Jump to content

User talk:Graham87/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

They didn't slow down

Hi. In October of 2016 you asked this user to slow down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:P2prules#Please_slow_down
... and that he/she is better off updating in their native tongue and I agree wholeheartedly. But apparently they haven't slowed down. I spent hours today tracking pages they updated with the same amount of large copied text across articles and I warned them as well on their talk page. The thing is the user never responds to anything on their talk page. I don't even think they know it exists. I emailed as well. I've never warned someone. Just thought I'd let you know in case you have other suggestions. Level C (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

African Americans/Washington DC

Hi. Just curious, because it seems like a topic, that may need help, what was the "nuked" decision [1] about (and is there a link to a discussion)? Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Frankie Valli

I removed those refs from the Frankie Valli article because they appear to be unreliable. I didn't revert your changes, though. ;)

And while we're on the subject of Frankie, there's a new section in the talk page about Texas Jean that I created myself. I was just wondering if you knew much on how Texas Jean spelled her surname; and if it was spelled with an "I" at the end, it would be helpful to find out why Frankie used "EY" at the end for some time. Classicalfan626 (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I know of no other source other than findagrave.com that lists Mary's maiden name, other than her obituary contained inside it. Classicalfan626 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and, for the record, I stumbled upon the findagrave site for Mary, which indicates that the obituary was published in the Star-Ledger, a newspaper based in Newark, New Jersey, on May 3, 2007. If you do some digging, you may find the actual obituary. Note: As much as I don't trust the mainstream media, which I strongly suspect the Star-Ledger is a part of, that publication should suffice as a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Ed section on Jimbo's page

Just a quick note. The user who started the Wiki Ed section has since been temp banned and cannot remove the Do not archive notice. Now that Mr. Wales has answered the question, it can perhaps be archived? Karst (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Images?

I don't mean to be rude, I was just wondering what kind of input do you have for images. Do you have someone outside who describes them to you? (EDIT: I am thinking of the idea, not you personally.) Sammy D III (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sammy D III: I don't usually need them described , but if I do, yes, I'd ask somebody. Graham87 04:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I would think you have support outside, I was wondering how much of it comes inside Wikipedia. I am also trying to think of "you" as a group, but it must be a very small one. Does someone have the knowledge of a subject to say "in this one z comes in front of y"? Does anyone even care enough to follow you in (nobody here does)?
We often describe physical things, I wondered if "describers" (not me personally) had a practical use. I don't know the blind world, maybe they exist, but I thought I would dump the idea on you. That's all I have, thanks for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sammy D III: I've occasionally asked for help when I've needed it at places like the ghelp desk, which has always been quick and efficient. You're right, there aren't many of us on Wikipedia, but we get by. As for describing things, there's audio description for TV, movies, and museums, and there is a smartphone app called Be My Eyes which connects blind people needing something described with sighted volunteers willing to do that for them. Graham87 13:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The help desk is text? Audio description seems sort of entertainment? Be My Eyes is great, but it is too valuable to use here? I never thought about the expiration date of milk, that is an example. I was just thinking of existing images.
I describe and explain machines to my bicycle-fanatic but otherwise ignorant son-in-law. I tried to widen the idea, but the market here just isn't big enough, you are better off on your own. But I got you to think about it, so I win. This is about as far as I can go, thank you for your time, have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sammy D III: Oh, one more thing ... your mention of existing images reminded me of something: alt text, which may or may not be closer to what you were thinking of. Graham87 15:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking of helping ignorant editors understand what they were looking at. This is not quite it, but in the real world this looks pretty useful. I think I may have found my next "career". Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Truck page.

Hi Graham,

Mate, I have an issue with the Truck Wikipedia page.

I can see you changed it after I tried to change the 'Biggest Manufacturer' table so as to reflect reality.

In the table 'Truck Market Worldwide', it lists Volvo Group as no.1 with 803k units delivered in 2015.

Now, I have read that Volvo report that is the source front to back, and the figure on the wiki is wrong.

Nowhere on page 76 is there a 'truck delivery figure mentioned'.

This is mentioned on page 89, and is 207k units.

Volvo Group are not the largest truck manufacturer at all, that is firmly in the hands of Daimler.

Anyhow, I hope you are able to help out, the facts are the facts and all that.

If you need to chat, sevnt5 AT gmail etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.111.87 (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sammy D III:, I think this one's for you, also, since you originally updated the table. Do whatever you like here. FWIW, what the original poster said about the Volvo report is correct from where I sit. Did you get a figure/source mixed up somewhere, or is there more to this story? Graham87 11:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sharp, very weak in math, and I am so missing something. I looked at the different groups, no luck, but I could look forever for a mistake. I never should have tried this if I can't get closer.
First line on page 76 has "second largest manufacturer of heavy-duty trucks". But the "Market development, heavy-duty trucks, Thousands" chart sounds like actual numbers of trucks built, and comes out as 1,419,000(?) in 2015, way out of line with anything else. The first line also mentions "buses and construction equipment ", but that chart looks like trucks only to me. You should watch busses at Daimler too.
I think it is pretty clear that you should check every figure, maybe take the table down until it makes any sense. EDIT: 207,000 doesn't work either, that would make them #5, correct? Damn, did I get any figure correct anywhere?
I'm an idiot, but I just can't believe I missed it so bad, and have no clue how. I will be watching to see what you can salvage, don't bother explaining. Good luck and thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sammy D III and 210.185.111.87: and In that case, I've just undone my reversion of the aforementioned edits. They're probably better than nothing, at this point. To the IP editor, please use an edit summary next time, or explain yourself on the article's talk page. Graham87 15:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Volvo 207,475 from p. 89 good. Several manufactures show different built and sold numbers. Tata 317,780 is domestic, 377,193 total from p. 53. Hino numbers are Trucks and Buses. Sammy D III (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Block, 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0:/32

A person using a device having the above IP number (2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0:/32) has reported that it is impossible to edit using that device due to a block request from user Graham87. The person reportedly made no disruptive editing to this site and believes the block to be unfair or meant for another user/device. Ergo, it is requested that the block be removed.

The person in question states that it is impossible to make this request on the devices user page, hence the request appearing here. Under no circumstances should any affiliation, relationship, or like sentiments be projected upon the user(s) of this IP address and whatever it is that the other device/user has been accused of.

Thank you, and please remove the block unjustly placed upon the IP address in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3600:93A0:E58C:37C3:916B:4085 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer for Graham: No. Katietalk 20:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie and Graham87:
 An unblock request was made on your talk page.  As yet, there has been no response by you or any other     editor upon your page.  Rather, you have chosen to use Graham87's page to give your denial.

In your denial you give no reason(s) for it, nor have any reasons yet been given for the block itself. It is mentioned on the blocked user page that there have been no real edits made by that IP number, whether it was assigned to the blocked user or another device with a shared IP number. In effect, this block and denial have been both been made without submitting any actual evidence of wrongdoing or malice; the individual editors involved have not exhibited any reasons for their draconian block.

Before appealing this denial to a higher level, it is requested that both the reasons for the original block and the resultant block appeal denial be made by either of the herein named editors. As this request is being presently made on Graham87's talk page, in theory it would be expected for the response to appear here, also.

Additionally, Graham87, I understand that an editor may be so involved with his or her duties so deeply as to be temporarily unavailable for administration tasks like this present one. I am certain that it was considerate of KrakatoaKatie to handle this matter, a relatively trivial one, but it is curious why KrakatoaKatie's denial would appear on your talk page rather than his or hers (an unblock request was made on that editor's talk page simultaneously as this present one on yours). Thus, it is further requested that you or another editor with sufficient Wikipedia editing authority as KrakatoaKatie you and share please take notice of any possible improprieties made in this block appeal request's handling and response.

And again: This appeal is being made in this fashion as the blocked user is unable to make the appeal from the device that shares/is assigned the blocked IP number. Under no circumstances should the IP number appearing with this present post and appeal be considered as synonymous with anyone, group, or organization involved with the other, the blocked IP number. This is simply a courtesy done for the maligned party.

Thank you, and please remove the block at your convenience.2602:306:3600:93A0:CDBE:7855:E113:2F6D (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Still ... no. Graham87 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Of course it is wished to escalate this appeal to the next level, but before that is done it is requested, for clarity's sake, for information about the offending edits/posts. No record can be found of any edits or posts from that IP number. There appears to be numerous false accusations in this entire matter. Of course that causes difficulty in appealing the block as the appeal must be made without even knowing how to address it, without knowing what the original transgression was. It must be difficult for an editor like yourself to make any kind of determination or decision on blocking any user on this site as, conceivably, you yourself have not been made aware of what the problem is. Have you viewed the posts yourself? If not, are you certain they ever existed?

Could you please post the contested edits or posts here, Graham87, so the next level's appeal can proceed in an orderly fashion?

Thank you very much, and again this appeal is done from a device other than the blocked one due to the block extending to that IP's user's talk page.2602:306:3600:93A0:1859:5F4B:99BD:31D9 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Graham87 08:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Great interview - I really enjoyed reading it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks! Graham87 12:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I enjoyed the article too -- it was really interesting. Keep up the good work! --Albany NY (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Albany NY! Graham87 06:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Graham87. You have new messages at Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/GA1.
Message added 04:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I noticed you are one of the top ten editors on Whiskey Rebellion. The article was nominated for a WP:GA by User:Barbara (WVS) in November 2016. I started my Review in December. Barbara sent me a January 5th Thank You note. I sent her a Talkback about the Review a week ago but she has not responded to or discussed my Review concerns. So I was wondering if you would be willing to work on this article along with any other interested editors so I could finish my Review. Maybe you could take a look at the Review page and let me know? Thanks in advance. Shearonink (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops?

Hey Graham!

This IP address is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 04:42, 27 January 2017 Graham87 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 82.132.192.0/18 (talk) with an expiration time of 4 decades, 7 years, 85 days, 19 hours, 10 minutes and 26 seconds (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: User:MariaJaydHicky ... shortening block per User talk:82.132.216.74)

An accident occurred when trying to shorten the block, I assume? Because that kinda isn't two months. MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Deltopia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deltopia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deltopia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

August 2001 dump

I'm not sure if you were already aware of this, so I cc'd you on phab:T155014 as I thought you'd be interested in it :) Legoktm (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Ooooohh, thanks, I've commented there. Graham87 05:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Max Reger

Sorry to bother you with a major task: the works of Max Reger. They were collected in a table called List of compositions by Max Reger, [2]. I made a sortable list which I called Max Reger works, later renamed List of works by Max Reger. I thought the two might coexist, but then realized that I was the only one interested in the "compositions" for a long time (from 2014), so redirected it. Can you merge the histories as List of compositions by Max Reger, and merge the content of "works" completely, not partly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I don't do history merges unless there's been a literal cut-and-paste move between two pages. So you don't need my help here. Graham87 02:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, there was this cut and paste move. I could imagine to restore the page to two, as we have List of compositions by Francis Poulenc and FP (Poulenc), - the Reger sortable table could be Op (Reger), - see also the discussion on classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Ah I see what happened now. This diff illustrates the cut-and-paste move more cleanly, but the diff in the other direction isn't so compelling, particularly because there are a couple of parallel edits in the "List of compositions ..." page which are important in their own right (particularly the last one, where you redirected the page). I hate these sorts of situations ... there's no quick solution that doesn't create an even bigger potential mess. There are also the two talk pages to consider ... and I think it's important that talk page histories correspond to article histories, where possible. Graham87 09:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That's why I think the best might be to restore the compositions to their last version, and the works to their last version, and write an attribution on the works, and let the project decide what to do. To have that compositions article doesn't hurt even if nobody needs it, and I was almost the only contributor from 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Would you perhaps do that? I am not neutral ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: No thanks; I'd prefer not to get involved in this. Graham87 12:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
understand ;) - listen to music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The Reger discussion is now on classical music, as your watchlist will probably tell you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow, thanks! Time flies! Graham87 07:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Your edit summary on disabled parking permit made me laugh. "For now" haha! Jackiekoerner (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jackiekoerner: LOL, I couldn't help myself. Thanks for the brownie; nom nom nom! Graham87 03:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Whiskey Rebellion

On 22 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Whiskey Rebellion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that only two men who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion were convicted of treason, but were later pardoned by President George Washington? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whiskey Rebellion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Whiskey Rebellion), 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Group into the dog rapper vandal ip block - ! Please help

Hey Graham87. I'm User:Shameran81, I'm leading a new editor workshop today and have 45 folks coming who don't have Wikipedia accounts. I had the special account creator status granted to my username, but unfortunately, for some reason, when I go to practice, I'm being grouped into a dog rapper vandal block based on my IP address. "Account creation from IP addresses in the range 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, which includes your IP address (2607:fb90:2786:be29:80b4:8d9c:c05e:eed2), has been blocked by Graham87.

The reason given by Graham87 is Disruptive editing: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal."

(I use my iphone hotspot for my internet and may also do so today at the event). Can you help lift it for me? Or direct me to the place where I can still have the account creator status and the vandalism block can continue? Trying not to panic! Thanks. Shameran81 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Graham, hello, thanks for your quick replies to my messages last week and lifting the IP block. (Tho I'm still mystified why I am included in this block, it shouldn't matter at this point). In any case, the event was a success. All the best to you. Shameran81 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Miriam Makeba

Hi there, and thanks for adding material and cleaning up after me. Just wanted to note, though, that this is very much a work in progress; hence the under-construction tag. I welcome your cleanup efforts, but I do wonder if they would be more useful after a content dump has happened. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Fair enough, and thanks for your note. I was going to wait until the dust had settled, but your (completely understandable) removal of her second husband's name triggered me into action, so to speak, because I thought I'd fixed that up before], but my memory was failing me. Unless I find something really egregious/easy to fix, I'll stay out of your way from now on. Graham87 15:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
No worries! And if you want to add stuff at the same time I'm sure we can work things out, too...right now I'm unlikely to be active during the American afternoon and evening, for instance, and I can make use of the "in use" tag if needed. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey again; just fyi, I'm basically done with my content dump, and am working on cleaning up and writing a lead; so you could probably do stuff again without us running into each other. I want to get the article to GA status eventually, so any suggestions you may have would also be welcome. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Cool, thanks for letting me know. I'll take a good look soon ... not right away though as I have about fifty billion other things to do right now. Graham87 00:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Shyla Stylez

The edit history of this page seems to be incomplete (the first edit has a negative byte count change). Can you investigate? 103.6.159.71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the note. It's not that the history was incomplete; rather, it was too complete. See the deletion log, where there is an entry from May 2005. The revisions there were undeleted in March 2016, along with the rest of the article. The problem is related to revision ID numbers, which are assigned by MediaWiki to each edit made to Wikipedia. They are used to determine the differences in bytes in page histories. Revision ID numbers were lost when a page was deleted until MediaWiki was upgraded to version 1.5 in June 2005, after the May 2005 deletion, so when the May 2005 edits were undeleted, they got a new revision ID number. At the time of the undeletion, there was a bug where undeletions/imports involving edits with new ID numbers would cause the byte count changes to be wonky. Because the May 2005 edits were never meant to be undeleted, I've shunted them off to a temp subpage and deleted them their. Graham87 09:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Import of an article from deWP

Dear Graham87! Thank you for your quick help with import of User:IrmaCan/Kriegskind! The reason that Itti asked for import is the following: when I arrived in the deWP I tried to translate the (few) articles I wrote there with my poor self-made English. As I do not understand elaborated English, I never before asked for an import but did it by c&p (only my articles). Some time ago IrmaCan arrived in WP and she is so kind to translate for me. She is bilingual, so with a better English. But she is a beginner with WP, so we work together. This is our first import and we will do our best. Thanks again for your help and best wishes from Berlin to Australia! 💐--Andrea014 (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(watching) Here, you don't have to "import" - as the other way round - but can attribute the German article on the talk page, for example here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I know. But I read something that they will start here with the system of import. Well before we did it like here or here and usually we prepard it on my sandbox. The bad thing with it is: the work of IrmaCan is not to be seen. (Btw: will Graham87 will see the little flower I sent or should I give a word for it?) Have a nice time --Andrea014 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andrea014 and Gerda Arendt: No worries! Yes, imports are optional here, not required. My screen reader read out the bouquet emoji ... thanks for the flowers! :-) Graham87 00:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Graham, what do you think of the Reger merge? - The sapphire coming with Precious is dark-blue, a polished gem photographed by PumpkinSky, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: It seems alright from here, but I don't have any strong opinion about it. Cool about the sapphire! Graham87 08:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham87/Archive_39&oldid=1143030019"