User talk:Mdann52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
26 August 2015

John Scott (organist)[edit]

You've twice added the name "Douglas" to the late John Scott's father's name, citing an OTRS ticket (I've always wanted to volunteer for OTRS, never got around to looking into it). That addition has been twice reverted by Patrug and I think for good reason--the source for that line as it stands doesn't mention the name "Douglas". While I'm loath to removing information if it is indeed accurate, I would think we'd need a public, verifiable reliable source that could be examined before we can justify adding that information if we are to abide by the strictures of WP:BLP, especially. Could you shed some light on what in that ticket justifies that addition? JackTheVicar (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@JackTheVicar: if you want to volenteer for OTRS - feel free :) new volenteers are always useful (although I don't expect you to deal with as much of the stuff I do :P). The ticket is from a family member, citing that this is actually his grandfather. Unfortunately, this appears to have been incorrectly printed in a release sent to them, and this is the name cited in the source. They are trying to sort this out, but have contacted us and asked us to update the relevent information (disclaimer - they have asked me to pass all details on about this, so this isn't violating any privacy requirements IMO, however this is still my interpretation of the email). Mdann52 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there a specific policy that an OTRS ticket source trumps WP:V and WP:RS in this case? I'm not familiar with one that I've come across, so I defer to your judgment/knowledge. If there is, I'd mention it to Patrug and maybe put a note on the article's talk page to clarify the addition. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@JackTheVicar: Other than WP:IAR, there is not a policy per-say, however it seems common sense. I've done this in a similar situation before - a faulty press release was put out, and the people in question contacted us to amend the article while it was sorted out (which was actually done while I was discussing it with someone). While there is not a policy in this case, the fact that all the sources show the wrong name I feel shows they're sources are far from reliable. Mdann52 (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
perhaps we ought to write one. It seemed reasonable to me that OTRS fact/source should prevail, especially with a BLP, but even I was hesitant. After receiving your reply yesterday, i decided not to wait fir a new source or correction of the old and both reincluded it in the article and reached out to explain it to the other contributor, Patrug. I might run through a few databases to see if there's a public genealogy or vital record to use to augment it. Thanks for your patience and for discussing this. I appreciate the learning opportunity. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
coincidentally, Charles01 just added some sources to it. Situation alleviated. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In cases where the sources conflict with WP:THETRUTH, or the truth according to OTRS as the case here seems to be, I like to use weasel words: "...and Douglas Gavin Scott[1] (called Gavin Scott in some sources[2][3]) ..." or somesuch.


  1. ^ Personal communication, see WP:OTRS
  2. ^ The first faulty-yet-WP:RS cite
  3. ^ Another faulty WP:SOURCE.

Age-of-the-BLP disputes are similar, something like "...born in 1944 (or 1955 in some sources)..." (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-35[edit]

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Thank you for closing the debate. I'm just letting you know that as this proposal adresses a major policy issue, I may be asking for a second opinion on your closure. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Francis S. Thayer[edit]

Could you close this for me? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(PS.: The new working closer script is at User:TheDJ/closeFPC.js.)


You don't know me, but I saw your good comments on the Josh Duggar talk page regarding the section title. But I am writing to ask you a question. I see that the editor Winkelvi has made an enormous number of edits to the Duggar talk page – by a quick count, about 60 in just two hours today. He has done the same thing in numerous other articles, regularly changing what many other editors have contributed, including me. He even reported me (and a number of other editors) for edit-warring (with him). Is there some policy regarding an editor making a huge number of edits in articles in a very short period of time, particulary when they change content added by others? Just wondering because the editor seems to essentially be trying to take control of a lot of articles he edits. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: I just wanted to make you aware that I took my concerns to an administrator because the onslaught of edits at the Duggar article were not stopping. I figured you were probably busy. I did let that administrator know that I had originally asked another editor for input. Have a good evening. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lootbrewed: apologies I was busy, real life often throws suprises at me. While there is explicitly no policy against this, WP:DISRUPT may apply if they are using the changes in order to sneak through changes opposed by others. Depending on what changes he is making, it may also fall under WP:TE if he is completely changing the meaning of the sentence. Mdann52 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That isn't even close to what was happening, Mdann. It was clean-up, nothing more. If you're interested, look at my edits there yesterday. Lootbrewed has a little more than 200 edits and is new to the project, not knowing that numerous c/e type edits done consecutively is not unheard of. I encourage you to actually look at what I did rather than give the other editor fuel for his fire. Thanks,-- WV 15:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: I believed they were asking a question about what happens for someone who made a load of quick-fire edits, as opposed to this particular case. Whether there is anything here that requires action is not for me to decide. Mdann52 (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki citing between German and English[edit]

Hi Matt, I asked a question about interwiki citing between two languages, and you generously replied that you could help. The entry that needs to link wiki site of Gökce Yurdakul to a reference in the wiki site of Sila Sahin (in the German wiki site, the English is not identical). In Sila Sahin's German wiki site, Gökce Yurdakul's name appears "red" as I couldn't do the link. The reviewer (HBot, I think the name) of this wiki site wanted me to fix this problem. I could do the English-English links but not the German-English links. Thank you for your help. DSC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diversityandsocialconflict (talkcontribs) 08:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Diversityandsocialconflict: thanks - that makes it a bit clearer as to what I need to advise. To link across Wikipedia sites, you just need to prefix the link with ":xx:", xx being the language code at the start of the URL. For example, to link to "Gökce Yurdakul" on the German Wikipedia, the code is [[:de:Gökce Yurdakul]], producing de:Gökce Yurdakul. Mdann52 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message:Request for help[edit]

Hi Mdann52,

Thanks for responding to my request for help. My comments below refer to the Wiki New Beacon School article, controversy section. The section follows a long history of the school writing misleading statements attempting to conceal the fact that a child was abused at the school. This resulted in the Charities Commission advising the School to apologise, as the cover up was damaging to the victim. The Press covered the story and school apologised. But it continues its damaging behaviour on Wikipedia by selecting quotes and using biased language. The school has a financial and reputational interest in behaving in this way. It has now semi protected the site against editing. FYI I my comments are given below.

The section refers to the alleged cover up of sexual abuse of a boy at the school. The site has now been semi protected by the school and the headmaster. Mike Piercy apparently wrote the controversy section. The section is biased in that it is stated that the Seveonaoks Chronicle claims....... The word claims should be replaced with the word reported. The Newspaper made no claims, merely reported the proven facts. The word "claims" is a piece of blatant spin used by the author to minimise public perception of the schools behaviour in response to the award of by Criminial Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of sexual abuse of one of its pupils.

The word claimed is also used in respect of the perpetrator having been previously suspended. Again, the newspaper made no claims. It reported the facts. The words claimed should be changed to the word reported.

In the first sentence, the same "spin" technique is is used....."....a former pupil who claimed...." The use of the word claim implies doubt. The school has written to the child saying that did not doubt his testimony, but is saying another thing publicly. The sentence should be changed to "....a former pupil disclosed".

The page should not be an advertisement and public relations platform for the New Beacon School. It should be open to editing. Otherwise Wiki is being used by the school to protect its reputation in the very serious matter of the sexual abuse of children.

In 2015, The Daily Telegraph online reported that a Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Award had been made in January 2013 in respect of the sexual abuse of a pupil at New Beacon School by a former teacher who was convicted of sexual offences of other children.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnobrienuk (talkcontribs)

I've reworded the article to be more neutral and a compromise between the two. While the article shouldn't be an advert, it should also not be unduly negative. Mdann52 (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Template:Connected contributor[edit]

I hope you have not finished, because it does not work any more. Example at Draft talk:Robert Bloom (2) Fiddle Faddle 07:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mdann52 bot 9 - I am fixing these. Thanks for reporting this, I'll take a look to see why the legacy code is not working (I suspect it's because one of my assumptions while merging was wrong...) Mdann52 (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
More power to your elbow. The merge is an excellent idea and long overdue. Fiddle Faddle 07:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: This page uses slightly odd code that shouldn't of worked really with the old template (taking a quick look). It's annoying because this is why I'm having to do this semi-automatically or even manually, but hey ho. Hopefully this will all be fixed by the end of the week, only another 7000 or so to go :P Mdann52 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A suggestion, if one be needed, that for a single use the "U" prefix be omitted, and only added as U2, U3 etc for multiple uses. All templates are odd because of the bizarre and arcane tempting language, a language designed to befuddle even the best programmer.
Would you mind reverting the template to the unmerged state while you ponder the issue, or has work gone too far for that? Be aware any other editor might do that, of course. Fiddle Faddle 07:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I'm trying to not break the existing uses either, however I will add this in as an option later. I'm waiting for my trial to be signed off right now, so I'll take a look at the breaking issue. Note, however, that reverting this will break those I've already converted, so we can't really win either way :( Mdann52 (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Draft talk:Robert Bloom (2), it now appears to be at least half working, that will probably be the best it can be until my bot comes across it later on. Mdann52 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Good answer Face-smile.svg Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I have another single-user example if you need it at Talk:Anglian Home Improvements. Thanks for working on this! --Drm310 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drm310: I'm aware of this - however, it's not worth going through and changing it all over just for me to go through and fix it shortly, I hope you'll agree. In the meantime, it still appears fully functional, so this bodge should do. Mdann52 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

fields needed per ToU[edit]

Hello Mdann52, you requested that folks ping you, if they had suggestions for the template, to make it easier for beginners. I suggest something like this:

  • {{Connected_contributor | "my_employer_is" = SPECIFIC_CORPORATION_GOES_HERE | "my_client_is" = SPECIFIC_ENTITY_GOES_HERE | "comment_about_nature_of_the_conflict_of_interest" = IS_RELATIONSHIP_FINANCIAL_OR_ACQUIANTANCE_OR_OTHER }}

By default, unless the "my_username_is"= and the "my_link_is"= fields are specified and filled with valid wikilinks, the username of the currently-editing person (the one saving the connected-contributor-template to a talkpage in the usual case), and also the wikilink to their userpage, ought to be automagically included by default. Thanks, (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably going to make a new general field in here - saying that, I think the template is clear enough at the minute (and the otherlinks accepts any text too). Of course, if enough people think this is useful and needed, I will add it in still, this just seems a bit cumbersome to me... Mdann52 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the template is clear enough to me personally as well, but then, I found your usertalk by way of not one, but two separate noticeboard discussions, where people felt the template in particular (and the helpdocs in general) could be made considerably more crystal clear, so to speak. How many times have you seen people with usernames like "User:TheCorporationWhereImWorkingAsAnEmployee" and get procedurally-blocked? Yet, we don't have a big warning-sign when you register, that says in unmistakeably crystal-clear fashion, DO NOT USE YOUR EMPLOYER'S NAME AS YOUR USERNAME... and so we keep having problems. My suggestions are along the same lines: we need a crystal-clear template, which makes it 100% unmistakeably apparent, that if you are here to edit on behalf of your employer, or if you are here to edit on behalf of a client of your PR firm, that you must disclose per ToU the name of the client, the name of the PR firm (if applicable), and the nature of the relationship (aka "I work at TheTopicOfTheArticle" or sometimes "I work at ThePrFirm hired by TheTopicOfTheArticle"). I realize that template-syntax adjustment are probably necessary-yet-insufficient, to accomplish the overall goal, of making fewer people get a needlessly-harsh reception here on the 'pedia during their first few edits, but since you asked I figured I would give some advice.  ;-)     p.s. Agree about the cumbersome-ness assessment, but sometimes, COBOL syntax is just what the doctor ordered. (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I get your point entirely, but I don't see how this will seek to achieve what you want. In theory, this template should only be used for declared COI's (IMO), not suspected ones. If the COI is declared, then we almost certainly know the information, and that can be linked to with using a diff in the otherlinks bit (as well as details). I agree that we need better education sooner, and I think modifying the signup page would be a good start. However, I don't see how this template will help with that, and personally, I feel a more personalised approach to getting a declaration is needed - and we need to take into account that not every new user will know how to fill this out, hence why a template is not the best way of doing this. Of course, if anyone can come up with a new signup page, I'm all for that and I'll happily send it off to the devs to look at.
On the topic of documentation, I am going to try and rewrite this - however, I'd rather do this once, then having to redo this every few minutes as I add in a new feature, but this is on my todo list
Thanks for your suggestions - however, I hope you can see where my point of view is coming from on this, and why I would like to see more agreement before moving towards this. Mdann52 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed with all points, but especially the one about the template-arglist not being a silver bullet. I would request that you make the helpdocs as clear as you can, however, and explicitly say "if you are tagging someone you suspect of having COI do this..." and also "if you are editing wikipedia about your employer or your PR client do this..." and the more generic "if there are articles about you/yourBand/yourKinfolk/yourEmployer/yourProducts/etc here on wikipedia then do this..." type of thing. Anyways, appreciate you listening, talk to you later, (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to pop in and leave a similar suggestion to what was making. My thoughts on this was to have a template that a PE could use to easily comply with the ToU on either their user page or on the article talk page, as either is acceptable. I think Mdann52's idea is workable though, especially with some updates to the template docs and to WP:PCD explaining how the disclosure should be done and how to use the connected contributor template on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Since your talkpage-information clearly states, and I quote:

  • Please note I... reply immediately, as I... have stuff... [to] do [for you]...; I'm... chained to Wikipedia 24/7..."[3]

Well in that case....  ;-)     Here is something that you can peek at, if you like. I was unable to insert a history-link into an afc-comment, because the template gave me an error, and a misleading errmsg at that ("no comment specified"). If you think I may have misrepresented your actual edit-notice, or if you are otherwise occupied, no problem, somebody will fix it at some point. But while I was here, figured I would joggle your elbow, in case it was low-hanging fruit. (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note there about this, but I don't think I can really do anything about this... Mdann52 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

why u delete CATC information[edit]

Hi, i wanna know why u delete CATC informations? they were wrong? i exactly do ur opinion. 860ali (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@860ali: it was unsourced, and the tone and content was not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Mdann52 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1- How can I translate a page for wiki? my source was fawiki and i studied in CATC. I know the fawiki is right for this article. i cant refer to fawiki or Iran's CATC official site?
2- its tone did not neutral point of view? (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You cannot cite another Wikipedia article, you need an external source. The tone on the removed text did not comply with WP:NPOV. Mdann52 (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion needed[edit]

Can you please take a look at a concern I have at St. Paul's School. On August 20, an editor named Fred_Bauder created a section called "Socialization". All the content in the section was contributed by that one editor and is derived completely from one book written by an alumnus of the school named Shamus Khan. When I first saw and read the section, it struck me as very inappropriate to devote an entire section to the opinions of one man written in one book, regardless of whether he attended the school or not. Also very concerning is the fact that some of the content is even written in Wikipedia's voice.

I think it's very relevant to note that the editor and I were having a discussion about an unrelated matter on the talk page, and I made the comment to him that "my only concern is assuring that only reliably-sourced, encylopedic content is included" in the article. His response really surprised me and seems to explain his motivation for adding the socialization content (which he had already done over a week earlier). His reply to me was, "My interest is more sociological than anything else; I read Shamus Khan's book Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School. According to Khan boys on scholarship, like Owen Labrie, sometimes don't fit in because they try too hard rather than having, or acquiring, the ease associated with successful socialization at St. Paul's. Seems to be true in his case." (As you probably know from the news, Owen Labrie is the recent St. Paul's graduate who was just convicted on rape charges.)

My initial hunch was to either remove the entire section, or to just leave a sentence or two about how an alum wrote a book about the school and merge it into an existing section. But I decided to do nothing and seek the opinion of someone who seems to be a very good, experienced editor. That's why I'm writing. Perhaps I'm way off base on this. Or maybe I'm right on the money. I don't know. But I would value your opinion or any other experienced editor(s) you might want to confer with about this. I will support whatever action you or other editors you consult with deem appropriate. Thanks for your time. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of the appropriateness of that particular content, I just read the entire article to see if there's any other content that perhaps should also be removed. In my opinion, there is an enormous amount of other existing content that doesn't belong, and sounds like it was written either by St. Paul's students/alumni or the school's marketing people. And a lot of it, by the way, is also unsourced. There's a large amount of clearly non-encylopedic information about routine activities, programs, and facilities, which, besides being non-enyclopedic, is essentially original research. For example, there's an entire lengthy section detailing each and every dormitory, and another detailed section devoted solely to the "Advanced Studies Program", which I feel should be limited to just a sentence and included in an "Academics" or similar section (which doesn't exist). I think you'll see exactly what I'm talking about regarding all the non-encylopedic content if you look at these sections: "Dormitories", "Daily life", "Religion", "Traditions", and "Advanced Studies Program". As you can see, this would be a massive cleanup project since it involves a high percentage of the article's total content. Please help. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-36[edit]

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)