User talk:Mdann52/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mdann52. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mdann52. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
RFCU RFC closure
Please revert yourself. There is no need to snow-close the discussion early over objections about early closure and you certainly should not be edit warring to reinstate your early closure where reasonable objections exist over the same. Snow closure is not appropriate here. –xenotalk 15:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Additionally, it seems pointless to let a discussion run for 30 days when the outcome is clear after 11. The discussion after the !vote (which seems to be far more constructive) is still going, so that will hopefully generate a result. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is not pointless; RFCU has existed for nearly a decade, not every user will login every day, or every week, even every other week, and a full 30 days to discuss closing the venue is not an imposition. There is no need for a "snow" close, the community deserves a proper close, at the appropriate time. –xenotalk 15:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why you, Xeno, determine what is "proper" and what isn't. RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't. The RFC procedure does. Imagine a user showing up in a few days to file an RFCU, finds the venue shuttered and their investigation reveals it was closed, inappropriately, in a rushed manner, out of process. They will feel disenfranchised. RFCs last 30 days for a reason and there is no need to short-circuit this important discussion, and certainly one shouldn't edit war over it when there are multiple good faith requests to let the process run the full allocated time. –xenotalk 15:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is no need to run an RfC for thirty days if consensus is clear after ten or so. "Process" is not the be all end all. Whether it was done "inappropriately" is not a matter for you to decide. We don't have "franchise" here, because we are not a democracy. Do what's good for the project as a whole, as a collective. RGloucester — ☎ 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to interrupt, but to be fair, the RfC/U process has existed for longer than you've been using your account (or longer than Mdann52 has been using his). It's an established process (even if it is not necessarily a good one or one which should have existed for long as it has) and has been listed as a step in the dispute resolution process as I mention below. There is simply no urgency to remove the procedure in the absence of the Village Pump discussion running its course. Contrary to your opinion, there are others who are waiting for some useful proposal to flow from the Village Pump discussion - and even if none arises, at least the full opportunity was given for any member of the Community to propose a more effective dispute resolution step (if any). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is precisely why the discussion should not be closed early. Others may be reserving judgment waiting until closer to the end of the RFC, these editors will now no longer be able to opine in support or opposition because it has been inappropriately closed out-of-process. –xenotalk 15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to interrupt, but to be fair, the RfC/U process has existed for longer than you've been using your account (or longer than Mdann52 has been using his). It's an established process (even if it is not necessarily a good one or one which should have existed for long as it has) and has been listed as a step in the dispute resolution process as I mention below. There is simply no urgency to remove the procedure in the absence of the Village Pump discussion running its course. Contrary to your opinion, there are others who are waiting for some useful proposal to flow from the Village Pump discussion - and even if none arises, at least the full opportunity was given for any member of the Community to propose a more effective dispute resolution step (if any). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is no need to run an RfC for thirty days if consensus is clear after ten or so. "Process" is not the be all end all. Whether it was done "inappropriately" is not a matter for you to decide. We don't have "franchise" here, because we are not a democracy. Do what's good for the project as a whole, as a collective. RGloucester — ☎ 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't. The RFC procedure does. Imagine a user showing up in a few days to file an RFCU, finds the venue shuttered and their investigation reveals it was closed, inappropriately, in a rushed manner, out of process. They will feel disenfranchised. RFCs last 30 days for a reason and there is no need to short-circuit this important discussion, and certainly one shouldn't edit war over it when there are multiple good faith requests to let the process run the full allocated time. –xenotalk 15:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why you, Xeno, determine what is "proper" and what isn't. RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is not pointless; RFCU has existed for nearly a decade, not every user will login every day, or every week, even every other week, and a full 30 days to discuss closing the venue is not an imposition. There is no need for a "snow" close, the community deserves a proper close, at the appropriate time. –xenotalk 15:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've undid your edit on the RfC/U page which attempted to mark it historical. Can you please allow the Village Pump discussion to run its course before it is closed? As for any potential new RfC/Us, those can run their course if in fact they are created. It has been a listed as a step in the dispute resolution process for a very long time (possibly too long in fact), but it is unjustified to prematurely mark it historical. The urgency simply does not exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: the disussion has run it's course enough to see that the consensus is that RfC should not be used. The discussion about what should replace it continues, but the current recommendation was to ask people to use ANI. I was actually in the process of rewriting the page to make this clearer; Unfortunately, I edit conflicted with you while trying to implement it. If an alternative venue emerges, we can always edit the page to state this, however I ANI seems to be the current "favourite". --Mdann52talk to me! 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- There are many users who have used the process who are simply not aware about the existence of this RfC. I only happened to become aware of it due to that page being on my watchlist. I do think it is a discussion which warrants proper advertising so that the full community can chip in about the issue, but it's part of the rashness which I described here that has probably led to this matter so far being dealt with by such a small portion of the community - who were led to the discussion by the arbitration case request, or who were led to the discussion by watchlisting Village Pump. Even if the ultimate 'vote' & conclusion aspect of it is unlikely to change after a few weeks, most don't have either page watchlisted and I think they still have quite a bit to say on the topic. I know I do. :) As xeno pointed out below, it's an unwritten law of nature around here that an ongoing [and I'd add, properly advertised Village Pump] disussion will attract more input than a closed one with an invitation to still comment. Users who have taken the time of day to even bother with Wikipedia's (broken) dispute resolution are always on the look for input which might positively change or improve it. At present, the majority might say ANI, but it might just be one user who opens up a new idea which is adopted at some point in the future. Few opportunities arise where the community will take the time to comment fully on a dispute resolution step or to express an idea in relation to one, which is why it's better not to let them be cut off too early. My 2 cents anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: the disussion has run it's course enough to see that the consensus is that RfC should not be used. The discussion about what should replace it continues, but the current recommendation was to ask people to use ANI. I was actually in the process of rewriting the page to make this clearer; Unfortunately, I edit conflicted with you while trying to implement it. If an alternative venue emerges, we can always edit the page to state this, however I ANI seems to be the current "favourite". --Mdann52talk to me! 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I also think it was not ideal to close the discussion early per WP:SNOW. As I've seen it used, the SNOW clause is, as the titular metaphor suggests, used for something that won't succeed, not for something that is clearly going to succeed. Hence an obviously failing RFA would be SNOW-closed, but an obviously successful one would not (see current example).
- I'm aware that this proposal is to do away with something, not to create something, but as xeno points out, it's an old
and venerableprocess, and even if its time has clearly come, the more users we allow input from on whether to close it, the better. Λυδαcιτγ 15:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)- @Audacity: currently, the input on the page seems to support using ANI as a replacement, however if another venue emerges, it should use that. However, I will reopen for now, but this will probably be reclosed with a similar conclusion in about 3 weeks time. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your willingness to re-open. An ongoing RFC will always attract more input than a closed one with an invitation to still comment. –xenotalk 15:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that the majority of editors who have expressed an opinion do not find the process "venerable", though it may be "old". RGloucester — ☎ 15:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. I got carried away with my metaphors. Λυδαcιτγ 15:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that the majority of editors who have expressed an opinion do not find the process "venerable", though it may be "old". RGloucester — ☎ 15:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have no doubt it will. Cheers! Λυδαcιτγ 15:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your willingness to re-open. An ongoing RFC will always attract more input than a closed one with an invitation to still comment. –xenotalk 15:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Audacity: currently, the input on the page seems to support using ANI as a replacement, however if another venue emerges, it should use that. However, I will reopen for now, but this will probably be reclosed with a similar conclusion in about 3 weeks time. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
bgcolor bot
Hi Mdann52. At Btljs's talk page, you mentioned that the "vast amounts of different coding used about the place" was making coding the bot difficult. Do you think it would help to limit the scope to just the Formula One driver/team/car articles, where there is likely to be less variation among the coding? (Or perhaps that's all you've been looking at?) DH85868993 (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Mediation Committee nomination successful
It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is used to co-ordinate our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. Please e-mail me directly so that I know which e-mail address to use when subscribing you to the committee mailing list, which is occasionally used for internal discussion. When you are subscribed, feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Software changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf8) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 12. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 18, and on all Wikipedias from November 19 (calendar).
- The new search tool ("CirrusSearch") will be on the English Wikipedia from November 19. [1]
Move from Bugzilla to Phabricator
- The tool to track bugs will change on November 21.
- You won't be able to add or edit bugs between November 21 and November 24.
- You can make the change easier for you by creating your account.
- Bugzilla will be frozen after the change. You will see, edit and report bugs in Phabricator.
- You can join two IRC chats to learn more about the change. The chats will be on Tuesday, November 18 at 16:00 (UTC) and 23:00 UTC. [2]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
File metadata cleanup
Hi! I'm contacting you because you offered to help with the File metadata cleanup drive on this wiki. There are still many files lacking machine-readable information, and many of them can be fixed by adding special markers to the information and copyright templates. Even occasional or small edits are appreciated :) I'm available via email, IRC or on-wiki to answer questions if you're not sure how to proceed. Let me know if you need help! Guillaume Paumier 21:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello Mdann52. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Never again
I just became aware of your travesty of a bad close of the Media Viewer RFC, calling a 2-to-1 margin "NO CONSENSUS". Then I see that you are the person who displayed such flawed judgment as to SNOW CLOSE an RFC on a fundamental Wikipedia institution, RFC/U. You should never close anything at Wikipedia again. I have absolutely not the slightest modicum of confidence in your decision-making abilities in this regard. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA /// Carrite (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Carrite.
- Something vexes thee? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Met on RFC
Hello Cookies52. We communicated on the live chat forum last week about a page that I'm working on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alan C. Fox). It had been rejected for some small technical reasons and you generously offered to make the required updates and publish the page. I wanted to follow up and see when you think you'll be able to do this. I know you are probably very busy, and I don't intend to push. Just want to make sure that it's still on your list. Thanks! :) (Pitneyj (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Pitneyj 11.19.14)
- Hello, this isn't completely on-topic, but how can I contact Mdann52 on IRC? I looked in #wikipedia-en-help on freenode and he wasn't there. What channels do you use regularly?
- --Sub12 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Sub12: I'm on at the moment - I also use cookies52 as an IRC nick, so if you are about, I'm in -help now. @Pitneyj: I've been having a few issues in real life recently; I'll finish this off as soon as I get a chance. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Article Baye McNeil proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baye McNeil)
Hello Mdann52,
FYI, a page you approved for publication, Baye McNeil, has been proposed for deletion by user Nagoyabllue, and I thought you might want to participate in the debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baye McNeil. As you know, I went through the articles for creation desk with this article…I look forward to your thoughts on the proposed deletion…Hoping you're well...Thank you!...Minusminority (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Need help warning users
Hey, I am a new wikipedia user, and I want to help patrol the recent changes log. However, I'm not too sure on how to warn vandals about their vandalism - I've got instructions given to me a while back when I first joined, they don't seem to work anymore. I'd love to have a nice, easy to follow way of using those warning templates. I've downloaded this plugin another wikipedian recommanded me a while back, I'm not sure what it's called, but I use it to patrol the recent changes list. Thanks! Peterpacz1 (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Peterpacz1: the easiest way is by using Twinkle, which allows you to quickly warn vandals without having to worry about using the correct code. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Unfortunately, I'm extremely new to wikipedia, so I don't really know what.. um.. Twinkle is. I assume it's some kind of plugin that allows me to warn users easily - but I'm not sure where to get it, nor how to install plugins. Sorry for making you do all this work, but can you please give me a link to Twinkle's website? I can figure out the installation instructions from there. Peterpacz1 (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thich Nhat Hanh
I like to ask to start the dispute now, I have exchanged arguments extensively with Helpsome, to no avail. Please step in.Otaku00 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
New Vice Coordinator of WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League
Dear Wikiproject Bangladesh Premier League member, the purpose of this message is to let you know that The post of the vice coordinator of WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League is fulfilled. Strike Eagle is the new vice coordinator of the project. To see more details please visit projects talk page. Thanks. --Pratyya (Hello!) 13:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The move from Bugzilla to Phabricator is done. You can now report bugs in Phabricator. [3]
Problems
- There was a problem when editing tables in VisualEditor. VisualEditor was trying to fix bad values for the
colspanorrowspanoption. VisualEditor now leaves the bad values to avoid making things worse. This was fixed on November 17. [4]
Software changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf9) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 19. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 25, and on all Wikipedias from November 26 (calendar).
- You will be able to try VisualEditor on many new wikis for the first time. After November 26, VisualEditor will become available on Wikidata, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews wikis. You can find it in your Beta options. [5]
- VisualEditor now tells you if your edit needs to be approved. [6]
- You can now use VisualEditor's tools directly when you resume editing after closing the save window. [7]
- VisualEditor's table editing tools now work better in right-to-left languages. [8] [9]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Counter vandalism
Please can you train me. I know I have not 200 edits but instead 70. But, I have countered many vandalises in the past 6 months. Pablothepenguin (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please reply as soon as possible Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Those two theatre articles
Do you have a username associated with those draft articles? The author account, RenewTheaters (talk) was softblocked as a group account, and I don't know whether she has yet set up an individual account. I ask because sooner or later it will have to be explained to her that just copying a website does not make an acceptable encyclopedia article, and it might be kind to do that before she submits the drafts and gets them rejected. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- @JohnCD: they have started an individual account - AllisonatRenew. If you want to have a go, that's fine, but if not, I'll send them another email tomorrow morning. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- FYI: User talk:AllisonatRenew#Your theater articles. It's a pity the copyright warning notice doesn't give some hint that copyright clearance is not the only hurdle - people who have struggled through it are aggrieved to find they can't use the material anyway, or at least have to do more work on it, and feel we are moving the goalposts. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
ERA
Please help us take ERA to dispute resolution noticeboard. Nikthestunned and myself have a deadlock. I made completely new draft but there was a case of mistaken identity with conflict of interest editors on ERA. I was only pro recycling user interested in topic. I have rewritten complete topic but it is revised to old version. There is debate on talkpage I am trying to rewrite data to avoid promotional look. Can you help to shift my proposed draft to dispute resolution? I am willing to rewrite it. Please tell us how to shift on ERA talkpage ---TheSawTooth (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TheSawTooth: what assistance do you need? The filing instructions seem clear enough to me, although I'm always willing to clarify them further. The one issue here appears to possibly be a lack of discussion - give them a bit longer to continue discussing, and if no conclusion is reached, then a DRN case will be appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. Talkpage has a big draft proposal I rewrote full topic but it was removed only some of it is in topic now and there is disagreement without mediator it is looking hard. I answered questions before but discussion became too long. [10]. I wanted any mediator to help us to copy paste draft headings in DRN so we can discuss point by point but do not get TLDR blame. I will put one more proposal if concern is not solved then I will make DRN notice. Thank you for your help. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Closure of Formula 1 2015 season German Flag dispute
I have proposed a closure to the dispute as most parties seem to have understand the opposing views and simply disagree with them and there appears to be a consensus, as an uninvolved editor I would appreciate you weighing in here. SPACKlick (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the decisive action. That DRN was a complete waste of time. Hopefully now we can get the article opened up again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, there comes a point where nothing more can come from a discussion, and I feel we have passed that point, so closing it seems the best way to go. Of course, I have no comment on the filing, nor the editor involved , but will keep an eye on this for a while. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have one more request for you to wrap this up. Could you officially close the related discussion on Talk:2015 Formula One season as well? That way we could officially end this issue. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, there comes a point where nothing more can come from a discussion, and I feel we have passed that point, so closing it seems the best way to go. Of course, I have no comment on the filing, nor the editor involved , but will keep an eye on this for a while. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Alan C. Fox
Hi @Mdann52 . . . thanks for getting back to me re: Alan C. Fox's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alan C. Fox). . . . and thanks again for your help on this! Would you be able to please let me know on my talk page (Pitneyj (talk)Pitneyj) when you've made the changes? Thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
We are deadlocked, so I would like to hear your thoughts regarding this matter. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University page
Hello, I saw that you had put VGTU under copyright violation, and I also see that User:Vgtu123 has restored the previous text of the article. Is the copyright violation issue solved? I had written a whole separate page, Talk:Vilnius Gediminas Technical University/Temp, to serve as a solution to the copyright infringement. Thanks.
Moacir (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Moacir: yeah, the copyvio issue is still there; The editor meerly removed the tag. Feel free to promote the temp article to the main page when you have finished working on it. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers, thanks. I'll finish up the article (though I think it's more or less done in terms of what I can glean from the pages on the university's own website) and promote it. We'll see if it takes, but it's clear that the university's PR department doesn't understand how wikipedia works, even though I tried to explain it to them offline... Moacir (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Moacir: Yeah, I believe I originally came across this on IRC, and my explanation there fell on deaf ears. Anyway, let's see how it goes in the future. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Super. I'm adding and refining, but the university just redesigned their website, so a lot of links to news articles, etc., are currently broken. Still, I'm more or less satisfied with the current shape of the temporary article. Moacir (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, my candidate page is ready for promotion. I've covered nearly everything that's available on VGTU's own website(s), without going overboard. The seal graphic was deleted because it's non-free. I tried to copy the language from the use of the seal on the MIT page, but it apparently was not sufficient.
- I don't know how to promote (or even if I have the privs?), so if you could do that, I would be grateful. Thanks. Moacir (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
- All users are now getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. [11]
- You can join a video chat about Phabricator on December 11 at 18:00 (UTC). Phabricator is the new tool to report issues. [12]
Problems
- There was a problem with Phabricator on November 29. It was due to a network issue. [13]
Software changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf11) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since December 3. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from December 9. It will be on all Wikipedias from December 10 (calendar). [14]
- You can now exit VisualEditor by pressing the "Esc" key. [15]
- It is now easier to use VisualEditor with IMEs. Typing in Malayalam now works better. [16] [17]
- The new version of OOjs UI fixed many issues with the size and layout of buttons in dialogs. [18] [19] [20]
- (Lua) You can no longer use
mw.text.unstripto get the HTML from special page transclusion. You can see a list of scripts to fix. [21] [22]
Future changes
- Starting next week JavaScript tools won't work if they use jQuery Migrate. [23]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mdann52, hope you're well. I was wondering if you could tell me about the status of ticket:2014091910006014, as it relates to c:File:Majoidea à déterminer.jpg, c:File:Trapezia cymodoce Landaagiraavaru.JPG, and c:File:Un crabe-éponge Dromia sp..jpg? The files were flagged with both OTRS pending and PermissionOTRS, and I'm not sure which tag is correct. Best, FASTILY 09:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Ticket is cloed by Trijnstel with comment saying you should see c:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 Bourjon. — Revi 09:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks for clarifying, revi! -FASTILY 07:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: Mediation
Hi, I don't want to step on your toes with the Arab Winter mediation, but it seems like a challenging case. I noticed you said you were going to try to rewrite the article. While there is sometimes value in the mediator editing the article, it seems early to be trying to implement a proposed solution to the dispute before there has been much guided discussion among participants. I think in order to settle the dispute you will need to unpack the arguments and positions held by the various participants first. Does that make sense? I know you are relatively new to the committee, so perhaps it might make sense to review some of the instruction and explanation pages a bit more. Not trying to be condescending, just trying to be helpful. Andrevan@ 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: Thanks for the advice; If you feel you are better placed to take it over, feel free. With the benefit of hindsight, editing the article may not have got me off to the greatest start - the gap between formal and DRN seems to be wider than it first seemed. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Mann 52 On a page that you have edited Robert Rosenkranz all resent lyrics added info was removed by his PR firm. Articles siting NYTIMES and Forbes and his resent sex scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilsoninfo10 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Man52 on page you have edited Robert Rosenkranz again his PR removed a negative portion of his personal life. you can also add links. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/0908/6005094a.html ( 12 paragraph reference) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11251591/Scorned-mistress-pursues-billionaire-in-court-and-his-wife-on-Twitter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.83.228 (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ON the page Robert Rosenkranz that you edited Des 5, the chapter about his personal life: divorse and law suit was deleted again. one of the articles about the sex scandal is The telegraph, reputable paper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11251591/Scorned-mistress-pursues-billionaire-in-court-and-his-wife-on-Twitter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Robert Rosenkranz
ON the page Robert Rosenkranz that you edited Des 5, the chapter about his personal life: divorse and law suit was deleted again. one of the articles about the sex scandal is The telegraph, reputable paper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11251591/Scorned-mistress-pursues-billionaire-in-court-and-his-wife-on-Twitter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Vishvesh parmar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raichura.sanjay/Vishvesh_parmar
Hello
Thanks for checking my draft fast,
sad thing is that you have declined the draft by saying that it seems like an advertisement. I had personally made it neutral under the guidance of 'Live chat help' provided by the Wikipedia,moreover as my last conversation happened with a wiki expert on chat.He said that I can use source created by the creator himself ,
If this draft is not up to the mark please show me what can be done.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.121.101.214 (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not happy with the reliance on blogs etc., as was raised by the previous reviewers. It is also a WP:COPYVIO of [24], so will be deleted shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Smögen Whisky
Hi
Thank you for your comments re my article on Smögen Whisky. The piece is 8 sentences with 11 references, including a reference to Expressen, one of Sweden's two national newspapers, and an internationally recognised award. What else would you suggest I do to have his page accepted? Allezzoomzoom (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Allezzoomzoom: I've reverted my review per the additional references, so it should be back at the top of the queue. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Deletion
- You did not mention "coatrack" in the edit summary when you deleted 8000 bytes of text from Sinopodophyllum. Instead you stated "For my next trick, I'll revert back to the right one...". It was apparent to me you were mucking around and playing tricks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: see the previous edit I made. If I make a sarcastic summary like that, I've usually just messed up and am correcting myself. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I was probably a bit hasty in reverting you, but your edit looked suspicious and your summary didn't help. I have removed the warning notice that I placed on your page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: see the previous edit I made. If I make a sarcastic summary like that, I've usually just messed up and am correcting myself. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Closing German Flag for German GP discussion on Talk:2015 Formula One season
Hi. I would like to re-request something that got apparently overlooked. Could you please officially close this discussion? This is the discussion that was referred to WP:DRN and was resolved successfully there and closed by you. By doing this, we would have an "official" consensus if this issue is ever raised again. Regards, Tvx1 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Tvx1:
Closed, apologies for overlooking this originally. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Alan C. Fox (December 14)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alan C. Fox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
- You may see a new tool tested on the mobile site of the English Wikipedia. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata. [25]
- You can watch a video to learn how to use Phabricator to manage projects. [26]
- You can test a new version of the Content Translation tool.
Software changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf12) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since December 10. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from December 16. It will be on all Wikipedias from December 17 (calendar). [27]
- You can now find and replace text in VisualEditor. You can open the tool via the menu,
Ctrl+ForCmd+F. [28] - VisualEditor now doesn't change the space at the end of a text that you make bold. [29]
- The "Apply changes" button in the reference window of VisualEditor is now disabled until you make a change. [30]
Future changes
- The star image of the watchlist may change soon. [31] [32]
- You won't be able to use Phabricator on December 18, 2014. It will be down between 00:00 and 08:00 (UTC). [33] [34]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Question about Alan Fox
Hi there. We connected a while back in the live chat about a page that I've submitted for Alan C. Fox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alan_C._Fox). The latest draft (at that time) had been rejected for some small formatting issues...and when we met on the live chat, you generously offered to fix them and then accept the page. I noticed that you did indeed fix the errors and then re-submit the page for review. Thanks for doing this!
Unfortunately, I just found out that the new draft that you submitted was rejected for reasons that I thought I had dealt with in my earlier drafts and which you and other reviewers seemed to be okay with. I'm very confused as to why, especially because the feedback that the previous draft received was only re: formatting issues, not content. The person who rejected the new page rejected the content on notability issues. Do you have any advice on how to proceed? Thanks! (Pitneyj (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Pitneyj)
- @Pitneyj: I'll discuss this with the editor tomorrow, or at the first possible point after that; Unfortunately, in the run up to Christmas, I have less free time to help with stuff like this :( --Mdann52talk to me! 16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)