User talk:Andrew Davidson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Page views[edit]

Big game hunters[edit]

You wrote in WP:AfD/Botella (measurement) (after markup-stripping):

I was training a new editor recently and was surprised at the level of hostility which was immediately shown to her. Without my assistance, her first experience of Wikipedia would have been very negative and we would have lost yet another editor. [...] Anyway, that other editor was User:Mauladad and it remains to be seen whether she will stick with it or is now quite intimidated.

That interested me. I took a look.

The editor has so far only worked significantly on a single article, "Bali Mauladad". The subject name and username show a striking resemblance. Anyway, in this edit, User:Loriendrew added the COI and Notability templates, with a neutral edit summary. At that point, reference and external link aside, the article consisted of one (1) sentence, viz:

Mohamed Iqbal Mauladad known as Bali Mauladad was a big game hunter in Kenya.

I would say that yes, COI looks likely and notability was not established. The article did have a reference, and the reference came complete with a quotation, one that's oddly relevant to units:

"Mohamed Iqbal Mauladad, 'Bali' as he was always called, was a huge man. Born in the mid-1920's he stood six foot one (two meters) in his socks, weighed 250 lbs (113 kilos) and sported a magnificent moustache."

Er, what? I stand nearly six foot one in my socks, but far short of two meters.

It's good that you are working to rescue articles, but you seem curiously prone to see "hostility" where I see mild and justifiable irritation.

I wondered how difficult it is for a new arrival to create articles that do suggest notability and do not suggest COI, so I looked at the articles I created when I was new, back in 2004. Here they are, each in the (horrible) state in which its second editor found it:

I'd like to think that I wouldn't perpetrate anything like any of them these days. (I now prefer this style.) But I think that each of them shows minor promise, in its crappy way. None was flagged for COI or notability, and I don't think that any risked this.

Are you perhaps too quick to see hostility? -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you don't have the full story? That first draft was put together quickly at the tail-end of the last London meetup. It was part of a crash course in which I was showing the new editor the basics of account creation, talk pages, article editing, &c. We didn't have time to do much but, when I got home, I saw those first two tags and so spent an hour expanding the article to this. That seemed good enough and it was then midnight so I went to bed. In the morning, I found that the article had now been tagged for speedy deletion and, before I could get to it again, it was gone. Both those speedy tags were inappropriate as the article made several reasonable claims of importance (A7) and was not exclusively promotional (G11) as the subject had been dead for over 40 years. Being experienced, I knew how to locate the admin that had performed the deletion and remonstrated with them. The novice editor would have had more trouble dealing with this by themselves because speedy deletion doesn't leave a good audit trail - the page in question has vanished, along with its history. The admin kindly restored the article without more ado — perhaps they realised that the tagging had been excessive. Subsequently, there was more challenging bureaucracy in getting an appropriate photograph added to commons, which required repeatedly contacting and persuading an 80-year old woman in France to log an OTRS ticket, &c. With that done, I did some more expansion to get the page nominated for DYK within the 7-day deadline - yet more red tape which a novice would have found difficult by themselves.
As for your articles, my impression is that you had it easier back in 2004. For example, looking down the list, I recognise the name of Jonathan Routh. I have no complaint myself about this as a topic but notice that your start didn't have any references. As this was then a BLP, you might nowadays find that a {{BLP_PROD}} is slapped on it if it isn't immediately speedily deleted as A7/G11, like the case above. Note that the page is still tagged as lacking adequate citations, 10 years later.
As veteran editors we can now take this aggravation in our stride, but I still reckon that the reception given to novices is too hostile. It's not just me who thinks this — see Encyclopedia Frown:

“The encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is at risk of becoming, in computer scientist Aaron Halfaker’s words, “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semiautomated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” An entrenched, stubborn elite of old-timers, a high bar to entry, and a persistent 90/10 gender gap among editors all point to the possibility that Wikipedia is going adrift.

Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I've taken up the invitation in your archive page to resurrect old discussions. (This particular discussion is only four days old, and I first saw the latest addition to it just hours ago, as I'd spent the turning of the year somewhere with no computer.)
No, I didn't have the full story. But now that I do, I'm not convinced. You say that this "seemed good enough", but I have difficulty discerning notability. I don't think that big game hunters are inherently notable; for this one, there's a claim that he was unusual in being of Indian origin, but this claim is backed up by a wiki and an article of almost half a century ago from a somewhat obscure newspaper. (Yes of course half-century-old articles in obscure newspapers may be cited, but it's odd for such a source to be vital for the most important claim in an article.)
It had never occurred to me that kicking off a brand new article would be a good introduction to editing Wikipedia. (I'm surprised to discover that I did this with my fifth edit, but the situation was different back then.) Depending on the person's skills and tastes, she'd be better off starting out by fixing spellings, making changes to wording, sourcing the unsourced, or similar. Doing this brings skills, it may bring the appreciation of others, it's likely to bring understanding of what's involved, and it also is likely to avoid the suspicion that the user is primarily/exclusively here in order to boost her own company/school/chum/ancestor/whatever. In particular, I wouldn't dream of suggesting to a new editor that she should aim for "DYK": the requirements are so many and so laborious that I've never wanted to attempt it myself.
Yes, things were easier in 2004. The idea seemed to be: "If what you want to say is going to seem reasonable to people who know a bit about the subject, you don't have to source it. And what sources you do specify can simply be listed at the foot of the article." The sourcing in my early articles is atrocious by 2015 standards. (It probably wasn't good even by 2004 standards. And there was a fair amount of "unencyclopedic" editorializing, some of which has lasted until today.) But even if I were to perpetrate these now, I don't think that there'd be any suspicion of COI, and I don't think there'd be questions about notability.
I knew that there was a wide male/female gap in en:WP editing but not that it was 90/10. This is a matter for concern and it's good that you are encouraging more women to join up. But I don't see any gender issue with the treatment of either the creator of many stubs for more or less obscure units or the creator of Bali Mauladad. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You've never done a DYK? You should not be intimidated as your work such as Ken Grant would fit in quite well. The most challenging part is not so much creating the entry but reviewing the work of others. I am familiar with the formalities as I have done several dozen now. If I should notice some new work of yours, I may nominate it for you so you can see how it's done. Andrew D. (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
When I get around to creating an article (which isn't often), I do like to start it on the substantial side; this alone would raise the chance of DYKability, I suppose. ¶ Oh dear, every time you mention one of "my" articles, I look at it and realize that it's in worse shape than I had lazily presumed. (Thence Routh [still poor], Grant.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Andrew many thanks for your wishes. Have a great start to the new year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauladad (talkcontribs) 16:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, Hope you are well. I have done a new article today. It is saved in the sandbox :) I got confused about the stub? Please can you have a quick look. Mauladad (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Well done; it's good to see you pressing on. I am quite busy with several different issues but will put this on my watchlist and help out as best I can. Andrew D. (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bali Mauladad[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Weights and Measures[edit]

Wrap reel[edit]

You created the above article, which is a fine stub, but I cannot see this going anywhere with the present title. There should surely be an article on the (mostly unsystematic) systems used for measurement in the textile industry, and I think this could be a good starting point for it. Suppose we renamed it to "Measurement in the textile industry"? Or do you have any other suggestions for titles. This would immediately mean that a list of the units we do know about could go on this page: currently both skein and lea go to a tangled web of DABs and the usual isolated claims about 4 decimal places of centimetres. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I have created hundreds of articles and already have no shortage of ideas for development and expansion. What I lack is time. In your case, it appears that you have only created two articles — Johann August Just, Walter Schulthess — and they are both still stubs. Please see the Mote and the Beam, "...with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again". Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll skip your response, since you don't seem to have understood what I was saying. I am suggesting renaming this article more broadly, and I ask your comments on this, rather than plunging ahead. Or are you saying you have no further interest in the subject? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Thank you much Andrew for saving the article Truss (unit). Shevonsilva (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. It has proved to be an interesting topic and I hope to do even more. Andrew D. (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Obsolete units[edit]

Hi Andrew Davidson: Per your interest in the topic, check out the new List of obsolete units of measurement. NORTH AMERICA1000 21:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal stone[edit]

Since you had some involvement with the Legal stone redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Is the "ard" any more real than the "Stupping ton"? OED hasn't got it (except as a light plough, or a suffix meaning "one who does to excess, or who does what is discreditable"), nor online Larousse, nor online Oxford combined dictionaries (including bilingual). Where did you find your statement that a Demiard was "originally half of an ard"? PamD 16:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The "ard" also isn't mentioned in Units of measurement in France before the French Revolution#Volume - Liquid measures where the "Demiard" is described (and to which I've just redirected Chopine (unit), along with making the missing hatnote from Chopine). PamD 16:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue is best discussed on the talk page for the article in question. Please see there. Andrew D. (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Did You Know[edit]

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

Aviation in Indonesia[edit]

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.› Facepalm3.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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.

Human3015TALK  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)

Deletion discussions[edit]



Hi Andrew, for what reasons are you removing the prods of this non-notables after the minimum seven days? Hwy43 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Because the articles seem to have merit, of course. Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

So a PROD notice can be removed in the time between the expiry of the seven days and an administrator processing it? Hwy43 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes. Even if the article were deleted, I could have it restored per WP:PROD, "Even after it has been deleted, a PRODed article can be restored by anybody through an automated request for undeletion. " WP:PROD also explains that "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." It therefore does not seem appropriate for such articles which seem to be good faith entries on which significant effort has been expended. Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Though disappointed, I appreciate the explanation. Hwy43 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


I noticed some comments earlier about deprodding. There is no need to wait for the 7 days. Anyone admin or not can remove a prod at any time. The only practical way to question the removal is AfD. (unless there;s a valid Speedy on a separate issue like copyvio) DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @DGG: I'm quite comfortable removing PRODs, thanks. The most recent incident was a speedy deletion though and the tag for that said "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself", which prevented me from taking care of it. The tag was eventually removed but this took 7 hours which wasn't very speedy. We're good now though and the article will be up at DYK in due course. Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I know you're active in this,which is why I left the note-- I left this as a response to the comments at the top of this page, if you want to move it there. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Castle Inn[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you pulled down the PROD but did not respond to the issues raised in it or make any improvements in the article. Can you point to any in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources for the subject required by GNG and GEOFEAT? I and a number of other editors have not been able to find much. See this discussion. I saw you posted some generic source search links but while those yielded no shortage of pormotional hits and a very few short blurbs, I don't see the kind of serious coverage required by GNG. Of course you may have found something that we missed. If so please let us know. Absent some serious RS coverage I suspect the article is likely to be sent to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, I can. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it a state secret? I'd rather not trouble people with an AfD if you can respond to the issues raised. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Christian communism[edit]

As you participated in a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious communism, you are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian communism. Graham (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Formula 1 (board game)[edit]

Thanks for your help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formula 1 (board game). Success. -Arb. (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Well done. Andrew D. (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Jane Frizzle[edit]

Andrew, you may want to discuss the notability of Jane Frizzle with User:Andrew Gray, per our discussion @ User talk:Dirtlawyer1#Jane Frizzle. I requested the other Andrew's input regarding the subject's notability before PROD'ing it. My WP:BEFORE search suggested the subject would probably not satisfy the GNG criteria for inclusion, but if you believe otherwise and want to take a crack at finding the additional significant sources required to keep it, I will defer from nominating it for AfD review. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Topics are best discussed at their talk pages, so that all editors may participate and see what is said. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

List of British engineers[edit]

Please see my note at Talk:List of British engineers. Is this what you have in mind or are you proposing a list of engineers who already have Wikipedia pages as in List of Cornish engineers and inventors? Biscuittin (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I have made a brief comment there but think it's best to keep the discussion centralised at the AFD, while it's open. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have agreed, in principle, to move List of British engineers and their patents to User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers. Is this OK with you? Biscuittin (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm rather busy right now but will respond at the discussion in due course. Andrew D. (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
As there have been no objections, I intend to move the page tomorrow, 28 Nov 2015. Biscuittin (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the warning. I have commented at the discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The article has suddenly been deleted. I have re-created it at User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers but the edit history has been lost. What do you want to do about List of British engineers? Biscuittin (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • My position has not changed. We just have more tiresome process to go through. Andrew D. (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

List of interracial romance films[edit]

Hey Andrew, the AFD mentioned above turned into a bit of a mess. Someone made a non-admin SK closure on it, then when I suggested that was an inappropriate action, they opened a second AFD on it. If you want to comment on the new AFD, it's here. Townlake (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting the article. I've gotten started with some of the references there so if you'd like to chime in go for it. :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Malaysian museums[edit]

Hi, thank you sooo much for defending most of my articles about Malacca/Malaysia in the

I know it's not easy to write a full & complete information, with significant coverage from something that didn't exist before. That's why I guess we have Wikipedia to let the world knows that not only big things exists (e.g. United States, Europe, Obama), but smaller things which count thousands around us. Of course, due to the much smaller size of Malacca, things are 'smaller' here. Same like in Singapore, things are relatively smaller, but they do have almost complete articles on everything that exist there in the country.

I'll do my part in findings more information about those articles. If you can provide more information for the article, you are more than welcome to do it! (please do so T_T) It's not easy at all to find news resources from the internet, must go to visit each of that place to get extra info. At least I've written the name, native name, photo, coordinate, history, some of its exhibition/architecture info, opening time, make its wiki common page, include them into category etc. Even to get the photos of such places, I need to travel far away by car just to get 1 photo. It's not an easy thing at all. Of course since this is the beginning of the article, I only provide the minimum required information needed for it to be an article. Once the article is there, it will be much easier for other people (who knows more info of the subject) to add more information to it.

Chongkian (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Chongkian:. You're welcome. The key thing you need to do is contribute to the current discussions about these articles. If you need any help understanding how to do that, please ask. Andrew D. (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


There was recently a deletion debate which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see talk:Melee). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} at the top of the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nawabpur Road[edit]

If you have a reference for "It's the busiest road in the capital city of this country." it'd be good to add it to Nawabpur Road. -Arb. (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wetted surface[edit]

You removed the proposed deletion template from Wetted surface. Do you believe that, given the various contexts in which this term is used, that a single meaningful article that goes beyond just the basic definition can be developed? The term is used in various disciplines (aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, hydrostatics, etc), but in all cases, it just means the surface area of an object that is in contact with the working fluid. The ramifications of the term are different for each discipline, and must be discussed within the context of the discipline. I don't believe a single article can go beyond the basic definition without uselessly reproducing information that is already developed elsewhere. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • The merits and development of the topic are best discussed at its talk page so that others, including its first author, may observe and participate. Note that I started the talk page and placed links to relevant sources there. Naturally, I checked these myself in the course of my action; I am always careful to check my ground. Please note also that the PROD process is only for uncontroversial cases and "must only be used if no opposition is to be expected". It should therefore not be used upon an article which has been newly created in good faith and, in this case, the article had only been created for 27 minutes. Such action is contrary to our behavioural guidelines such as WP:BITE and WP:DISRUPTION. Andrew D. (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Zinzira fort[edit]

Hi Andrew, I noticed you de-PRODed Zinzira fort without giving a reason. I'm assuming the article is not an intentional hoax, but it is a fantasy. There is no such structure as that described in the article. That's why it has never cited a source, and probably why it was speedied as soon as it was created. Did you want to see the article renamed and rewritten about something that does exist (and if so, what), did you just want it to go to AfD to be seen by more eyeballs, or ... ? Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I have added a link which shows some photos of the place. Note that the name seems to be transliterated in different ways, including Zinzira and Jinjira. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've adjusted the coordinates accordingly (as explained in the PROD, the palace is nowhere near and has nothing to do with Zinzira, Biralia Union, Savar Upazila) and added a tertiary source. You are correct, Bengali has been transliterated a number of ways. In addition to Wikipedia's overarching naming guidelines, WikiProject Bangladesh uses WP:BDPLACE as guidance, which would name the the ruin Jinjira Palace, as you have done. Worldbruce (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok. Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech and tools[edit]

A new reference tool - Citoid[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here:, 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)


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.


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

Blofeld's barnstar[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

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)


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."

Terry Wogan[edit]

List of pubs in London[edit]

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)

Safety behaviour[edit]

Requested a dispute resolution here for an outside opinion: 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)
Olive branch drawing.svg

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”[edit]

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)



Opinion Barnstar.png 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)

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)


WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

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. WormTT(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. WormTT(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)


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)


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. Mkdwtalk 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)


Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg 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)


Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg 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)


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)


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)


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 the words "debatable" and "arguably" and this seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Malvern pic[edit]

Hey Malvvern battle is at FAC. Are you sure the licensing etc on your pic are all perfect? Besides the location you placed it on the article is violation of MOSa• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • The image's author, licensing and formatting are similar to another existing image which appears in the article lower down. My concern was that there wasn't a good photograph of the battlefield. I started by considering replacing that second image but then decided that to add the image in the Geography section. I previewed having the image on the RHS but that didn't work so well because of the quote box. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
can't wedge text between two images or boxes.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A similar effect is found further below in the article in more than one place. If you have some general objection to imagery on the LHS, then you should please start some general discussion at the article; I was just following existing examples. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment on your comment on Signpost[edit]

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)


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:

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


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
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)

5 million[edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png 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

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Being Human - Revealing Local History[edit]

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[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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)

WP:ROUTINE, etc.[edit]

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[edit]

Asia medal.svg 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[edit]

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

Season's Greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
  • Thanks. That inspires me to cover a local institution in my area... Andrew D. (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Today is the winter solstice so it's not so bright but it is remarkably warm for the time of year – as warm as the summer solstice in June, they say. Hope it's pleasant for you too. Andrew D. (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Day in the Workhouse[edit]

It is Christmas Day in the Wikhouse,
And the cold, drama boards are bright
With garlands of green and T-bans,
And the place is a pleasant sight;
For with clean-washed hands and faces,
After a long and languid booze
The paupers sit at the Grotto,
For this is the hour they snooze.

And the guardians and their floozies,
Although the gossip is firm,
Have come in their furs and wrappers,
To watch their charges squirm;
To smile and be condescending,
Put brocade on pauper coats.
To be hosts at the workhouse banquet
They've paid for — with the !votes.

Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC) (... sorry it's only 23rd December!)

  • Thanks – that's really quite clever and fits nicely with the point made by the article – that the poem has often been parodied. Andrew D. (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

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) 18:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks and a Merry Christmas to you too. Andrew D. (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy New Year .jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Andrew Davidson:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

North America1000 00:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Thanks – a nice illustration of gnomes at work. I've tried to find you a different picture for you your own collection. Andrew D. (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
  • Thanks and best wishes to you too. Andrew D. (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Caste issues[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Makonde carving 1.jpg
  • 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)
Real Life Barnstar.jpg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)
  • 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)

Evening Snow on the Heater[edit]

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)


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)
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)

Symbol question.svg 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)
Updated DYK query.svg 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[edit]

..♦ 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[edit]

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)

Page views graph[edit]

Information icon 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)

Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Starved Vietnamese man, 1966.JPEG
  • 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)
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[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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)


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)

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)

Erm, I stumbled across something by accident[edit]

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)

Stanhope Medal[edit]

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)
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[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg 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[edit]

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 Great Turnstile[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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)

London Meetup 109 at the Great Turnstile.JPG
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)

DYK nomination of Lights of North Shields[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Lights of North Shields 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) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, please respond soon. I would hate to see the nomination fail because no action was taken. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder. I'll attend to it this week. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


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)

DYK for Bocca di Lupo[edit]

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

DYK for The Gladstone Arms[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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)

New article improvement drives[edit]

Check out the following new article improvement drives and contests. North America1000 11:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<<

July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever.

August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration case[edit]

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)

DYK for High and Low Lights of North Shields[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2016[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png


Read this edition in fullSingle-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 15:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletterSubscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Screenshot showing a dropdown menu with options for editing the table structure

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

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 VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes[edit]

  • You can now set text as small or big.[2]
  • Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[3] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[4]
  • Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[5]
  • At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on[6]
  • The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[7] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
  • Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[8]

Future changes[edit]

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together[edit]

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

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, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-42[edit]

16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Destroyer[edit]

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)