User talk:Davidwr

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

People are more important than Wikipedia.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) January 22, 2014

Topics are (or are not) notable. Articles adequately demonstrate a topic's notability, or they do not. A topic's notability does not depend on Wikipedia article content.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) February 11, 2014

(regarding oft-repeated arguments) That horse may not be dead yet, but it needs to be put out of its misery.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC) (off-wiki)
{{Alarm clock}}
  • Get User:Davidwr/David Hernández (Chicago) ready to move into Draft: or the main encyclopedia.
  • Consider sending International Historians Association to AFD - check for WP:GNG first.
  • Make sure these are undone. Everything above 2014-02-04 19:30:23/Red Crowned Amazon.jpg/ is done.
  • study feasibility of merging all old[delete[multi]]full Talk:-namespace templates into one, e.g. old afd multi, old afd full, old prod full, etc.
  • Modify Template:PROD so it pre-fills an "old prod full" that the deprodder can copy-and-paste to the talk page.
  • Modify Template:Histmerge so it pre-fills useful information for the admin doing the history merge in cases of complex merges.
  • WT:WPAFC / CAT:PEND - 201 pending submissions

The Signpost
25 November 2015
This page last updated at 2015-12-01 09:44:22 PM UTC.

To leave me a message, click on the + tab at the top of the page. Be sure to add ~~~~ to your message so I know who you are.

ping test[edit]

@7&6=thirteen: Did you get notified of this? You should have, I entered it as {{ping|1=7&6=thirteen}}. (see Template:Reply_to#Error_messages for details).

I'm testing this because of a note I saw on your talk page earlier today. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. When I clicked on the message it brought me here. Yippee!. I do know that I had problems a long time ago as the format of my user name was prohibited, and I was grandfathered in. Thanks for your concern. 7&6=thirteen () 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-45[edit]

16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Current monarchies[edit]

I have not deleted the Category. I have simply diffused some content to the lowest applicable in the tree structure. As it happens, most of the ones that I diffused were Constitutional Monarchies, which is a lower and more accurate description of the content. In the event that, say, Papua New Guinea, ceases to be part of the Commonwealth, this category can be simple overwritten with the category Former Monarchies. The "by continent" articles were likewise properly diffused to their parent "by continent" parents; this category was entirely redundant in their case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: For every existing monarchy that is not in Category:Current monarchies, I should be able to follow a "chain of categories" and wind up in Category:Current monarchies. If any of the sub-categories that you diffused articles to, such as Category:Constitutional monarchies, are true sub-categories of Category:Current monarchies (that is, by definition every member of that category or any of its sub-categories is a current monarchy) then please add those categories to Category:Constitutional monarchies. If you diffused articles into categories that are not true sub-categories, please either re-add them to Category:Current monarchies or add them to a sub-category (or sub-sub, or sub-sub-sub, etc.) of Category:Current monarchies so that people looking at Category:Current monarchies can find them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-46[edit]

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Feuerwerks-gif.gif Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Orphaned non-free image File:Zee Entertainment Enterprises.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Zee Entertainment Enterprises.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


I noticed at WP:PERM/R you mentioned rollback was too easy to hit on your touchscreen device? This should not happen as there is a default-enabled gadget that requires confirmation with rollback in mobile browsers. If you still don't want rollback that's of course okay, but would you mind sharing which device/browser you are using so that I can update the gadget? Thank you! MusikAnimal talk 18:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Safari/iPhone. I don't know that I have ever used it on a mobile device, it's just that avoiding it requires extra care. The mis-use was an intentional use where I had a good-faith reason to thing rollback was appropriate but a second look convinced me that I jumped the gun. Pedro already changed the user-rights and I already thanked him for it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Mobile Safari should be covered, for what it's worth, so you wouldn't need to worry about accidentally hitting it :) Additionally there's scripts like User:MusikAnimal/rollbackTouch that will hide the link altogether on mobile. If you ever would like rollback reinstated don't hesitate to ask. Cheers MusikAnimal talk 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously if you ever want the user right added back in just let me know, no problem. Pedro :  Chat  13:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-47[edit]

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Notifying you of a Dispute Regarding article[edit]

See here. Thanks LRappaport (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Coexist (image)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Coexist (image) 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) 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-48[edit]

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:QPQP For British committee of the Indian National Congress[edit]

Thankyou David, is there any article noms you would like to review?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I already reviewed {{Did you know nominations/British Committee of the Indian National Congress}}. As time allows, I will do my usual mix of content- and non-content work on Wikipedia, including reviewing additional Did You Know nominations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Followup: It just occurred to me that you may be asking of there are any article nominations I would like you to review. I prefer not to review contributions by people who are reviewing mine (and when I do so, it's because I did not check first), and likewise I prefer that editors of pages I review not review my nominations, especially if I reviewed them favorably. I can't speak for you individually, but if someone has "done me a favor" by reviewing a nomination I made favorably, I am less likely to be un-biased reviewing a submission I know they are involved with than if I review a submission that they are not involved with or which I am unaware of their involvement (the reality is that I am likely to over-compensate and judge "too harshly"). I assume the same is true for at least a significant percentage (hopefully less than a majority) of Did You Know participants. If it were up to me, I would add to the "rules" that editors should try to avoid giving final approval to paged nominated by or which had significant input from editors who favorably reviewed their own contributions, realizing that sometimes low DYN participation or the need to fulfill a "quid pro quo" obligation means either doing a review even if there may be a "DYN conflict of interest" in order to avoid introducing unnecessary delays. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-49[edit]

16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guide to Deletion[edit]

David, I thought you would be interested to know that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard does not know our well-established AfD procedures. Moreover, anyone who suggests that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome needs to do some more reading; nowhere in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Editing policy is such a preference for the preservation of article history (as opposed to article content -- not the same thing) actually stated. The Guide to Deletion recognizes the distinction between history and content, and the validity of an !vote to delete the history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had remembered it but when I looked for that wording the other day somehow I missed it. I'm glad it was my oversight and not an oversight in the documentation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Some folks in these discussions are trying to de-legitimize "delete and redirect" AfD !votes and consensus outcomes, when in fact "delete and redirect" outcomes have been a part of our standard AfD procedures almost since the beginning. I am more than a little disturbed by the assertion of several DRV participants that they may overturn "delete" and "delete and redirect" consensus outcomes on the flimsiest of pretexts and the assertion of a non-existent policy preference for preserving article history whenever possible. WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion policy both support the preservation of article content by fixing articles for notable subjects, or by merging content to other articles. Neither policy actually mentions article history, despite the assertions made by several discussion participants to the contrary. That's the real dispute behind these two DRVs and the RfC. Of course the RfC is so poorly organized and written that anyone who is new to the debate probably can't make heads or tails of it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is visibility/education/ignorance: I've participated in many AFDs over the years and when I needed to find that document, I couldn't. You've probably already seen (or will see when you check your watchlist) that I've created a second, independent, proposal to change what is on XfD pages which should solve the visibility problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/British Committee of the Indian National Congress[edit]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)