor will step up. Andrew D. (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Are you really puzzled that numerous editors (five last count) are tired of trying to service your time-wasting? Time to get a different Wolf. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who those five were but some other editors have turned up now who are actually willing to talk about the content in question. Those who wish to study fairy tales instead should please consider The Emperor's New Clothes. Andrew D. (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please feel free to join those discussing issues with the article. Avoid ERRORS for a while if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• And as the edit summary says Restore paragraph removed without discussion - use talk to discuss objections. Read, learn, improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Old Slaughter's Coffee House

On 4 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Old Slaughter's Coffee House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Benjamin Franklin played chess at Old Slaughter's Coffee House (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Old Slaughter's Coffee House. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Old Slaughter's Coffee House), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Gaby's Deli

On 8 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gaby's Deli, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that then-Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to save Gaby's Deli? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gaby's Deli. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gaby's Deli), 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) 23:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Admins vs content providers

For once, I have to agree with you. Entirely. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung. Four GAs and about a dozen DYKs mostly written/overhauled from scratch isn't worth anything at all, is it? And neither is thrice outdoing the definition of an active admin. Biblio (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for David Nott

On 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Nott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Nott (pictured) is often styled the "Indiana Jones of surgery"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Nott. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Nott), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

TFA

That was a depressing reminder of why I never go anywhere near that part of Wikipedia. Yuk.  — Scott • talk 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose you are referring to the recent discussion about Covent Garden. It's odd that the FA review is so quiet. I may return to it when I have more free time. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Before I bring this up at WT:TFA, I'm wondering if you see the problem and if you can give me anything in the way of a compromise. What I have in mind was illustrated at, among other articles, House of Plantagenet, on its TFA day. Would you be willing to make your reports to ERRORS and hold off on edits directly to articles on their TFA day? I'm trying to find a way to wrap up this conflict quietly. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Of course, I prefer a sensible compromise to tiresome drama. We should first clarify what the problem is. I had supposed that it was my postings at WP:ERROR. But now you indicate that it is my editing of the actual articles. This has not happened on many occasions, as I recall. I edited Dan Leno some years ago, adding a famous example of his patter to the article when it appeared on the main page. There was some kind of edit conflict with Tim Riley but we sorted that out quite amicably. I have attended several editathons with him since and we get along fine. Most recently, I read yesterday's FA, John Balmer, with interest and made a minor copy edit which caused no fuss or muss. I read the sources in some detail for that topic and thought there was scope to say more about the subject but didn't have time or inclination to get into it in detail. None of this would have been appropriate at WP:ERROR because there was no error on the main page. As I understand it, WP:ERROR is only for issues with the blurbs, hooks and other content which actually appears on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This sounds really promising, thanks for the details. I think I can work with this. I need to get over a stomach bug. More soon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, feeling better. Sorry, I don't like to do this stuff when I'm sick, I suck at it. Let's start here: what would you like to do? (Uncontroversial copyediting to a FA is of course welcome ... on any day other than the TFA day itself. Article maintainers feel besieged on TFA, and the less they have to process, the better.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Main Page Errors

What's this page for?

Please excuse my nosiness. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's an archive. I don't understand why WP:ERROR doesn't keep an archive of the usual sort, especially as discussions are often removed so swiftly there. It's quite unlike the practise at AFD or RFA, say, where discussions are maintained indefinitely and so can be easily referred to years later. I've been keeping a record of the discussions I've participated in. It's a work in progress but the structure has developed naturally and it's not yet too big to be awkward. Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not archived because there's no real need for archiving. The discussions there are about what it says on Main Page, which is a fleeting thing, unlike AfD or RfA that have longlasting impact. Besides, it's all there in the page history anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I stumbled across this page. Please could you tell me its purpose? Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• You asked about this in July of last year - see above. It's an archive of issues raised in which I took an interest. By keeping such archives, one is able to deal with recurring items such as your query. The general practise at WP:ERRORS is to remove items when they scroll off the main page but sometimes there are unresolved issues. And, in any case, I find it interesting to review and follow up such topics once I have started investigating the content in detail. For similar reasons, I keep records of my other activities such as page creations, DYK and editathons. See maxims such as know thyself and lessons learned. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Stanhope Medal

This sounds good to me,

....that the Stanhope Medal (pictured) for each year's most gallant rescue was established in memory of Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope?

The word "established" is NPOV to me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Doug Coldwell:. Please make this suggestion at DYK talk or edit the prep yourself. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like somebody did the change already.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It was done here.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought it was your suggestion but now I suppose you were endorsing what had been done by Yoninah. It's confusing when several people go at it like this. And even worse when you get edit conflicts in the hurly burly. Anyway, the main thing is that you should be happy with the result as you're the one that did the heavy lifting. Andrew D. (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes! I know what you are saying on everyone editing on the same thing at the same time = edit conflits!!! Yes = I am happy with the ends results. Glad I didn't have to get in on all that action = even happier for this. Thanks for your help.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, to clarify = I was endorsing what had been done by Yoninah (talk about confusing).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I tweaked the wording in the hook when I first opened my computer and checked the queues, before even looking at the animated discussion on the DYK talk page. Now I see that my edit came a few minutes after TRM's revert. Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The difference being, of course, that you won't be accused of "tinkering" or "edit warring" to adjust the hook to your own "preference", even though technically that's what happened entirely. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yikes, now two other editors have adjusted the hook "to their own preference", hence edit warring and tinkering. I wonder if the Colonel will make complaints about these two editors? Or probably not, I get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have grumbled previously about Yoninah editing approved hooks in prep but, in this case, his edit was a good correction to another edit. The subsequent edits are a mix too – it is especially entertaining to to see the spelling honor make a reappearance after it was specifically discussed on the nomination page. This is my general point; that we have a formal nomination and review process which establishes a consensus and verified approval for a hook. Other editors should not then be making unilateral changes without consultation and discussion. The discussion which I started at DYK talk was such discussion started per the advice at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

  Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter ... When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute.

What went wrong there was that the discussion was closed and so now the only forum for discussing the matter seems to be this user talk page. As a process, this is ridiculous but this is Wikipedia where you get what you pay for and so it goes. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The "tinkering" at DYK prior to posting is a necessary evil as a result of the lightweight reviews applied to most DYKs promoted to the mainpage. If the reviews were more comprehensive, and hooks were checked by native English speakers, we'd at least stand a chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2016 Munich shootings

On 22 July 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Munich shootings, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Tiger Jack Payne

Thanks for picking that up, Andrew. I came across the same biography and then wanted to check it out before doing a redirect, but then I had to go out . . . Leutha (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bocca di Lupo, Sanguinaccio dolce, Buckwheat honey

Nice design at User:Andrew Davidson/Whimsy. I have added it to my user page (with proper attribution, and also credit to you) in my dashboard section. Neat idea! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: You're welcome. As our main editor of food and drink topics, you may also be interested in some other recent work:

1. Bocca di Lupo and The Glad, articles which I worked on for recent London editathon/wikimeets and which are currently up at DYK
2. Sanguinaccio dolce – an interesting regional dish served at Bocca di Lupo which I've just started as a separate article
3. Buckwheat honey – another new topic which has generated some discussion.

Bon appétit! Andrew D. (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't know about being a "main editor", but sure, I've made some contributions in this area that I like. Lots of others create new articles too. Check out WP:NEWFOOD, for example! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sanguinaccio dolce looks a bit like poop (ha ha), but sounds delicious. See also Ttongppang. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Good point. There's lots of potential DYK material there. There are people out there who make long lists of such food... Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration case

I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2016 (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/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I added this. Please feel free to revert, but it seemed relevant. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@The ed17: The instructions for that page say emphatically "Do not edit anyone else's section" and it seems that your change has been reverted for this reason. I have more evidence to come and will consider your suggestion when I draft it. If you have observations to make yourself, then please consider making a submission too. Andrew D. (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Am intending to eventually. Cheers. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 831 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 11:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have cut the text back to stay within the limit. Andrew D. (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

EU English

Can I ask your rationale for this unexplained revert? AusLondonder (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would guess that it somehow related to the fact that the United Kingdom has not "withdrawn" from the European Union. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Do you think the UK is withdrawing? How long do we wait? The invoking of Article 50? The actual day of departure? AusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait until it happens, seems obvious to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The matter would be best discussed at the talk page for the policy in question, In the meantime, here's a useful link to the EU's equivalent policy: English Style Guide – A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You would also be well disposed to answer the question posed, your reason for reverting was "revert" which is not expansively explanatory, yet simply and obviously and nugatorily self-describing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Andrew Davidson,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiener Library

Hi Andrew. WienerLibraryWIR (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Bertha Bracey

Hi, I put your hook in the quirky slot in Prep 1. (1) Two questions: Is there any reason why you don't identify her as a Quaker? (2) Are you calling her a Hero of the Holocaust, linked to British Hero of the Holocaust, because it sounds hookier? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• The last slot is fine. The proper name of the award is Hero of the Holocaust. Other details such as the fact that she was a British Quaker are not needed in the hook and so would tend to dilute its impact. WP:DYKHOOK states that hooks should be "short, punchy, catchy ... and ... Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones". Both her name and the name of the award have a nice alliteration – BB / HH – and so adding other words would spoil this. Andrew D. (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks for the explanations. Yoninah (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: You're welcome and I appreciate being consulted about such issues. I am especially keen to make a good impact in this case as I plan to let staff at the Wiener Library know that their efforts are bearing fruit. The Quakers might be interested too. Andrew D. (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• The outcome was 8,315 hits on the day, which is quite good for a non-picture hook. The Wiener Library is quite pleased with this good result. The German Wikipedia has translated the topic and they are doing good work with it too. Andrew D. (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

On 22 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bertha Bracey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bertha Bracey was a Hero of the Holocaust? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bertha Bracey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bertha Bracey), 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, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women editathon and article creation

Hi Andrew (long time no see!). As you created an article on this list (the 160+ articles created on the day of the BBC 100 Women editathon), can you take a look and help out, or add any articles you know that were created that might be missing? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have already added work created by new editors that I assisted during the event and will continue to help out. Andrew D. (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Furra

I have noted two issues with your DYK nomination here. To meet the expansion requirement, you'll need to add another 100 words or so. I've also requested the hook be rewritten to clarify the claim is folklore. Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew Davidson. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Furra.
Message added 11:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

On 9 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Furra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that men and women from the Sidama people sing radically different songs about Queen Furra? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Furra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Furra), 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.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

An award for your contributions

These virtual BBC 100 Women freebies are for you. Thank you for your contributions to our very successful BBC 100 Women editathon Hundreds of articles were created in thirteen countries.
	WiR/WMUK/BBC 100 Women worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: BBC, Women in Red, Wikimedia UK December 2016

--

(See you at our next event Women in Philosophy online edit-a-thon) Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lucy Finch

On 9 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucy Finch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lucy Finch founded the first hospice in Malawi, a country where about a million people are living with HIV/AIDS? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucy Finch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lucy Finch), 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.

Schwede66 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Requisition

I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requisition (2nd nomination) as a fairly clear consensus that the content wasn't useful in this form. In particular, Chiswick Chap changed their position from Keep to Delete so it's 4-1 by the numbers (the nomination counts as a delete "vote"). That said, there isn't really any consensus that an acceptable article on this topic couldn't be written just that what was there isn't enough to stand alone. I will go ahead and userfy to User:Andrew Davidson/Requisition so that you can go ahead and work on it. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I think that the topic by that name is always going to be very close to a dictionary entry; far better would be Requisition process, alongside a separate (historical) article on Military requisition, where I'm sure a good solid story is there to be told. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Donegal

Hi, I reverted your edits because the original spelling was correct. Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification. Looking into this strange orthography (Dún na nGall), I find that it is a feature of Irish Gaelic called eclipsis which is not done in Scottish Gaelic. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't revert discussions on my talkpage

But thanks for letting me know you're stalking me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose I must have inadvertently clicked my mouse pad while my watchlist was displayed and an undo link got pressed by accident. My apologies. Andrew D. (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, that would be a "rollback" abuse, not an "undo" (which requires confirmation). Glad to know you're checking on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• My watchlist calls those links "rollback" so that'll be it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Either way, please be more careful in future. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm trying the customization suggested at Wikipedia:Rollback#Accidental use of rollback. So far, so good. Andrew D. (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

blowing up TNT

I agreed with your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing strategy and eventually drafted essay wp:TNTTNT, although i modified it down after someone objected to calling it disruption. Your participation in refining it and/or discussing at Talk page would be welcome. It has only been invoked a few times, by just me, so far. Thanks, --doncram 23:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have much enthusiasm for essays but I'll put it on my watchlist. The point about the {{rewrite}} tag is a good one; I've not come across that before. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Great, thanks! --doncram 23:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Women in Classics

Event page: Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Institute of Classical Studies Jan 2017

Amy Richlin

— Maile (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Beryl Rawson

— Maile (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Dorothy Tarrant

Hello! Your submission of Dorothy Tarrant 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Any progress on a new hook? I could suggest one, but then I couldn't review it. International Women's Day is a day away! Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I hope to get to this later today and will ping you again then. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

On 19 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dorothy Tarrant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first female British professor of Greek, Dorothy Tarrant, analysed Plato's style to conclude that he did not write the Socratic dialogue on beauty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothy Tarrant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dorothy Tarrant), 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) 00:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Gail Trimble

FYI: http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/women-in-classics.html (DonPantalone (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC))

Miriam Griffin

Hello! Your submission of Miriam T. Griffin 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Miriam T. Griffin 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Susanna Elm

Hello! Your submission of Susanna Elm 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara Hammond

On 7 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara Hammond, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara Bradby was the first woman to ride a bicycle at Oxford University, where her academic prowess inspired a limerick? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Hammond. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barbara Hammond), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Agnata Butler

On 9 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agnata Butler, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Punch honoured Agnata Ramsay's exam success with a cartoon (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agnata Butler. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Agnata Butler), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hi - you're really supportive and helpful in WCCWiki and I rarely manage to catch up with you. So I'm sending virtual baked goods (I don't actually bake ever, so it's as close as anyone gets...) as thanks. Claire 75 (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Brandywell, Isle of Man

Hi, I notice your edit at Brandywell, Isle of Man, which reverted an edit of mine which had reverted an edit or edits by Agljones. I would be happy if you would look into the content of this article and try to do a better job of it. I believe, though, that it consists of tendentious assertions by that editor, trying to fabricate that Brandywell is an area of moorland, when in fact they are constructing that. As they did at Windy Corner, Isle of Man, an article that went through a lot of contention including AFDs and/or RFCs, and which now redirects to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course, a list-article that I created to try to cut down the contention (and which they contended against, of course). For Windy Corner, during its AFD or RFC I ordered and received a book that was key in this editor's assertions that it was an area of moorland, and what they had asserted was in the book simply was not.

If you would look at some sources and try to manage the Brandywell article, I would be glad of it. Did you participate at Talk:Brandywell, Isle of Man? I'll check there next. --doncram 23:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Clattern Bridge

On 2 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clattern Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ancient Clattern Bridge was a medieval football goal and scolds were ducked there too? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clattern Bridge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clattern Bridge), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Dark blues

If you think this article about a blues genre doesn't belong in Wikipedia, by all means second the prod or flag it under some speedy deletion criteria I've overlooked, maybe even move it to a disambiguated title, but redirecting it to an alternate meaning of the term is not an appropriate way to get rid of it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• @McGeddon: I disagree as the redirection is a sensible way of resolving the issue. The prod tag suggests and encourages such constructive edits. It also states emphatically, "If this template is removed, do not replace it." Please revert. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was fair to IAR there, as it seemed perverse to remove a prod template from an article that both you and I thought should probably be deleted, but sure. I'll leave it to you establish talk page consensus for an immediate redirect. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Science Fiction

Black Destroyer

After you mentioned it ... I thought it worthwhile to do this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I thought you might. I may return to the topic but I have a variety of leads to follow. Only The Shadow knows ... Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew Davidson. Black Destroyer, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Black Destroyer 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

On 15 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black Destroyer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the short story "Black Destroyer" was the basis for A. E. van Vogt's lawsuit against 20th Century Fox, as the plot of the movie Alien matched it so closely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Destroyer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Black Destroyer), 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) 00:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

History of science fiction

Since you mention it I thought I'd link to History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950, which is currently at FAC; no need to review it (it seems to have sufficient support) but I thought you might be interested. Most of the magazines linked in the article have also been brought to GA or FA standard. If you can find improvements to those articles as you did for Marvel Science Stories, that would be great! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Thanks, I've added it to my watchlist and will take a look in my copious free time. Note that there was a series of van Vogt stories going through DYK recently and so I started the "Black Destroyer", which was notable as the story that started the Golden Age. I like that you can often find such classics online now, like here. One of my favourites is Sheckley's 1955 story, "Cordle to Onion to Carrot". It's not quite SF but it helps in understanding Wikipedia... Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's quite a coincidence -- I was thinking about that story on my morning commute; I've always liked that one. "Aspects of Langranak" and "Pas de Trois of the Chef and the Waiter and the Customer" are my two favourites of his; the first is beautifully self-referential about sf, and sad, in its way, and both stories are about the relationship between reality and perception in a way that few other writers have ever managed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I recall reading the second one but the first doesn't stick in my mind. I'll track it down again – it seems to be in print so Forbidden Planet (right) should have a copy. Thanks for the recommendation. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hockney

Can you use this reference: david-hockney-print-fish-and-chip-shop-bradford :) --ClemRutter (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll see what I can do with it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gamesters of triskelion small.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gamesters of triskelion small.png, 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. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Royal Academy: Thanks again

Hi Andrew, thanks so much for your support afternoon. I always learn so much for you! Eartha78 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Eartha78: You're welcome. I get a lot out of these events too and liked the RA library as a venue so I hope we return. There was not enough food though so we're now in Chinatown catching up with dim sum, pak choi, roast duck noodle soup, &c. And Tiger Beer too! I'd post some pictures but Wikipedia is not yet as slick as Twitter so your training is really helpful. #ArtAndFeminism. Andrew D. (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Donald Tusk

On 10 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Donald Tusk, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 11:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fulham Refuge

Andrew D., your review was replied to a couple of weeks ago; are you planning to return to it soon to see whether the issues you raised were addressed to your satisfaction? Please let me know if not, so I can call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have taken another look and it passes now. Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The Fountainhead

Thanks for the encouragement, but I expect I will wait for the GA, followed by a GOCE copy edit, and only then try for FA. Considering that the subject is controversial, I might even throw in an extra peer review just to be safe! If you are interested in doing the GA review, I can provide quotes or even scans of most of the offline sources to assist with verification, and/or you could request "second opinion" input on any points you are unsure about. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm too busy currently to go through such a mass of material but will keep an eye on it and help out if I can. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Women on 5 pounds a day- nearly in the red.

I plucked this story out of the Guardian- I thought Helen Pridd had done a good job. Samira Kitman is the result. Can you work your magic on it- and we can see if there is any mileage in following this route in future. It would be nice to know if her barr ister quotes us in court! --ClemRutter (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Self Defence Against Fresh Fruit

WHAT'S WRONG WITH FRUIT!
You think you know it all, eh?

I was thinking of sending this to AfD on the grounds it's got no reliable sources present, I can't find any of substance in a search except for this passing mention, and is basically a plot summary + trivia. However, I do remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bishop (Monty Python) so I thought I'd ask you first to see if I'd missed anything, and in fact there is a salvageable article hiding in this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Kumquat!?

• The page was already at AFD where the result was a unanimous Keep. The absence of sources is not an adequate reason to nominate for deletion because such sources can be readily found and, in any case, there are sensible alternatives to deletion. I have plenty more pressing topics while you might attend to our Chuck Berry content – pages like "You Can't Catch Me", which also don't have any sources. Don't make me release the tiger. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• such sources can be readily found ... which brings me to my favourite AfD put-down at the moment. Now look, Mr Damson, er, Davidson, I've added a bunch (a bunch? supposing he's got a pointed stick?) of sources for "You Can't Catch Me" (why nobody else found the 15 minutes to do this in the last 7 years is beyond me), so throw me some ones for "Fresh Fruit" and I'll do the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The page is read on average about once every hour. But people don't add sources because doing so is difficult and, per WP:BLUE, they don't see any need for them. I might add some to the page but am wary that it's a trap, "... just pull the lever and the 16-ton weight will fall on top of him." Did you know that this was the first time that they used this prop? I have a source which confirms this in detail but will need some more goading to risk charging at you with it... Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

George Andrew Olah RD

Hi Andrew... I see you pinged me in this edit re ITN/C for RD for Olah. I was away and unable to respond, but would have helped out had I been able. Please feel free to ping me again should you need a chemist's prespective. Cheers! EdChem (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks for getting back to me. Andrew D. (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethical Society

I took a picture of today's lecture. I hope you can use this. Kelly is a great help in this sharing endeavor.

The Ethical Encyclopedia a talk by Andrew Davidson

Clinton (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Clinton45: Excellent – many thanks to you and Kelly for that. I usually take lots of snaps at such events but it was so hectic that I didn't think to arrange for someone to take any pictures or do it myself. That's a big favour I owe you, so please feel free to ask if you need any assistance with any of your endeavours here. Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It advised about the 'Ethical encyclopedia' talk in the last 'Upcoming events at Conway Hall' email, but it didn't say the talk was by the legendary Colonel. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• @FeydHuxtable: This is just the start. I'll now be writing it up as a paper for the Ethical Record so you can read it there. We're getting some good crossover with that society and the London wikimeet so others may be doing talks too – for example, Leutha is lined up to do a talk about positivism. You should do one too – food poverty – the sharing economy? Please share your thoughts with those hungry for knowledge... Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK review

I tagged Template:Did you know nominations/The Big Treehouse for a new reviewer because for some reason I thought I already contacted you. I'm finally getting around to contacting you to see if you can look over the article again. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• @SL93: Sorry but I have been diverted by other Wiki activities such as those above. I might get back to the treehouse later in the week but, in the meantime, it's fine if someone wants to pick this up. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiTribune

Did you mean to undo this or was that just an edit conflict error? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: I agree with the removal of one of those other media sites (The Rubin Report, as it seems to be a chat show) but the others all belong as they are explicitly covered and compared with Wikitribune by the sources. Citations can be added to confirm this but we don't normally put them in the See also section. For example,

  The ideas behind Wikitribune are similar to other experiments with sustainable community journalism. Dutch news website De Correspondent, for instance, was launched in 2013 after a €1m (£850,000) crowdfunding campaign, with a goal of focusing on reporter-led in-depth coverage of a select few topics backed up by strong involvement from a community of financial backers.

  — The Guardian

Andrew D. (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, I can see them being included, but I can't see promotional garbage like "Dutch news site that prioritises context in reporting" as a descriptor. Reader-supported sites as a heading is also dubious; it makes it sound like our readers "support" the sites, not that they're funded by readers. Crowdfunded news sites would be better. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I started the See also section this morning with just a bare entry for Wikinews, which was explicitly suggested by someone on the talk page. The section has since been fleshed out in stages. Some push back is appropriate to stop it bloating. Thumbnail descriptions for some of the entries seem helpful as readers won't be familiar with most of them, I suppose. Please feel free to prune further but expect further developments. There ought to be history and reception sections in which the site's antecedents and competitors are analysed and so the entries will move into the body from the See also as the article text grows. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is the bot putting it in the 22 May 2017 section if it's supposed to be in 21 May? wbm1058 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Those sections seem to take their date from the end-date rather than the start date. The article in question was on the main page for most of 21 May then then came off when 22 May started. Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I asked about this at User talk:Shubinator#DYK talk issue. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Wade

Hello! Your submission of Henry Wade (surgeon) 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Henry Wade (surgeon) 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Wade (surgeon). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

IronGargoyle (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Iranian presidential election, 2017

On 20 May 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Iranian presidential election, 2017, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew D. (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Homo sapiens

I removed your nomination before others commented as it is the same one that was already posted for today earlier, see Jebel Irhoud. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ok. I did skim ITN/C to see if it was already nominated but the different form of words didn't register. Andrew D. (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Images

Hi Andrew Davidson. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrctions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. Non-free content cannot be used (i.e., displayed) in the Wikipedia namespace, except in some very specific cases, which is why I have linked File:Agnata Frances Ramsay by Ida Baumann.jpg and File:Lucy Barbara Bradby.jpg being used repectively in Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles/6 and Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles/2. Perhaps you didn't notice the edit sums I left the first time I linked the files, so I'm posting here in more detail. If you have any more questions about this, you can ask me here or ask others for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• You should try reading your own gibberish as WP:NFEXMP states that "Article images may appear in article preview popups" and that was the nature of the usage. See also WP:BURO. Andrew D. (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictures with {{keep local}}

Hi Andrew,

why are you uploading your files with local copies?--B.Eichengreen (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC) — B.Eichengreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wellcome Electricity

Hello. Good to meet at Wellcome. Henrietta999 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help today, Andrew. I shall definitely be in touch in the future! Henrietta999 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Be seeing you. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Constance Wood

On 16 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constance Wood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Constance Wood was the first to install a cyclotron in a hospital, but was teased by one of her patients with a rat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constance Wood. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Constance Wood), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hilda Lyon

Hello! Your submission of Hilda Lyon 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Full Fact

Hello! Your submission of Full Fact 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I note here you haven't addressed concerns that were raised shortly after the article was nominated over a month ago. In fact, you haven't edited that article at all, nor has anyone else. I think the time for DYK here has passed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll take another look. Andrew D. (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

On 7 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Full Fact, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Full Fact fact-checked the Brexit referendum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Full Fact. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Full Fact), 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Food Symposium

Hi Andrew- thanks for taking part on Friday. You mentioned that you took a photo of the event and put it somewhere on social media. Can you point me to it? Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: I've uploaded the image (right). The tweet contains the hashtag so you can find what others have done too. Thanks for helping to organise the event; it was a good one. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC) ‎

Awesome! Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

2018

Sup Andrew-D. Any reason this hasn't yet got an on-Wiki page? Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The page for this series of events is Wikipedia:GLAM/Oxford Food Symposium. The on-wiki page tends to lag behind the coverage on the sites of the sponsoring organisations, as the focus is on drawing in attendance from their communities rather than ours. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Great stuff, many thanks. I really ought to sign up for the BL event then. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Better move fast as there aren't many spots left and it's also being plugged in other places such as the Symposium site. Andrew D. (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Would it be preferred to leave the space for a woman? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Symposium last year was quite a mixed bunch from foodies to farmers like James Rebanks. The BL events have had more women but seem reasonably open to the public. Being a mid-week event will tend to limit attendance and my impression is that they are trying to fill up the last few places now. It's good to have a leavening of veterans like us as newbies need a lot of hand-holding and we're also effective at getting pages written. The BL is a good place to hang out and get wiki-work done so it's good to support events there. And it would be interesting to meet you. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is that "Interesting" in the Chinese fashion  ;) Indeed it would, AD. I'give them a bell. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lily Bollinger

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Foxwarren Park

Apologies - should not have wiped the suggestions in my haste to create the Talkpage. Thanks for re-instating. KJP1 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• @KJP1: No problem. FYI, my involvement started with Amy Gentry which then led to Silvermere. I didn't want to get too side-tracked and so left Foxwarren Park as a {{R with possibilities}}. It's good that you've picked this up as I'd moved on and quite forgotten about it. I'm at the London Meetup this afternoon and will see how I can help further there as it's a good topic. Andrew D. (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

On 15 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Foxwarren Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Foxwarren Park (pictured) was the inspiration for Toad Hall, a location for Robin Hood and test site for the bouncing bomb? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Foxwarren Park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Foxwarren Park), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Ezra

Hello! Your submission of Alfred Ezra 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Khadar Khani (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

On 26 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Ezra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alfred Ezra learnt how to keep hummingbirds in captivity using baby food? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Ezra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Ezra), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Admins

Since this'll get lost in the noise at WT:RFA.....

I thought BlueMoonset was an admin already, so that'll be a "support" from me. I have worked on at least one article with Edwardx but I'm blowed if I can remember what it was; his AfD stats look good so I would probably support on that too. Never heard of MassiveEartha so can't really give an opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words, both of you, but I remain uninterested in becoming an Admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

And there's the rub - everyone who would be a good administrator doesn't want to be one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Checking I find that there's lots of overlap between Edwardx and Ritchie333. If you add me in too then there's just three articles which we have all edited at some time: Boris Johnson; Denmark Street; Oxford Street. Andrew D. (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me Andrew and Ritchie333. There are a few areas it would help me in for content creation, and for my growing deletion activity, being able to look at the text of previously deleted articles, for example. Yet am just not seeing any compelling need. RfA may yet happen. One day... Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ductwork

The PROD was removed with no improvement whatsoever. Nothing changed. For eight years this has been a wonderful article, but it's not encyclopedic. It is the original research of what appears to be one individual without as much as a single reference. Rhadow (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• The prod process is not an article improvement service and it's only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. I have opposed the proposal because it seems likely that there are alternatives to deletion which we should prefer per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's journals

Colonel (it still seems wrong to call you Andrew!), I am developing an article in my user sandbox and it is making use of Victoria's journals online. That is how I came across Queen Victoria's journals. As its creator, did you get a notification that it has been newly linked to, or will that only happen when I move my draft to mainspace? I'm just curious – I aim to keep a low profile in draft, trying to avoid unwanted attention. By the way, I still have fond memories of Dog and Duck, St George's Fields, as it has quite properly become, and its hilarious AFD. Long, long ago in wikitime. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thincat: Hello again. I get lots of link notifications as I've written hundreds of articles but I've checked and your Glassalt draft doesn't seem to have triggered one yet. I think you're unwise to leave work for so long in your sandbox. If you should fall ill or otherwise be indisposed for a few months you might find that it has been deleted – there are fanatics combing through drafts and amazingly there is now a policy of deleting them after six months. My policy is to get work into mainspace as quickly as possible to avoid such deletionist disruption. This also avoids the waste of effort if someone else should work on the topic independently.

Queen Victoria's journals was started at an event at the Bodleian Library which helped to put them online. As a sequel, I started Queen Victoria's pets. There's some other Victoriana that I'd like to cover but need to visit the V&A to track it down and get some pictures. But there is another Victorian topic that I've been meaning to cover for some time and I'll take my own advice and get it started in mainspace before I forget. It's another place in Scotland...

By the way, I saw a reference to Longcat recently – any relation? That got deleted here but I'll keep any eye out for sources.

Warden (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I create rather few articles (apart from stubby ones) and they take me a long time. I'll do a practical experiment with notifications using my alternate account. I'm intrigued by your clues about a new Victoria topic. I'll ponder on what it might be. I've been reading around what she did in Scotland – she got around there (here, that is) quite a lot and the trains were a great invention. She also had the benefit of ponies, a yacht, and a whole load of servants. Thincat (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

... and no, I'd never heard of Longcat but I'll see if there's a suitable free image for my user page! Thincat (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Kim Cobb

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Biting newcomers and deleting their articles: what we can do to help prevent it

I seem to recall that you facilitate, or help to facilitate, editathons. That's a very noble activity and if I lived in the UK it's one which I would be spending my retirement on and hopefully working with RexxS near Birmingham. I was surprised to learn therefore, that you prefer exposing new users to the risk of being bitten and their articles deleted rather than providing them with a space where they can safely develop their articles and perhaps even get help with them. To claim that it is policy to throw them to the wolves, is probably inaccurate - we already have several rules that prevent the creation of articles in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Editathons can be done in most places. For example, my current priority is to complete some work for Wiki Loves Monuments before the end of the month and that's a global event. This may result in some biting; the wolves that hunt images seem especially ferocious for some reason. If they violate the policy then they should be sanctioned. For example, I notice an attempt to reinstate the editor Betacommand who was banned for this reason. But that discussion looks quite unproductive and I try to avoid such. For another example, consider the AfD for Bearpaw which you started. I noticed that and have some prior experience of the interminable wrangling about sheepskin boots. What I noticed in this case is that there's a notable topic there which we weren't covering – bearpaw shoe – and so I started a page for it. It's not much yet but it certainly belongs in mainspace where others may find and add to it over time. That's our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Annie Nicolette Zadoks Josephus Jitta

Hello! Your submission of Annie Nicolette Zadoks Josephus Jitta 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih^Talk 03:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• File:Annie N. Josephus Jitta by Hendrik Maarten Krabbé from the collection of J.C. Zadoks.jpg is clearly pre 1931? Do you know the exact date, because this might now be PD in Europe, I appreciate you considered 'fair-use' on the basis of caution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, I don't know the exact date. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Roma Agrawal

Hello! Your submission of Roma Agrawal 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The Physiological Society

Hello IAhmed (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Abbie Hutty

Hello! Your submission of Abbie Hutty 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Warofdreams talk 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Seven Myths about Education

An article that you have been involved in editing—Seven Myths about Education—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting "guidelines"

MOS:COMPSCI has more history and more sense that MOS:COMP, which is not a real guideline but an essay, with few long-term editors, that someone just slapped a guideline tag on without any kind of WP:PROPOSAL process. Most MoS regulars were not even aware the page existed. It's causing problems, like editwars over trivia, and appears to be WP:OWNed by an uncivil tagteam. I think merging what's salvageable from it into MOS:COMPSCI and then MfD'ing MOS:COMP would be useful. I would support COMPSCI being an actual guideline, since it's stable and reasonable (would also entail moving it to a "Manual of Style/" name).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• The good thing about MOS:COMPSCI is that it actually has a reference: Writing for Computer Science. Andrew D. (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Andrew: Thanks for your ongoing work to improve Wikipedia. Per your editing interests, you may be interested in the new WP:EAGER, an essay I created today. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Osterley Television Centre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osterley_Television_Centre

I don't know why you removed my proposal for deletion or what to do about it. Griffindd (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• The prod process is only supposed to be used in uncontroversial cases and it has now been terminated. You are not expected or required to do anything more. Andrew D. (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox_World_Heritage_Site

If you have any qualms as to my close at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?, you may find WP:AN to be a more suitable venue than WP:TfD.Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 12:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• The discussion in question has now been closed as there being no consensus to delete. The RfC and the wider Wikidata issues are now being considered by Arbcom and there's more RfC to come. These seem the most suitable forums now. Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturers

Category:Manufacturers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)

Hi you deprodded the above article but without explaining why in your edit summary. I was wondering why you deprodded it. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:DEPROD, "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article". Per WP:REVTALK, I "avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content". Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

that's a shame because by not using an edit summary you open the debate. And Deprod says quite clearly "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page."

This would have avoided this exchange especially as I still don't know why you deprodded and there was no debate or negotiation already going on so no reason to invoke revtalk. Domdeparis (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Pension hotel

While there is no requirement for any explanation when removing a PROD, it would be helpful if you could leave some clue for other editors beyond "(remove prod)" so that they can know your reasons. Thanks. PamD 23:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Metacomic

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metacomic 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/Metacomic until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Andrew Davidson. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I have followed up at WP:RFP/NPR. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Andrew Davidson. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll give it a try. Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Northfield Allotments

On 26 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northfield Allotments, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Northfield Allotments are claimed to be the oldest in London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northfield Allotments. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northfield Allotments), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Amusement

Hi, I noticed that you wrote a review for this nomination a few hours after a different editor started a review. Since the other editor is new, he didn't know to put an icon on it. I wonder if you would mind letting the other editor finish the review, so he could gain more confidence in the QPQ process. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On second look, I see that you were questioning the purpose of the page itself. Sorry for not noticing that sooner. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's a vital topic but difficult to define and so I'll be keeping it on my watchlist now I have started to engage with it. But the fate of the DYK is no big deal as the extra attention may help it along. Andrew D. (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for St Stephen's Church, Ealing

On 22 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Stephen's Church, Ealing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bells of St Stephen's in Ealing (belfry and spire pictured) caused complaints, were later moved to the Docklands, and were finally installed in St Machar's Cathedral in Aberdeen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Stephen's Church, Ealing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, St Stephen's Church, Ealing), 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) 00:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Andrew Davidson:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC); Linguist^unEins^uno 21:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Northamerica1000 is wishing you a happy Thanksgiving. If you don't celebrate Thanksgiving, don't forget that "Any time is turkey time" (see image). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Andrew Davidson!!
Hi Andrew Davidson, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year. Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/64|"Prisoners"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/65|"Fashion designers"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/66|"Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Andrew Davidson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Duncorn Hill

I put a note on User talk:Colonel Warden before being told that this is your current account.

Hi, You kindly added a reference to Duncorn Hill citing Title of article in The Journal of the South Eastern Agricultural College, University of London (41-44): 191–195, 1938. I was wondering if you had the title of the paper concerned?— Rod ^talk 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm more active under my real name nowadays. I have fleshed out the citation in question. Andrew D. (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks.— Rod ^talk 19:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Andrew Davidson, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Erica Garner

On 31 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Erica Garner, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The file File:Erica Garner.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Public figure should have free image available or have free version submitted and released. Fails NFCC criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DHeyward (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew. You said, "this was not explained clearly." Do you mean my explanation for requesting the deletion? If so, I either never thought or almost forgot that a rule like WP:NFC#UULP would make more sense than the phrase "Getty Images". Or am I missing something? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• The technical issue was not clear to me at first but now it is. As you seem well versed in these matters, I welcome your involvement and assistance. Thank you. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. :) BTW, I think you mistook {{orphaned non-free revisions}} as {{di-orphaned fair use}} and then removed the tag. May you please reinsert it, so previous versions of the film can be deleted in favor of the current version? Thanks (again). And Happy New Year! George Ho (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• You are right. I was confusing this with a similar incident when the other image picked up a bot orphan tag at some point. I now appreciate the difference and have restored the tag. Thanks again. Andrew D. (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• With pleasure. Now what about the request you made at User talk:RHaworth? May you withdraw that please? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have updated that item, as you suggest. Andrew D. (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Per the result of the filing at WP:AE, you are warned to avoid hyperbole in future WP:AE filings. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• It was surprisingly difficult to communicate the issue in this case – perhaps an effect of the complex submission form. I shall endeavour to do better in future. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hanging Sword Alley

I tried to expand this enough so it would qualify for DYK, but the sources I looked at just repeated the same three basic facts in different ways and I'm struggling to get above even 700 bytes of prose :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a go. There's another topic that I noticed the other day and I've just deprodded it to buy it some time. It struck me that you might know this place and be able to do something with it. It's The Loft (Kent). It didn't seem as promising as the Angel Studio but I don't know anything about it and haven't had time to look. Andrew D. (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not heard of it myself, when in Maidstone I have frequented the Old House at Home, Earls and the Druids mostly, but I can see a few sources so I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've got it over 1500 now, thanks to a good account of a robbery there. There's more to do but it's a reasonable start. I'll have to go visit the place now, to take some pictures... Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Great work. I've just started Russia Row, which leads one way into Trump Street, which obviously holds great DYK promise. These two streets were brought to my attention by Zigzig20s, and you've inspired me with hope that expanding one of them to 1500 characters might be possible. Alas, I'm struggling. Edwardx (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• As you've seen, in researching Trump Street, I came across and so started Blossom's Inn which seems to have been quite substantial. That was mainly on Lawrence Lane but was perhaps at its junction with Trump Street. We should look at maps to check. The reference to the Lord of Misrule may be apposite... Andrew D. (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• I see a DYK in the offing for Blossom's Inn. Philafrenzy has worked his magic on Trump Street, which will be the "hook" target article, and I shall try to improve Russia Row, which now looks relatively feeble. I shall endeavour to take some up-to-date photos just before next Sunday's meet-up. Edwardx (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't ever ask me to help with anything ever again! (well not for 24 hours anyway) Philafrenzy (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that Blossom's Inn is coming along nicely and I especially like the picture that Philafrenzy found. I'll keep helping out as time permits and hope to see you both on Sunday. Andrew D. (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, as Americans might say, "Trump was connected to Russia". How appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We also have Gerrard Street, London, it was hiding as a redirect to Chinatown, London, but pretty much all of the Gerrard Street-related prose had nothing to do with that and there is far much more to write about. The sources aren't really up to snuff but it is new enough and long enough to go to DYK, provided somebody fixes the references quickly enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• By coincidence, I was just suggesting to Edwardx that we meet for dim sum in Gerrard Street ahead of the London meetup. Ritchie333 might like to know that the restaurant now known as Dumplings' Legend used to be the Lee Ho Fook mentioned in Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London. That would make a good Fook hook, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Hanging Sword Alley 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• The QPQ has been done – I was already working on it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Hanging Sword Alley at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

On 9 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hanging Sword Alley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hanging Sword Alley was also known as "Blood Bowl Alley" after its infamous night life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hanging Sword Alley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hanging Sword Alley), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

DePRODing

Could you please explain why you have deWP:PRODed several articles about non-notable municpal parks such as Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas). If you are going to mass-deprod articles, it is strongly encouraged that you "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:DEPROD, "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article". Andrew D. (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you don't' have to leave an explanation, it is strongly encouraged. And I am asking you now, if you would please explain your reasoning. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:PROD, "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." You should please expect opposition in such cases and so not use this process. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Copy and pasting isn't helping here. I don't know if you're trying to make a statement that you think the WP:PROD process should never be used. But what, I'm specifically asking you why in your opinion these articles should not be deleted. We'll take it one at a time. Why in your opinion should the article Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas) not be deleted?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• The PROD process for that topic has now terminated. The PROD process does not start or provide for a discussion because it is only for uncontroversial topics. If you're expecting a discussion you should therefore not use this process. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You're basically refusing to answer my question. I don't see how a small municipal park is a controversial topic. Your refusal to discuss leads me to believe you were deproding articles in bad faith. Presumably because you object to the existence of the WP:PROD process.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• If it was not clear to you that deletion of municipal parks is controversial, I trust that you now understand this. Please do not use the PROD process for such topics as it is pointless; a waste of time. Andrew D. (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict){(talk page stalker)@Rusf10:, please don't assume bad faith like that. There's nothing wrong with you PRODding the article, as you expected it was uncontroversial. However, the PROD process states that anyone who objects may de-prod an article, and therefore it is now a controversial deletion. Andrew Davidson objects, presumably because he believes the topic is notable. I have my guesses as to why, and he may be right, but I don't want to put words in his "mouth". So, if you believe the topic is not notable, nominate it for AfD, where a civil discussions about the merits of the topic, or lack thereof, should take place. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@78.26:Why should anyone have to guess why he believes this is a controversial topic, when I've asked him his reasoning multiple times? He just refuses to answer and that why it is difficult to assume good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It only matters that another editor believes the topic to be notable. It is therefore a controversial deletion. As you stated earlier, he is not required to give a detailed explanation. For what it's worth, and this is only me talking, deletion of geographic features are rarely considered uncontroversial. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, just to make sure, you ask how a municipal park is a controversial topic. If you mean that literally, you mis-understand the instructions. It isn't whether or not the topic is controversial that matters, it matters if the deletion of the article is controversial. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)}!

This was all I was asking Andrew for. It wasn't that difficult of a question to answer, was it? Although I do disagree with you because a park is not a natural geographic feature like a mountain or a lake, it is a man-made designation.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note that Rusf10 has previously encountered opposition at discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webb Mountain Park. He ought not need further explanation. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Blossom's Inn

On 30 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blossom's Inn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a porter at Blossom's Inn (pictured) was revived by treatment that included bleeding, brandy, and a turpentine enema? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blossom's Inn. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Blossom's Inn), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

CREEP

Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_invoking_SCHOOLOUTCOMES_at_AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have responded there. I doubt that the discussion will be productive but it will provide a topical example for the coming discussion about the Future of Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly reference WP:CREEP in your numerous comments on policy, RfCs etc. Recent examples include the AN discussion concerning SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the RfC regarding Wikidata. Why do you always phrase it as if CREEP is some sort of policy when in fact it is little more than an essay? It seems to me at best disingenuous and at worst downright misrepresentation. Bearing in mind that you very clearly did not read before jumping to conclusions in the AN thread, I wonder if you have actually read WP:CREEP. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I've read it. It says that it's an explanatory supplement and this fine distinction is itself a good example of excessive rules creep. I saw some discussion recently about the huge number of policies and TLAs – they gave the amusing example of WP:LOO. DYK alone has 62 explicitly numbered supplemental rules. See also Parkinson's law. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing through protection

You are aware this happens on all portions of the main page via ERRORS every day, right? And you are aware that it happens multiple times per day at DYK once sets have been promoted to queues, right? In neither case is there any obligation to seek permission or consensus. It'd be best if you stopped trying to claim that it was required in all such cases, as clearly, practically and empirically, you're wrong to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• What seems to happen every day is that WP:ERRORS wastes time and energy by revisiting topics afresh, rather than consulting the relevant editors. For example, there was some carping and cavilling about the NZ hooks on Waitangi Day yesterday. I said that this was probably deliberate and have just noticed some relevant discussion which confirms this. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think you missed the point here. Stop telling people that you need a consensus to edit through protection. It's simply not true. Besides, I'm not clear on what your link is supposed to demonstrate? That had precisely zero to do with Waitangi Day being linked as a target article on two different sections of the main page simultaneously. Please stop misleading others regarding the editing through protection, though, that really must stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Another fresh example is the case of Easton Area Public Library in which a hook was changed in the queue then reverted at WP:ERRORS and then chewed over some more to "fix the fix". What's needed in such cases is discussion and consensus rather jumping to conclusions. The principal editor should be notified and involved in this because they will tend to know the topic best. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• You missed both points again. Editing through protection happens every day, so telling people they must not or cannot is factually incorrect. And "principal editors" are often not available so decisions have to be made on their behalf. Of course, if you took any of what you're saying seriously, you'd be requesting that every admin who edits through protection at both DYK queues and the main page be de-sysopped. Of course that's not going to happen. So I think we're done here, but if you make false statements to other users who aren't aware of this conversation in the future, I'll gladly drop them a line with a diff to this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Columbine cup

Hello, Andrew Davidson. Columbine cup, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

On 4 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Columbine cup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Columbine cup was a masterpiece resembling the shape of a cluster of doves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Columbine cup. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Columbine cup), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Inclusionism" regarding articles that exist to (and arguably cannot but) push fringe theories

Hey, I thought it was a bit of a coincidence that someone whose user page declared them a member of that WikiProject would show up at that discussion when I had not notified anyone of it, and was going to ask you about that until I noticed that you were also a semi-regular at the Village Pump, so mystery solved. But while checking for that I noticed we'd actually interacted several times before. Sorry for not remembering you, but honestly looking back at some of those AFDs your !votes seem a little questionable. I consider myself to be a mild inclusionist (as I said in thw VP reply to you I think a true "deletionist" would probably happily target a lot of my recent work as being on obscure non-notable topics that no one in the English-speaking world, even top scholars, has ever heard of), but I don't think we should have POVFORKs or articles that exist solely to push fringe theories (I say this as someone who basically started their Wikipedia career being accused of creating a POVFORK to push a fringe theory, so I'm hardly biased), and I think most people who would self-identify as inclusionists would say the same.

Here you referred to a thoroughly discredited Victorian hypothesis as "disputed" but "notable" in a merge !vote that eventually led to the list being merged into the article on the discredited Victorian hypothesis, which is reasonable, but it doesn't look like you did due diligence in checking whether the theory the page was promoting was considered fringe.

Here you started with a textbook OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and then started claiming that blatant works of historical fiction "seem fine" as sources.

And just last night you presented a "Buddhist concept" that no dictionaries or encyclopedias of Buddhism discuss as such.

In both of the above cases it seems like you didn't actually click the links provided or do the necessary legwork before !voting keep based on a philosophy that all pages must be kept as much as possible, without regard for the specific circumstances of the articles/topics in question (since in both cases the topics were already better covered elsewhere on English Wikipedia, and the lists in question were mainly non-NPOV WP:SYNTH forks). I don't know if you are still doing this at AFDs, as I am not a regular there either way, but could you please be a bit more careful in the future?

(Note that this is not a criticism of your general practice as an editor. In the above editorinteract search I noticed you and I had crossed paths elsewhere and both been in the same minority that I still think was very much in the right, although I'd rather not publicly disclose what that was. Just noting it here so you don't get the impression that I came here to attack you or that I think you're a "bad dude", at least not in the "save the President" sense.)

Also sorry for the length.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• You're welcome and it's good to hear that you're an inclusionist too. But I didn't follow your reference to "Save the President" – is it this meme? I used to play the occasional arcade game but I'd never heard of Bad Dudes Vs. DragonNinja before. The one I liked best was Gauntlet which had an unusual collaborative format, in which you'd team up with strangers to complete the task. Rather like Wikipedia, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you're on the money -- I figured if you didn't get it (and it's hardly aybabiquitous) Googling "save the president" would get it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I completely missed this. You really need to read over WP:NOT and stop defending fringe theory articles based on your personal anti-"deletionism" policy. This is just the places where you interacted with me, and I've hardly opened an AFD in years, at least not where I meant for the page to be deleted rather than simply opening a community discussion while being essentially neutral whether the pages should be kept/merged/redirected; I'm really wondering what a more thorough search of your AFD !votes when your involvement, which was based on personal preference and a misreading of sources like the above examples, led to a "no consensus" decision would show up. Are you just going to continue to dodge the question? Do you regret saying that "tanka prose" was an actual ancient Japanese phenomenon, that the "spirit of mottainai" is a "Buddhist concept" (which claim, I'm becoming increasingly convinced, is tied to this guy's use of the word in a book meant to promote his wood construction business), that the mythicist "list of dying and rising gods" was worth keeping/merging despite everything in it needing to be rewritten and verified in reliable modern sources anyway, etc. or not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• BTW, I would like you to apologize for, and retract, the groundless accusations against me you made here. I was very clear from the beginning that I had not been nursing a grudge for years -- I hadn't even noticed what happened in that AFD after I retired the alt account that opened it, until last week (and if I was really still holding a grudge for anything it would not be that the article survived AFD but that one of the "keep" !votes was advocating for a JoshuSasori sock, which I assume is not standard ARS operating procedure). Anyway, accusations of misbehaviour made without evidence are personal attacks, and are prohibited on English Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• I did not say that Hijiri88 has been nursing a grudge for years. It is quite clear that Hijiri88's activity is current and is in the nature of a spike rather than being prolonged. The point is that the issue that he was complaining about happened 5 years ago and so is water under the bridge. What's good is that we now seem to be moving on and discussing more current issues. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the above correction of your previous false accusation, but it would sound more sincere if you didn't deny you had made the false accusation in the first place. It may be water under the bridge for everyone who actually !voted "keep" in the AFD five years ago, but you didn't -- you showed up out of the blue a few days ago and said that I had wrong to post an article on a "Buddhist concept" (one I clearly didn't understand) to AFD and those who had !voted me down were right. (You still have not admitted you were wrong to call what in contemporary usage is more of a marketing term than anything deeper a "Buddhist concept", mind you; nor have you recognized that it's just a common Japanese word for "wasteful".) And (again) I wasn't aware that the AFD had not ended in "delete" until this week, because of the off-wiki harassment that forced me to retire that account. (The full history of how I happened across it is here.) I only just this week noticed that an AFD I had opened in good faith (not because I "am a deletionist", a point on which I note you have been very slow to correct your many comrades) and garnered some support (it was 3-1 in favour of deleting before the canvassing), was canvassed and steamrolled right before the one-week mark, then a non-admin showed up and completely botched the close -- and as a result five years later the article is still a mess. And ARS is still doing this -- with Swamp monster, you posted a "This article is at AFD -- you know what to do..." canvassing message after auto-!voting "keep" yourself, two more ARS members showed up and did the same, and all of you have been refusing compromise solutions, alternatives to the false "keep-delete" dichotomy, and requests to do the heavy lifting of fixing the article, even though fixing broken articles to save them from AFD is supposed to be the modus operandi of ARS. This all happened in the last two days; it is not water under the bridge from five years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Joan Benesh

Hello! Your submission of Joan Benesh 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Joan Benesh 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

On 3 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joan Benesh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ballerina Joan Benesh married the man who suggested a better way of notating her dances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Benesh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Joan Benesh), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeking advice; feel free to delete if uninterested

Hello there. I'm an experienced editor who's mainly familiar with article creation and editing, and a bit confused when admin issues are raised, having rarely if ever come into the kind of conflict requiring admin warnings. I've just gone through what (for me) was a rather disturbing experience after trying to edit a page, but I can't see any policies that clearly apply to my problem. I noticed your neutral comments on the Dorothy Tarrant discussion I recently participated in, and since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about the matters I need help with, I thought I might seek your advice. It's alright to decline to get involved, although if you could at least point me in the right direction I would appreciate it very much.

Yesterday I tried to place a usage note qualifying the statement on the "Anno Domini" article that "BC comes after the year". I'd wanted to do this for some time, as I'd noticed in older reference material (which, as a classics scholar I tend to use a lot) it often preceded the year. I wasn't able to find anything about this in style guides, so I looked for encyclopedic references, and found the same practice in older editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Not sure just how strongly I'd need to support what was meant to be just a usage note, I wrote it identifying the EB and another standard reference work that uses this style, but as I wasn't satisfied with what seemed like a general reference, in my edit summary I mentioned that I was going to take it to the talk page for further advice and opinion.

No sooner than I had started writing out a note explaining the issue and asking for help, than my edit was reverted by one of that page's guardians. I reverted the deletion of my note, with a further edit summary, "please wait until I've finished posting on the talk page," but it was immediately reverted again, with the rather unfriendly note, "talk first, then post, maybe". So I finished posting my explanation of the note and my question about the sourcing, which I thought might at least be enough to justify the note until better sources could be located, and then reposted the note again. At that point, civility seemed to take over, and there was a reply to my talk page message by the editor in question. I thought that all of the points raised could be easily addressed by obtaining specific examples from the sources I mentioned, and perhaps additional examples from other sources, so I spent a few hours gathering some and setting forth what I hoped was a cogent argument from various sources.

However, before I could finish posting this, the note was deleted a third time by a new editor, asserting that "not a single reliable source" supported it, and a comment on the talk page claiming that the note violated WP:SYNTH. I strongly disagreed, since observing that something was one way and is now another, if both are properly supported by reliable sources, necessarily means that it must have changed, and the idea that it's unacceptable to say so due to WP:SYNTH is just absurd; IMO the question was verifiability, not synthesis. Did the sources I'd mentioned in the original note, and then on the talk page, show what I said they did? I thought it seemed beyond question that they did, but I went ahead and finished my post detailing specific instances and responding to the first editor's concerns.

As I was posting, and before I'd done anything else with the article itself, I received a warning on my talk page from the second editor involved, stating that I was engaged in an edit war by undoing other editors' contributions to Wikipedia without seeking consensus on the talk page, and was in danger of being blocked from editing Wikipedia for violation of the three-revert rule. Since I hadn't removed anyone else's contributions, and had only reverted twice, and had initiated the talk page discussion before the other editor had even gotten involved, I was shocked to be warned that I was in danger of being blocked from editing Wikipedia—something which I don't recall ever having been told before, despite having been involved in much more contentious discussions in the past.

What made the situation still more frustrating was the fact that the editor giving me this warning seemed to be an interested party, and had posted no similar warning on the talk page of the editor who had aggressively reverted the note as I was already taking the matter to the talk page. And, while I'm not sure if this is an issue, although it seems like it should be, the editor threatening to have me blocked from editing Wikipedia for edit warring isn't even an admin! Well, I finished my evidentiary post on the article talk page, then replied to the warning, saying point-by-point why I thought it was unjustified and improper. And then I went back to the article, looked at the note that had been deleted three times, and decided to revise what I was saying to a much shorter note, 1) avoiding the synthesis issue, and 2) cite clearly and directly to a number of reliable sources demonstrating that the usage had been different in the past (but without asserting that it had changed since then, since that was what apparently constituted "synthesis").

That was immediately reverted, instead of what seemed to me would have been the ideal solution (either helping me find better sources for something that abundant evidence clearly demonstrated was true, or tagging it with CN or Better Source tags), and the following description of my note added to my talk page: "I suggest that tagging as disputed, unsourced, and unimportant would be overkill; but all three tags would be justified". Now, by this point it's clear to me that collaborative editing seems to be out of the question; whatever I write and however I phrase it, no matter what I cite to, is simply being deleted as I add it, with no help whatever from the guardians of the article's purity; I pointed this out on the talk page, but since I didn't want to be blocked for edit warring I declined to make another attempt on the note itself, as I had no idea what I could come up with that would satisfy them.

I spent a restless night without nearly enough sleep, and still don't know how to respond. As far as I know, there's been no direct violation of a rule I could report; this doesn't seem to rise to the level of an administrator incident as far as I understand the concept (which is not very well); mediation also seems to be a step above the current level of the dispute; and a third-party opinion seems to be ruled out since there are three editors involved, and I'm not sure how to find someone neutral who'd want to get involved, but who'd be able to evaluate the evidence. Basically I'm at sixes and sevens when it comes to what to do here. So my bright idea was to find an admin who isn't connected with the discussion, but whom I might have bumped into from time to time, who could either have a quick look, or at least tell me what I ought to do next. Hopefully other than just abandoning the field, although that may just be my only option at this stage. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Editors on Wikipedia can be quite fractious, stubborn and vexatious about any issue on Wikipedia – see WP:LAME for an amusing list of examples. Issues of style like this are especially likely to give trouble and you will find that the archives for our Manual of Style are full of intense battles. Anyway, my advice is to take it easy. An RfC may be the best way forward, was done at the Dorothy Tarrant page. They typically stay open for 30 days and so will take some time to arrive at a conclusion. I'll take a look myself when I get a momemnt. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Meteor III (yacht)

This is my latest yacht article that I created.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC) This is a case where my Newspaper.com subscription really came in handy. The Wikipedia library is a good place to get some excellent subscriptions.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for trying :) Jesswade88 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Indian castes

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to South Asian social groups, such as List of General Caste in Sikhism, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• These overblown templates claim that I have recently edited List of General Caste in Sikhism. This claim is false as I have never edited that page. What's going here is harassment – "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." This seems to be part of pattern in which Winged Blades of Godric makes personal attacks on me. For the record, it's worth noting that these seem to date from an incident at WP:NOT when I reverted their attempt to change policy without consensus. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, they relate to your silliness at the AfD for the linked article. They are also valid notifications based on your intentions expressed there. You really do need to stop wikilawyering and wasting yet more of everyone's time before someone decides to topic ban you - a decision that I would happily support. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Given the number of years that you have edited WP, (a few of them with a sockpuppet), you ought to know that issuance of DS notifications, in the very exact manner I've done, are mandatory per ArbCom requirements.If you wish to seek an exemption for regulars from the templating, ARCA is that-way.And please provide diffs for makes personal attacks on me or retract your baseless accusations.And, for the record, it may be prudential to note, that despite your hyperbolic edits, the RFC was re-closed with the same result days later, resulting in the creation of the same policy.Cheers!~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• In that first incident at WP:NOT, WBoG made the edit summary "Cut out the attitude...". This seems to be a personal attack because it suggests that I have an "attitude" – what the OED describes as "Aggressive or uncooperative behaviour; a resentful or antagonistic manner." My position is that I was reverting a change made with inadequate consensus – a fairly standard action per WP:BRD. Now, in WBoG's post above he makes reference to "a sockpuppet". This seems to be an irrelevant slur or smear. My alternate accounts are respectable per WP:VALIDALT which states "For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets." WBoG should please avoid such hostile language as it may be considered to be casting aspersions. Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Care to explain this? Or your memory is a bit hazy on the aspects?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Again WBoG makes a personal attack, suggesting that my memory is poor. I do, of course, recall the incident quite well. The admin who blocked me was desysopped for their improper action. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• KWW was desyssoped for a host of reasons that included one bad block on CW but not the one I linked to.I think that you can do better than stating something roughly equivalent to--All blocks by desysopped admins are universally bad.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, Kww was censured for his block of CW in 2012. He was then desysopped for his block of my AD account in 2013. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sup, AD. Just a refresher, yes the admin was desysopped—but only because they were WP:INVOLVED. And in the course of your unblock request you agree[d] to retire Colonel Warden, something you patently have not done. Two things, then, come to mind. Firstly, that if another admin had blocked you, they would not have been desysopped, and secondly, that you lied in order to be unblocked another refresher: I will retire the Colonel Warden account and you expect this to be minimal). Cheers. Happy editing! ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I gather that "Serial Number 54129" used to edit as "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi". I'm still not sure why that name was changed but the point is that we should AGF in such cases and suppose that the change was made for good reasons. WBoG should avoid casting aspersions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, fascinating isn't it; you see what I did there though—change my username, rather than operate multiple accounts?  :) ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs to support the WP:BLANK comments you made in the AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Slightly economical with the truth, though. You end that sequence of diffs with that's where we are now, omitting a shedload of changes over three years that include reverts back to the blanked state by Widr, MusikAnimal, Rsrikanth05, Bgwhite, Serols etc. Given your encyclopaedic knowledge of encyclopaedic policy, do you not have a concern that so many regular contributors thought WP:BURDEN more important that WP:BLANK? One clue might lie in your ability to comprehend caste wars. Then again, never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh? - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's a summary rather than a recapitulation of the entire edit history of the page and the point was to highlight the blanking not the edit-warring. The other point worth summarising from the edit history is that I have not edited the page in question myself. The statement made above by WBoG in his harassing template is therefore false and has still not been retracted. Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• It is a disingenuous summary that presses home your ill-considered point that I was being disruptive at that article. As I say, several other people followed in the same vein. On the other hand, you have a history of poor behaviour at caste AfDs - there is even User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#Caste_issues above - and, frankly, if no admin is prepared to exercise their discretion here (or are sufficiently uninvolved to do so) then I think the next step is likely to be WP:AE. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sitush stated in the AfD that "your mention of BLANK above is the first time ever I have seen it". If it helps, I am quite happy to accept that Sitush made their actions in good faith, not being aware of the WP:BLANK guideline. My point about disruption is that such actions tend to disrupt development of the article by removing all the content and so providing no sensible structure for further improvement. It appears that Sitush is now editing the page in question in a more restrained way and so the issue seems adequately resolved. Andrew D. (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• No, the issue is not resolved. You are once again trying to side-step things. I specifically said that I was giving you a chance to develop the article, as you suggested you might. But as it stands now it is no better than it was when you misled people at the first AfD using the same irrelevant sources that you are now claiming should once again ensure that the article is kept at the current AfD. BLANK is a guideline, despite your apparent disingenuousness in positing it as a policy, and you have been made aware that your argument for PRESERVE holds no water. Are you seriously suggesting that we should keep information that is wrong just because a topic might be notable? It is bollocks and you know it. This matter is going to WP:AE unless you agree not to become involved in caste-related matters because you are utterly incompetent in the topic area. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I state clearly in the para above that WP:BLANK is a guideline. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter or that it can be freely ignored. WP:PRESERVE is full policy being a shortcut to our editing policy, which I cited in the previous AfD. That policy explains our general method and makes many points. Among them, it explains that we contribute in different ways, "each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help." In this case, I have brought several sources to the table and am the only editor to do so. The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies is not irrelevant because it contains significant material about the role of caste in Sikh society. It is from a respectable university press and was published fairly recently. To reject such sources seems to set an impossible standard. How on earth does Sitush suppose we can develop our content if we can't have a reasonable discussion about such material. Andrew D. (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Squirming again, trying to back away from past deeds. BLANK was first mentioned by you at the AfD and that is where I announced that I had not seen it before. It was me who had to note that it was a guideline, rather than the policy that you implied, causing you to scramble around to find PRESERVE, which does not even support your point anyway. See you at AE. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• And how dense can you be regarding Oxford? Caste in Sikhism is discussed at Sikhism etc; the source does not discuss "general castes" in Sikhism, which does not mean "all castes", as has been explained to you previously. Honestly, I am astonished that you persist in highlighting your incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sikhism#Sikh_castes actually contains a list of Sikh castes including the mercantile Arora caste which I provided in the AfD as a specific example. The Dalit castes are identified specifically and so the whole is consistent with my vision for this content. My position is that there are reasonable alternatives to deletion. For example, we might merge the page in question with List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism and, while the material is still small, have it in the Sikhism#Sikh_castes section. As and when the content expands, the material could be split into a page such as Castes in Sikhism as suggested by Cesdeva. This is the point and guidance of the policy WP:PRESERVE -- that we develop and improve the content by such means, not by deletion and blanking. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, the very bog-standard and in no way harassing template says "for pages related to South Asian social groups, such as List of General Caste in Sikhism, which you have recently edited.", i.e. "pages related", and one doesn't have to take a giant leap of faith to imagine that editing an AFD about such an article falls under "pages related" to such a topic. There's nothing false, and nothing to retract. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• That template provides a link to the page that one has supposedly edited. If the AfD was meant then that should be the link. Is he now going to officiously warn everyone who participates in that AfD? Will he now drop these templates on the talk pages of TRM and SN54129 for participating in this discussion about the matter? Andrew D. (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Won't it be good if you drop the wiki-lawyering stuff and instead move on to answer the query posed to you at the AFD and/or improve the article?! And, I never knew that if I choose to drop the sanctions-notice on a part. editor's t/p, I must follow it up by dropping them on the t/p(s) of all related editors.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• The point is to pay attention to DS, and the warning is just to let you know that your edits will be subject to Arbcom's scrutiny, whether you believe the templates or your editing are valid or not. It's a favour to you to help you from getting blocked over something simple. I'd be thankful rather than rail against it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a case at Arbitration Enforcement that concerns you. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Andrew_Davidson. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have responded there. Andrew D. (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew dont be fearful of mean wolfs. they are teamtagging and gameing system. Just ignore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.74.77 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, out of curiosity, what are you planning on doing with User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes? You asked Sandstein to undelete and userfy it so you could work on it "soon" more than five years ago,[2] but the page has only been edited once, minor-ly, since that time. I'm considering MFDing it if you are not planning on working on it, as userfying pages that were deleted by community consensus and keeping them in your user space permanently is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/Event admission where a similar page was easily kept. There are many demands on my time and, per WP:CHOICE and WP:DEADLINE, I am free to work on this at my own pace and priority. But, as it happens, I have some material fresh to hand and so this is a good opportunity to make an update. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that MFD no one seems to have noticed that there was prior consensus to delete the page, and that you then requested the page be userfied specifically so you could do a particular task with it.[3] The wording used by both the nominator and User:Kudpung seemed very strongly to imply that they believed it to be an article draft you created in your user space and never got around to finishing.

Anyway, you should get consensus before restoring a page that was deleted by community consensus (the consensus to delete had nothing apparently to do with article cleanup or anything that AGF would say you must be able to address alone); if you do in fact intend to "finish" the draft, that is definitely something to bear in mind.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew. The WP:AE discussion here has been closed with the following warning: Andrew Davidson is advised that before commenting further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted), they need to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. They are warned to only offer comments or article edits supported by directly relevant sources judged to be reliable and of high quality. Sources without recent consensus must be presented for review first. If the user intends to work on the draft User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes, which has been languishing for five years, that work is to be exempted from the restrictions mentioned, i.e. Andrew Davidson is allowed while it's still in userspace to offer weaker comments and sources there, provided this work gradually leads up to acceptable quality and sourcing, before it's offered for mainspace. Failure to comply with this warning will result in a topic ban or other sanction. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC).

PRODs

Please can you explain why you have removed a PROD in future, eg: here. As it stands, that article is little more than advertorial and, of course, press releases from the "winners" and organisers do not count towards notability, so I am at a bit of a loss regarding your rationale. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:PROD, one contests a prod by removing it. That terminates the process and so it does not provide for discussion. If you wish to discuss the article's flaws then this is best done on its talk page, where the other editors who have worked on it may comment too. Andrew D. (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware that you don't have to explain. I was asking you please to do so instead of being uncollaborative. Your constant resort to lawyering is wearing and disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sending positive vibes and recognising your contribution! Thank you. Srsval (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. The Women's Classical Committee has been good fun and I hope to do more for it when time permits. Andrew D. (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Silent applause

I didn't want to write it there. I actually commend your discussion style (except for a few words, of course, like "absurd", but forget that) and applaud your persistence in something you believe in. I'm also in awe that you don't cow down to number pressure – that is, the social pressure of having a huge number of editors against you. It's an honest appreciation of you. Warmly, Lourdes 04:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you – your kind comment is much appreciated. Our discussions are supposed to be based on the quality of argument rather than its quantity but this is not always easy. Feynman tells a story which sticks in my mind as the ideal. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. ... So everyone is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead." It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best—summing it all up—without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed.

DYK for Naomi Parker Fraley

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Table beer

I've expanded this a bit and it's good to go for DYK, except I could do with another source to bolster some of the more obvious "hooky" stuff, such as "... that table beer was socially acceptable in the 18th century as you could drink several glasses without getting intoxicated?" Have you got anything? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• I started the article after enjoying some Fuller's Table Beer at the Union Tavern in Maida Vale recently. There seems to be coverage of the modern type, which seems to be enjoying a revival -- see Bon Appetit, for example. The history I've found mostly seems to focus on the fine detail of excise rates but I'll keep browsing for more. But I've some other DYKs to catch up on first like Naomi Parker Fraley, which is up right now. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's that little place in SPIT that seems to delight in the stuff, no? V. handy for the way home, and the punters think you're just drinking cream soda  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "No beer and no Wikipedia make Ritchie333 something something" ... "Go crazy?" "Don't mind if I do! Muahahahah!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely *hic* bad for the eye sight though  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but after looking at sources, I think this is a duplicate of small beer so I've merged the two together. Still, we have improved Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, so all is not lost. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• I was well aware of the small beer page when I started this one. That's why I took some care to clarify table beer as a distinct class of beer, which was specified in law. It was a medium grade and, as we have numerous other gradations and varieties of ale and beer, it seemed reasonable to detail this one. That still seems sensible, but I still have other priorities and will return to this in due course, to see what has become of it. Andrew D. (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	A joy to review. Your article on Nicola Thorp, while short, sets an exemplary standard for start class articles in sourcing, writing style and layout. Please make more articles. I'll be following your contributions. Great work! Edaham (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks though it's The joy of all things that has done most of the work in this case. I started the page when rescuing another page about high heel policy which made a good DYK. Having been prompted by the many incoming link notifications, I'm now thinking to nominate Nicola Thorp as a sequel as it will make a good Where Are They Now?. Andrew D. (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not neglect to add a barnstar there also :) Edaham (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Also I enjoy reviewing articles which are good eye openers. Living as I do in China I had no idea about how current the high heel issue is. Ludicrous that women are still being bludgeoned with forced stereotypes in developed countries! Edaham (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and barnstars. It's interesting that you live in Shanghai now. Note that there's an interesting page about China's own Foot Emancipation Society. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

DYK for Gilmore the lion and oil company

Hello! Your submission of Gilmore Oil Company 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Gilmore Oil Company 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've reviewed your DYK nomination, and there are still some issues that need to be addressed. Specifically: one of the statements in Gilmore the Lion (in that his remains are in cold storage) is not reflected in the source (which lists his remains as either in storage or on loan, as opposed to specifically saying that his remains are in storage). Please resolve this issue promptly so that the nomination can proceed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

On 14 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gilmore the lion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gilmore, the flying lion, was named after the Gilmore Oil Company? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gilmore the lion), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

On 14 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gilmore Oil Company, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gilmore, the flying lion, was named after the Gilmore Oil Company? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gilmore Oil Company. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gilmore Oil Company), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• 5,459 and 2,134 views, respectively. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

De Pace, BMG movement

Hi Andrew, I just wanted to thank you for looking over the Bernardo De Pace article. It was the first time I have been tempted to try a did you know for quite a while. I had forgotten anything I ever knew about the process and your feedback and quick response to its existence on the list was great. I just found two places to link to the BMG article you wrote. Thank you for writing it.Jacqke (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Honey garlic sauce

Re this: technically, you violated Per WP:CONTESTED by you really should not be simply reverting the PROD and not without Explain[ing] why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.[4] Even the message you left on the proposer's talk page after your second revert didn't give a reason for opposing the proposed deletion. So while it is technically out of line for User:Madmoons to re-add a PROD template that has been removed, that rule assumes that the template was removed in good faith, in accordance with the guidelines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: actually, WP:CONTESTED covers both the points you mention, and you're seemingly incorrect on both. The wording says "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to [...] explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion" and "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." So although it might have been nice for Andrew to have given some reasoning, the reinstatement of the prod was wrong, and the next avenue for this is AfD, not prod. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Whoops! I see that now. Sorry about the mixup. I've not encountered either PROD or CONTESTED used all that much in the past; a couple of NOTHERE trolls PRODded some articles I wrote back in 2012/2013, and then in 2015-ish someone opened an ANI thread where an article's creator (a promotional SPA) had contested a PROD then opposed the subsequent AFD, and after a week the AFD was non-admin-closed as "no consensus", and I suggested the page be deleted because the article's creator had not provided a valid rationale and the closer had just been counting votes.

To be fair, though, Andrew has a history of opposing AFDs with ILIKEIT-type rationales, and even repeatedly violating WP:ARS's requirement that a rationale for keeping the article be included in an AFD's listing on that board,http://[5][6][7] and so probably shouldn't be reverting PRODs without giving any rationale. I'm neutral on whether the page in question should be deleted, mind you, so I'd rather have this be the last that is said on the matter lest I be seen as arguing for the deletion of an article whose deletion I might actually oppose.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So ... do you ever provide rationales when removing deletion tags?[8] Even if it is technically not a violation of policy, it comes across as deliberately disruptive, especially when your actual comments in AFDs often consist of bizarre counter-policy arguments, leaving other editors to assume you would give such counter-policy rationales if you gave any at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) I have long been considering asking for a topic ban against editors who attempt to prevent deletion without a valid policy rationale. I think there's an argument to be made that repeated ILIKEIT behavior is disruptive, and the editors involved simply need to be kept away from deletion processes. I'm still working out the idea. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red 9 Aug 2014.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red 9 Aug 2014.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. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A courtesy notice that, per the discussion, this file now needs a fair use rationale (see directions on file page) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Great Turnstile.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Great Turnstile.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. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Intuitive eating

About this, please give reasons in edit notes, especially if you are doing something that is going to end up absorbing a bunch of other people's time. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, per WP:REVTALK, we should "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content ... This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" Reasoning and debate belong in discussion pages such as the AfD which has been started for this matter. I have commented in detail there. Such comments also do not belong in edit summaries because the edit summaries cannot be edited to correct complex markup such as as links and templates. Edit summaries should be succinct and there was significant pushback when their maximum size was increased because people don't want walls of text in their watchlist. Andrew D. (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Carla_Capalbo

I have reverted your change. You are not an AFC reviewer and should have submitted it to AFC if it was keepworthy. It has some unsourced claims (that she wrote for BBC Olive, The Independent, World of Fine Wine, Bon Appétit, Departures, Food & Wine and Decanter) and should be in draftspace until accepted. I've submitted it to AFC and there you will see if it is acceptable. I won't accept it. -- » Shadowowl | talk 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Shadowowl does not seem to understand the process. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, "A reviewer unilaterally draftifying is appropriate if all of the following are true:

(1) The topic has some potential merit

(2) Is not good enough

(3) And there is no evidence of active improvement"

Condition 3 was not met because I improved the page after saving it from G13. I expect to be doing more at an editathon on Wednesday at the British Library, which will be attended by other veteran editors and professional food writers like the subject. Shadowowl should therefore please revert their disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you are calling me a disruptor (so ironic) says enough to me that I shouldn't restore your article. It was a draft, and is not accepted by a reviewer. The policy cited is not usable. It is not a draftify.-- » Shadowowl | talk 19:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

shadowowl draftified the page by moving it from main space, where I had placed it. They did so after trying to delete the page by G13. They don't seem to understand that draft space does not belong to AfC or that they are dealing with more experienced editors. MassiveEartha, who first created the draft, has been editing since 2012 and is now a trainer. I myself have been editing even longer and have autopatrolled rights because I have created hundreds of valid articles. AfC is only for inexperienced editors who are unable to create pages in mainspace. Shadowowl should please revert and get out of the way. Andrew D. (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Getting angry doesn't help. It is a draft and this is circumventing the AFC process. AFC is not only for inexperienced editors. I am not going to revert myself. Patiently wait till someone accepts/declines the draft. And it is still not a draftify, it is a revert of a move. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait patiently for two months so that you can G13 it again? I don't think so. There will be plenty of other experienced editors at the editathon and I shall consult with them if the matter is not resolved sooner. Andrew D. (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Shadowowl: I have to say I agree with Andrew here, (although he could have been more polite about making the point, as presumably your edits were made in good faith). There is no requirement for an experienced editor to take anything through AFC, and in this case there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the draft other than its short length, meaning Andrew was within his rights to move it to article space and mark it as a stub so that it can be improved by himself or others. I'm not sure how your insistence on putting it back to draft space and waiting two months for someone to review it benefits anyone. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

See below. It was declined, and for good reason.--Shadowowl on mobile (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It was declined, for what would have been good reasons if the draft had actually come through the AfC process. In this case, it wasn't, and I more or less agree with Amakuru. --joe decker^talk 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: the point is that you draftified an article that you had no business drafifying. If you think it doesn't assert significance then put an A7 tag on it and let an admin decide. Your action was to unilaterally delete an article created by an experienced editor, and then send it to AFC, with no due process followed. If Andrew had created that article from scratch directly into mainspace then we wouldn't be having this discussion so I'm not sure what's different about this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It was originally a draft, and I dont think nominating it for G13 makes it a article good enough to skip afc process. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Carla Capalbo (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Carla Capalbo (2), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

joe decker^talk 20:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew Davidson! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! joe deckertalk 20:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

:* I did not submit the page in question to AfC.  So why has this enormous template been placed here?  Please see WP:DTTR.  Note also a recent article creation by User:Joe Decker  – Giuseppe Momo.  That is a perfunctory stub which seems inferior to the page in question.  So we see that the AfC process is dysfunctional.  Let's have the page in question placed into mainspace.  If people think it is so bad then they can take it to AfD -- a process based upon consensus rather than the arbitrary opinion of a single editor. Andrew D. (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Template was left there by automation, which apparently failed to correctly detect that Shadowowl submitted it instead of you. Chill out, and take your complaint on this to the maintainers of the AfC scripts. All the best, --joe decker^talk 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, your comparison to Momo is silly. The stub on Momo has an assertion of significance and multiple (2), independent, reliable, sources which discuss him in detail. Your article on Capaldo did not reach the latter bar. Trying to say that that's about article length or writing quality misses the point entirely. Sadly that was lost in the fact that you should have never been put in that queue in the first place, and I am sympathetic to your irritation. --joe decker^talk 20:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study of civil behaviour

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you E. Whittaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewitch51 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invitation. I have replied by email. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew, David from Wikimania 2014

Now back in London, in Forest Gate with my relatives, and pleased to find you again. I will be here at the London match-up tomorrow, no plans for today. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave your London phone number here. I have no email to use.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Hello again. I'm fairly busy today but will come early to the London Wikimeet tomorrow, Sunday 10 June. Not sure I want to publish my phone number so publically here so I suggest you email me with a number to call. Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: The sight to see in London today, Saturday, is the World Naked Bike Ride. Westminster Bridge at about 16:30 would be a good spot to catch it. See website, Time Out or the Standard. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I could have seen that bike ride, but I did not see your reply until much too late. Did you take pictures? I will be delighted to see you Sunday at the Pub. I am guessing that before noon is fine, and my laptop can keep me busy. I have working on Jersey since December, and I just returned on Thursday evening.

• @Dthomsen8: The pub opens early but the Wikipedians start arriving from around 13:00. As for the bike ride, there's always lots going on in London, especially in the summer. See Twitter for coverage of today's clash... Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

* 17 Unassessed, 115 ???, 843 Total--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC).

• 1201 Total--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC) (Now 1204)

Andy, tell me about having dinner together tomorrow. Simple arrangement is to meet at the restaurant at a set time. So, name and address of restaurant, time good for you.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Learning by teaching

Thanks for having help to rescue "Learning by teaching".Jeanpol (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Jeanpol: You're welcome. As that topic is difficult to work on, I suggest that you take a look at some other pedagogical topics. They can be difficult too and so you may get some insights from the comparison. For example, I started the flipped classroom topic – a different sort of role reversal in education. That topic has attracted a lot of attention but probably still needs a lot of work. Perhaps you can help with that... Andrew D. (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: Thank you for the answer. Of course I know other pedagogical topics like "flipped classroom". But the Learning by teaching method is working well since the 80ies and teacher who use it are very satisfied. One point is perhaps a little problem: "Learning by teaching" is not easy to apply, because teacher have to understand and master the theory and the technics. "Flipped classroom" is easy to integrate to LdL and is part of it. But LdL goes further than "flipped classroom" so the teacher have more to learn the system than when they use "flipped classroom". Here the theory of LdL: "Conceptualization as a source of happiness". Jeanpol (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, "flipped classroom" is wellknowd in Germany: Umgedrehter Unterricht and in France: Classe inversée.Jeanpol (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I had just looked at: started and didn't see flipped classroom. Your article is very comprehensive. I don't understand really why you mean, "(...) that topic is difficult to work on...(...)." In Germany the topic is wellknowd an many people work using "Learning by teaching". So for instance this group on facebook: Lernen durch Lehren.Jeanpol (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Learning by teaching Grüssen Sie alle! I was just passing by and saw the title, and wondered where it had come from. Initially it seemed to be an elaborate form of product placement. I looked for a solid reference and couldn't find one- eventually on the Austriam external link I came across the Uni. in Marburg- so if there was any academic rigour method described in the joke title it would be there. Alas. mein-flipped-classroom give a clear description of what it is thought to be. There is no learning through the teaching process described there- it sounds familiar, and it was an approach we used at Abraham Moss Centre Manchester 8 from 1975 to 1981 when it was replaced by more conventional techniques. See Ron Mitsons pages in Fletcher, Colin; Thompson, Neil; Mitson, Ron (1980). Issues in community education. Lewes: Falmer. pp. 101–114. ISBN 0905273087.,

We called it Independant Resource based learning. Teachers made and selected the resources, in those days we sent relevant to the print room to be offset lithoed into booklets that were store in resource trolley- after a lead talk by the module leader the 11-14 year olds worked at their own level through the topic for 3 or 6 weeks- at the end they did a self evaluation test- and moved to the next module. We all worked (120 kids and 4 teachers)in an open area, and the puristssuggested that some kids would be doing Hums and other Maths along side each other at their own whim. This worked well for Humanities- was useless Modern Foriegn Languages, near impossible for all but basic Maths which relied on a serial build up of knowledge. By the time I joined the school walls had started to be erected and the whole shot had become more teacher centric. I loved it- but there were severe problems- producing the material took about 5 times as long as giving a teacher centric lesson. You couldn't get the staff who had the ability to help across the board. My wifes module on Basic Indonesian had the Maths specialists giving up. When she reverted to French, Spanish and German the result was the same. Exterior resource were very diffict for our inner city pupils to access. Above all you had to be a very strong diciplinarian to keep the kids in their seats. Our kids did not have the intrinsic motivation that the middle classes assume is inherent.

If we look at the concept of using Learning through Teaching- it has been around since before Billy Bunter. I often used it when supply teaching. It goes like this: Today you are supposed to be studying "the War poets" this note says they were called Wilfed Owen, and Siegried Sassoon- do you think that is a joke? Look, I don't know anything about them- perhaps you need to teach me. You have 20 minutes on the Internet to but together a 3 minute talk where you can tell the class all you have found out- start with Wikipedia- the lede will be good and look at the navbox at the bottom. Hey who is the class internet nerd? Right you don't do that task, but go round the class helping anyone that puts up a hand. That is learning by teaching! In the plenary, the students teach their peers the facts they have learned. Before the internet- you wrote them a note and sent them to the library.

So back to the articles- this article and flipped schools seem to be on pupil centric learning, rather than teacher centric. It would not be allowed in any state that has to teach to the National Curriculum. The term High School- in German means University- in the states it is the final 4 years of secondary- in the UK it a state 11-16 school. School in the US applies to tertiary education.

Viel spass, leute. ClemRutter (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@ClemRutter If you are looking for solid references, I hope you find some here: Lernen durch Lehren.Jeanpol (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@ClemRutterIt seems to be an elaborate form of product placement: Theory_of_relativity!Jeanpol (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Seemed not seems. Past tense. It will take a little time to read through all the references on Lernen durch Lehren. With the approach described- it seems to be one that I have been using since the 1970s but I can't find the references that describe it to the standards we use in en:wp. There are 45 references given in the articles but 40 of them are off-line in academic books to which I have no access, some are behind a paywall that you will nor notice if you are editing from a university ip. Looking at the other five- I am cautious of references that refer back to articles you have written or collaborated in, and cautious of articles that refer back to the wikipedia article, or a version in another language. The Sascha Stollhaus reference Stollhaus is probably the best. I am trying to verify the text- and I need more than we have got there.

Referring to the problem of writing education articles in English, I put it down to differing cultures. Educational theory is taken seriously in Germany and in the 1970, promotion in England was based on classroom effectiveness while in Rheinland-Pfalz- progression was based on the amount of study the teacher had done. Even today the theoretic knowledge needed to gain teacher status in Germany is light yearr ahead. ( I talk of differing cultures- and we have a totally different culture to that in the states.)Pedagogical theory is totally underrated in the UK. I just don't think that the UK editor has the basic vocabulary- and again we are back to the lack of basic open references.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think, the best way is to read my newest (and surely my last) article, published in a manual (june 2018): "Conceptualization as a source of happiness".Jeanpol (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you know this deletion page? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Learning_by_teaching.Jeanpol (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Swamp monsters

There is currently a discussion at AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxcvbnm (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have replied there. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And the consequence was: "Not necessary to keep this open. ... There is no consensus to take any action. ..." Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Tammie Jo Shults

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tammie Jo Bonnell 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/Tammie Jo Bonnell until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, it's been nearly three weeks since Cwmhiraeth pointed out that the nomination of the two articles cannot proceed with the template affixed to the Tammie Jo Shults article. As far as I can see, you have two options: work on the article to remove the excessive use of blockquotes (which, while not added by you, are nevertheless in the article, and with the template it cannot be promoted at DYK to the main page) or drop the article from the nomination (by unbolding the link, which would be a shame since it's Tammie Jo who's the focus here). Please decide what you'd like to do within the next several days and post to the nomination, so the review can continue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I was waiting for activity at the article to subside and have updated it now. Andrew D. (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

On 6 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tammie Jo Shults, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tammie Jo Shults (pictured), captain of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, was one of the first female tactical fighter pilots in the US Navy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tammie Jo Shults. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tammie Jo Shults), 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) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• 26,176 views. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

On 6 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tammie Jo Shults (pictured), captain of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, was one of the first female tactical fighter pilots in the US Navy? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Southwest Airlines Flight 1380), 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) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• 13,505 views. Andrew D. (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Claire Ptak

On 7 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Claire Ptak, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Claire Ptak baked the lemon and elderflower wedding cake for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Claire Ptak), 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.

– Ianblair23 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• 2035 views. Andrew D. (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your email, Andrew. Your support is very much appreciated and will give somethought to what you said. Thanks again, Stinglehammer (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Unity of the intellect

Andrew D., have the most recent edits addressed your concerns about this DYK nomination? Please stop by the nomination template and let us know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Education Not for Sale

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Education Not for Sale. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Campanino

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Annual readership

Template:Annual readership has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• The result of the discussion was keep. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

UK First Women

Thanks for creating Anita Corbin. Have you got a source for the list you added to the talk page? If "personal communication with the artist" it would be useful to say so. If anything published, it would be great to be able to link to it from a newly-created article to say that they were included. I'm looking at Sharon Nesmith who certainly ought to have an article... but must get on with some Real Life stuff first. PamD 10:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

And how come there are 103? I thought it was a list of 100! PamD 10:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: The list was compiled in stages from online coverage. I then got a picture of the list on display at the exhibition. I noticed the number 103 too but haven't fully reconciled the various sources. I started articles about Becky Frater and Katy Cropper (the shepherdess that got you started on this). I'll make some more passes through the list to check for missing links but not right now as I'm busy too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks: well done! I've created a redirect for Nan McCreadie to the article where she already got a mention. Too busy too. PamD 11:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just to say, you've been seen to do good work. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 21:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Frogmore Paper Mill

I had a DYK all good to go "... that Frogmore Paper Mill is the oldest surviving mechanical paper mill in the world?" but I've missed the cut-off point by one day, unless I 5x expand it to 3.6K (over double the current size). Aaaaaargh! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

D'oh, the creator moved from draft space yesterday. Hallelujah, we're back on! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ok. Note also that D9 gives you some wiggle-room. Andrew D. (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've filed it. Hopefully somebody will SNOW close the AfD soon, and that'll be that. It's not often an obvious DYK hook smacks me in the face like that! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued use of alt account?

It just came to my attention (I almost never check editors' block logs...) that you were blocked indefinitely and then a week or so later your account was unblocked on condition that you retire your other account, Colonel Warden (talk · contribs). But it's since made eleven edits to the article space, six to the combined talk, Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk spaces, and four to user talk pages other than your own. Were these accidental? Perhaps you should request the alt account be blocked so you don't make that mistake anymore. Or was your unblock condition rescinded at some point? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• The issue was queried and explained some years ago here. I still log in to the account from time to time to attend to the many notifications about its legacy of contributions. For example, I was recently contacted by an author wanting to use an image (right) that I photographed and uploaded from that account. They were planning to credit that account name but I advised them that it would be better to use this name. The account is registered as a WP:VALIDALT with arbcom, who de-sysopped the admin who improperly placed the block and so everything seems in order now. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the block for socking had nothing to do with their desysopping (in the ArbCom case in question, you linked to a block from 21 months earlier, where they blocked you for lying in edit summaries, rather than anything to do with sockpuppetry), and the admin who actually placed the unblock condition on you was not Kww but Yunshui, who has not only never been desysopped by ArbCom but was elected to ArbCom the following year.

Anyway, your above explanation works for the account's edits to its own talk page, but I was specifically talking about 20 or so edits to pages "other than [its] own"; and even discounting any edits to the mainspace (etc.) that might have been related to such inquiries, Somerset Coalfield, for example, was never edited by that account before you agreed to stop using it. Also, Yun specifically told you to clarify the link between the accounts on their respective userpages, but there is not currently any reference to the CW account on this account's user page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• My various accounts are listed above. The Somerset Coalfield update was for another image (right) which was first uploaded for Duncorn Hill. Images have to be used to avoid deletion and so this avoids waste. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Godfrey's Cordial

On 10 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Godfrey's Cordial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Godfrey's Cordial, a popular infant sedative in Victorian Britain, led to numerous fatalities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Godfrey's Cordial. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Godfrey's Cordial), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Holy Merry Go Around

Why did you delete the proposed deletion for List of Batman storylines?

• That is the way one contests such a proposal. Per WP:PROD, "Any editor ... may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Batman storylines Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so please explain why you object on the link provided otherwise why remove the proposed deletion template. Matt14451 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Water roux

Andrew, could you please be more careful? Virtually everything in your new water roux article needed to be tagged. It would probably be best if you didn't leave "1st draft stub"s in the mainspace. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I finally got around to reading your response to my repeating the above at ANI, in which you basically ignored it again. Can I assume you are happy to create more work for your fellow Wikipedians by leaving unfinished (as in, of such a quality that it would/should fail if submitted at AFC; obviously nothing on Wikipedia is "finished") drafts in the mainspace? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

List of cottages in Dorset listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of cottages in Dorset. Since you had some involvement with the List of cottages in Dorset redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. » Shadowowl | talk 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

La Manga club

Greetings Andrew. I'm puzzled about your recent edit on La Manga Club. I don't normally request deletions but this is one of the poorest 'articles' I've read on Wikipedia and 'delete' was the most positive thing I could say. I note, but wasn't influenced by, the fact the originator has had most other articles deleted. I don't know if you believe I failed to follow proper procedure or you really think the article is worth saving AND can be improved. If the latter then I beg to differ and think it should go to a vote. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• @JRPG: I am familiar with the place as it is a notable resort and sporting facility. The article is far from the worst that I have seen and is certainly improveable. Before starting a deletion discussion, please familiarise yourself with the deletion process WP:BEFORE. For example, alternatives to deletion should be considered. One sensible alternative would be merger to its location: La Manga. I would still prefer to retain the page separately though.

• A tussle over this would be tiresome. It would be more congenial to discuss other topics mentioned on your user page such as Fortran and Chess. I myself started my career using Fortran at an engineering business. That was a while ago but, more recently, I partipated in the Mind Sports Olympiad where I was pleased to meet an old acquaintance, Bill Hartston. One of the events there was diving chess! As you have swimming experience too, perhaps you should give it a try next year.

Andrew D. (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• We should note that matters have moved on as an observer has escalated and is now edit-warring about it. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, thanks for a speedy reply Andrew -a tussle was unlikely if it's not an advert though contents still seem bizarre. On a different topic I've played Glenn Flear though I don't remember the result. To my shame I turned down a request for a large English white pig breeding database circa 1972 largely because our machine was optimised for maths and had a grossly inadequate memory for such a task. I might add a bit to my talk page -pity there's no reminiscences page for geriatric software engineers! JRPG (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Best practice

Tone is difficult to track in internet communication, so I would like to clarify (possibly unnecessarily) that this was not intended as a criticism. Rather, if I had seen that someone had removed a prod from an article I had been discussing, I would want to know whether or not the remover had said anything related to the discussion, and so I provided this information to others. (I have no particular feelings about what to do with the article.) --JBL (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Joel B. Lewis: It may help to understand that I am a prod patroller. My practice is to look through all the pending prods and remove the prod tags from the topics that seem to have merit or potential. I commonly do this in the same terse way but the people who placed the prod often complain that I didn't provide more detail. In my view, they misunderstand the process, which is not a discussion but the placing and removing of a tag. This is supposed to be uncontroversial so, if discussion is needed, prod is not the right process. Your language was similar to that used in other cases but I took no great offense from it and so we're good. The important thing is that the topic continues to develop and that seems to be happening now. My main surprise is that the maths project was not able to take care of this more expeditiously. My impression is that maths articles are quite isolated from the Wikipedia mainstream and so its editors may be weak on such processes. Please feel free to consult me if you should want assistance or a second opinion with any other case of this kind. Andrew D. (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello Andrew,

Good meeting you yesterday and learning about your interests.

Here are links to my Wikidata presentation containing the examples I showed and my user page with some of my artwork.

See you around,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

• Library Card translation
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

better than nothing

hi there, as you actually inserted this photo claiming it was better than nothing I am linking you to the rfc. Talk:Doria_Ragland#Photo Govindaharihari (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

[9] Andrew, you are not an ANI regular. If you show up to ANI solely to undermine someone you don't like, as you did to me in June, Jytdog in August, and me again just now, that is pretty blatant hounding. In June, you kinda-sorta had the excuse that you were defending your buddy, which is what I suspect the others who expressed the same highly idiosyncratic view as you of doing this time, but I can't seem to find any history between you and David Tornheim that would explain how the above could be something other than hounding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And even after eight months, you still have not explained what you were doing at Talk:Mottainai if not hounding me... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• ANI has been on my watchlist for a long time and I find that I've posted there 23 times so far this year. I put Mottainai on my watchlist when it was listed for rescue. That reminds me... Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm ... but you never edited it until I noticed it had been listed for rescue and tried to edit it myself, and regardless of how you became aware of it (one way or the other you noticed it because of me) your behaviour there was just to put an obstacle of the way of me and everyone who agreed with me (which was, noticeably, everyone except you and one other editor). And how many of those 23 edits were related to me, Jytdog, or one of the other "deletionist conspirators" you were hounding? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for explanation of deprod

Andrew, would you mind explaining why you removed this? The article is the very definition of junk: it consists, essentially, of one sentence, an unattributed quotation that appears to define "megaprojects", though not in an Indian context, and one "sourced" entry whose source actually uses "mega project" apparently in a more general sense of "large project". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:DEPROD, removal of a prod is the way that one objects to it. The particulars of the topic are best discussed on its talk page where the creator has already started discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

DEPROD also says You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to [...] [e]xplain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page: if you are asked to provide an explanation, and refuse to give one, that implies you don't have a good-faith one, or are deliberately playing your cards close to your chest so you can throw out an argument five or six days after an AFD is opened and no one responds, so the AFD can be closed as "no consensus". It would be better for all involved if you explained why you think the article is valid before the AFD so your concerns can be appropriately addressed -- better for everyone but you and perhaps the article creator (who made a bad call by leaving the article in the mainspace as is) in that, if convincing enough, maybe your reason could stop an AFD from being opened in the first place, and better for everyone else in that if your reason is not convincing then it can be addressed upfront by the opening AFD comment; presumably you consider your reason to be convincing, so the former would apply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You should probably also bear in mind that while there is no broad community consensus that editors in general are required to provide a reason for deprodding, there was a pretty strong consensus here that you specifically should provide a reason when you deprod, or potentially face sanctions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain this? at the same time? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 05:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Would it help if you had to explain at ANI? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 05:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Roxy' prod was removed because this is the way that one objects to the proposal. The template states clearly that a detailed explanation is "not required". In any case, no deletion reason for the proposal was provided, just a vague direction to "See Rope", and so there was no case to answer. Note also that the template states emphatically that "If this template is removed, do not replace it" but Roxy has done so in violation of the WP:PROD process. Roxy should please read templates and their instructions more carefully before placing them. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI it is then. see you. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

See "TBAN and Block Needed" at ANI, which concerns you. Thanks -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Outcome: Simply put, there is not a consensus that Andrew Davidson has done anything that warrants a sanction.
• and you should be ashamed of yourself for such a non cooperative and non collegiate attitude Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Maria Bitner-Glindzicz.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Maria Bitner-Glindzicz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.

Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changes

• The Editing team has published an initial report about mobile editing.
• The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles. You can read the report.
• The Reading team is working on a separate mobile-based contributions project.
• The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer supported. If you used that toolbar, then you will no longer see any toolbar. You may choose another editing tool in your editing preferences, local gadgets, or beta features.
• The Editing team described the history and status of VisualEditor in this recorded public presentation (starting at 29 minutes, 30 seconds).
• The Language team released a new version of Content Translation (CX2) last month, on International Translation Day. It integrates the visual editor to support templates, tables, and images. It also produces better wikitext when the translated article is published. [10]

Let's work together

• The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
• The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
• If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Jazz in Africa

Would you explain why you deprodded the Jazz in Africa article? Thanks. Your opinions that jazz started in Africa and that jazz bands exist today in Africa are, at best, beside the point when it comes to creating or deleting articles, i.e. notability. Notability relies on sources. Are there enough independent, reliable sources to create an article of substance about the subject? That's what we base our subjects on. Not whether something is a good idea, whether something is true, or whether it ought to be an article because it sounds important and might be developed by someone somewhere down the road.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you explain why you deprodded The Alberts, The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, The Temperance Seven? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• The proposed deletion process is only for uncontroversial deletions and so must not be used if opposition is expected. Opposition should be expected in such cases. For example, I notice that No Swan So Fine advised Vmavanti that You have approached Jazz articles on Wikipedia like a wrecking ball, in your frequent trimming and deletions. Andrew D. (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope you are not using No Swan So Fine's opinion as a justification for your actions. He was not only insulting, he was wrong. It's certainly odd to accuse an editor of editing as though it were something terrible. But that situation is irrelevant to this situation. When I do an internet search and I find few or no sources for an article, I consider that an uncontroversial proposal for deletion. I don't expect opposition for such an article in such a situation. It's both courteous and a WP rule that a person leave a reason for deprodding an article. If you have sources for that article, that's great. Go ahead and add them. I'm certainly not stopping you from working on that article to improve it. There's no reason why you shouldn't answer a simple matter of fact question like "Why did you deprod this article"? I don't know why. That's why I'm asking. I have no ulterior motive. Our reasons for doing things on Wikipedia are rooted in the rules of Wikipedia and, I hope, in common sense, courteousness, and rational discussion. What's the alternative? Arbitrariness. People doing whatever they damn well please. I'm sure you would not want that if the tables were turned. Please consider your replies more carefully. Please give a reason for deprodding articles per WP documentation. Thank you for replying. Cheers, mate.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:The Cock.jpg

Despite a rather considerable difference of opinion on a different matter, I noted that this did in fact have a source citation in one of the articles it appeared in and so I updated the relevant field accordingly. I am hopeful you would approve.

I've also tagged for this for "duplication" to Commons, as artworks of historical locations are useful on other projects. The local copy will of course be retained as you'd explicitly marked this media file as {{keep local}}. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I also based on the citation had a look on archive.org and found: https://archive.org/details/brightonroadclas00harpiala/page/156, so will further update. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara P. McCarthy

On 12 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara P. McCarthy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara P. McCarthy disagreed with philologist Rudolf Helm about whether or not Lucian originated a particular form of satiric dialog? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara P. McCarthy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barbara P. McCarthy), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for One-armed versus one-legged cricket

On 14 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article One-armed versus one-legged cricket, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Greenwich pensioners played one-armed versus one-legged cricket? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/One-armed versus one-legged cricket. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, One-armed versus one-legged cricket), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ITN for Richard Baker (broadcaster)

On 17 November 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Richard Baker (broadcaster), which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Dumelow (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

daisybell.jpg

What was the motivation behind retaining a local copy? Arlo James Barnes 03:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Prudence. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Circle time for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Circle time 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/Circle time 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. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andrew Davidson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Y

Reversion of move: List of pubs in the United Kingdom

Why have you reverted my page move? Clearly the page is not a 'List of pubs in the United Kingdom' and attempting to fulfil that description would result in a very large, not to mention extremely boring, article. The page IS a list of 'notable' UK pubs, so I don't understand your motivation.Obscurasky (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

1. There was no consensus for the move.
2. The new title "List notable of pubs in the United Kingdom" was garbled and ungrammatical.
3. Per WP:LISTNAME, "Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article."

Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And the 'better practice' being what - inaccurately titled articles? Obscurasky (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Chiyo Miyako. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/101|Photography]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/102|Laureates]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/103|Countries beginning with 'I']] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. WikiCite issue GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative, which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California. Wikidata training for librarians at WikiCite 2018 In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more library science is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point. Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "bash, git and OpenRefine". Compare and contrast with pywikibot, GitHub and mix'n'match. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector. Links Wikidata and Libraries: Facilitating Open Knowledge, book chapter by Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, metadata librarian and Lydia Pintscher, Wikidata Product Manager, from Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge (2018) LD4P and WikiCite: Opportunities for collaboration, WikiCite 2018 program abstract, Christine Fernsebner Eslao of Harvard Library Information and Technical Services and Michelle Futornick, Linked Data for Production Program Manager at Stanford University Shell Lessons for Librarians, Library Carpentry lesson At-risk content on Flickr, blogpost 3 November 2018, Andrew Gray Toward an Abstract Wikipedia, recent white paper by Wikidata founder Denny Vrandečić (Google) Account creation is now open on the ScienceSource wiki, where you can see SPARQL visualisations of text mining. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2018

This Month in Education Volume 4 • Issue 10 • October 2018 Contents • Single page view • Subscribe In This Issue WikiEducation - Report from Wikimedians of Albanian Language UG Wikipedia Education Program in ICETC 2018, Japan Wikipedia has become the inseparable part of my daily life Wikipedia is a world in which anyone of us has his own place Wiki conference for teachers in Ohrid Our baby is 3! Highlighting work of Sailesh Patnaik Important updates from Wikimedia Education Team Welcome Melissa to the Education Team What has the education team been up to? Year end review and updates!

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Satish Bhaskar listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Satish Bhaskar. Since you had some involvement with the Satish Bhaskar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Vanamonde (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Sarah Knauss

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Sarah Knauss. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Nabi Tajima

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Nabi Tajima. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Monica Ross

Hello! Your submission of Monica Ross 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-49

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

• Admins will not be able to unblock themselves if they are blocked by someone other than themselves. This is because it can cause damage if someone else takes over an admin account and other admins can't block them. If this is a problem for your community you can report it on Phabricator. You can also ask questions on Meta. There is a discussion on Phabricator about how to solve this if two admins fight with each other on a small wiki. [11]
• Small SVG images are now bigger when you see them in MediaViewer. [12]
• You can go to a section from the edit summary by clicking on the section name. Before this you had to click on the arrow. [13]
• When you jumped to a footnote that was referenced several times in an article it could be difficult to see where you were in the text. Now there are jump marks and highlights to help you find your way back. [14][15]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 5 December at 16:00 (UTC) and at 23:00 (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.

16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2018

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue XI, November 2018 Headlines Albania report: Wiki Photo Walk Albania 2018; Wiki Loves Monuments Albania Armenia report: Singing Wikipedia; Photographs by Vahan Kochar Brazil report: Diverse milestones for the Brazilian community Denmark report: Intercontinental digitisation efforts Estonia report: Making contacts both internationally and in Estonia Finland report: Art and edit-a-thons France report: Bibliothèque publique d’information; 3D museum collections on Wikimedia Commons Indonesia report: Conserving and digitizing texts in West Sumatra Macedonia report: Wiki Training at National and University Library "St. Clement of Ohrid" New Zealand report: Equity, Wikidata, and the New York Times Norway report: Collaboration with The National Archives of Norway Philippines report: Wiki Loves Art Poland report: Archival image uploads, student collaborations and international projects Serbia report: Photo finish of the WIR's Sweden report: The Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Library data starts to take shape; Learning Wikipedia at the Archives; Wikimedia Commons Data Roundtripping UK report: Sum of All Astrolabes USA report: Wikidata Workshop at Pratt School of Information; Wikidata Presentation for the New York Technical Services Librarians; Wikipedia Asian Month; Cleveland Park Wikipedia Edit-a-thon; Historic Ivy Hill Cemetery Workshop Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 31, October–November 2018 WMF GLAM report: Welcoming Satdeep Gill; Structured Data on Commons; WikiCite Calendar: December's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Andrew Davidson,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW

If you want to block unilateral page moves, you have to make more than one edit to the page, as pages with only one edit in their page histories, and that edit is to redirect to a specific article, that article can still be moved over the redirect even by non-admins. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for all your help with WCCWiki

To say a big thank you for all the help you give WCCWiki

		The Original Barnstar
		for contributions to WCCWiki Claire 75 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• You're welcome and thanks for your kind words. "Resonet in laudibus"! Andrew D. (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-51

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 7 January 2019.

Recent changes

• Some templates that show notices about the content of the page will now be shown on the mobile website. In many cases they were hidden before. [16][17]
• Admins can no longer unblock themselves, except for self-blocks. A blocked admin can block the user who blocked them but no one else. This is so no one can block all admins on a wiki without being stopped. [18]
• The ParserMigration extension has been removed. It compared the result of two versions of the MediaWiki wikitext parsing pipeline. It was used when we moved to the Remex parsing library instead of Tidy.

Problems

• <ref> tags can use parameters such as "name" or "group". For example <ref name="adams" group="books">. If a <ref> tag has more than two parameters all parameters are ignored. You don't get a warning that they don't work. This will soon be fixed. [19]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 December. It will be on all wikis from 20 December (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Foundation Android app team are working on making it easier to edit on mobile phones. You can read more about these plans. If you have an Android phone and speak at least two languages you can help testing in English. Tell Dchen (WMF) you want to be part of the testing by writing on her talk page or email her.
• tiles.wmflabs.org and wma.wmflabs.org will stop working. They have no maintainers and run an old operating system. Tools which use it could stop working. This includes the mapnik gadget, hill shading, and hike and bike layers. New maintainers could help out and keep it going. [20]

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

20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Freddie Stockdale, Andrew Davidson.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I'm not sure about she passes our notability guidelines. Please add more references.

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

∯WBG^converse 11:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)