User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12


Cultural Marxism

The discussion here has gone on for quite a while, and I think all the appropriate points have been made. You know what my position is on the matter, and many agree with me. I'd be happy if you'd evaluate consensus and close the discussion as appropriate. In so doing, however, please pay close attention to the many WP:SPA remarks, and their lack backing in reliable sources. RGloucester 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say post at WP:ANRFC but it looks like requests there don't necessarily get responded to in a timely manner. I'll try to find someone who's more familiar with topic, otherwise you'll have to allow me some time to read things over before I can do a proper close. We don't go by pure !vote count, as you know. I'll let you know what I find. Best — MusikAnimal talk 19:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Not to be a pest, of course, but I wonder if you've found an appropriate course of action on this matter? RGloucester 17:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll have the time to deal with this. I would post at WP:AN/RFC. Remember you don't need an admin to close it, just someone not involved. I might add that in about 2 days and 5 hours, we'll have a new admin who states they'll be active on the Request for Closure noticeboard. Sorry I couldn't do it myself, but I can't turn a blind eye to disruption just because I don't want to get involved in the discussions. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal talk 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
No one is responding to my AN/RFC, and now the article is turning into even more a coatrack, as editors with no respect for polices and SPAs dominate it and try to make it fit their narrative with either bad sources, or with sources that don't even say what they say it says. I'm begging of you, please stop this nonsense. You're the one that insisted on a discussion, and you'll note that I spent ample time refuting the arguments of a sea of SPAs brought in from off-wiki. I cannot keep up the fight much longer, and in the mean time, our encyclopaedia is suffering for it. Please read my arguments. PLEASE! RGloucester 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-48

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello from

Hi MusikAnimal, I made that edit to the sodium channel phylogram because I'm new to administration on wikipedia and did not know how I could delete the figure or message the original author. The figure is completely false and I feel that it is irresponsible to allow the figure to remain up, as researchers and the general public would be misinformed by reading/using that figure (not going to quote Billy Madison). If you could delete the figure or message the original author, I would greatly appreciate it. Please tell the author to read any papers by William Catterall, Harold Zakon, or Bertil Hille for clarification on the evolution of sodium ion channels. Thanks (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I misconstrued your intentions with your edit. That's not how we discuss content, it's better fit to do so on the corresponding talk page. Surely you were not aware of this, so no worries there. The author, Dpryan doesn't appear to be active here anymore. So, perhaps you're better off discussing the matter on the talk page where the image is being used, which is Talk:Sodium channel. Just state your concerns and those more familiar with the subject (as in people watching that page) will see it. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal talk 01:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Hey MusikAnimal! I know Huggle has a ignore list which could be access on the menu bar on the top on the "Tools" tab > "Ignore list", however I am not sure how to add a namespace itself. Best, ///EuroCarGT 01:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Islands

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Islands for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 20:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


I removed it, as the source was the economist, which like usual provided no sources or proof and slandered the Catholic Church. Hope that explains it. I have only found people claim this based on this one source. (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

e-cigarette Protection

Hey there, was just wondering (not that I disagree with the decision) given that there is an active ANI relating to e-cigarette, how come you protected the page to Admins only?SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: This was done per a request at WP:RPP. I had two editors active to that page attest to the need for full protection. I'm not sure if the SPAs are sole root of the issue, but the intention behind full protection is to prevent disruption when multiple confirmed editors are involved, which appears to be the case. The duration was set for one week but it may of course be reduced or lifted by another admin. Maybe that will happen as a result of the ANI case. I will post there stating what I've done. In the meantime feel free to make any edit requests and a patrolling admin will respond to them shortly. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 17:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to edit the article rather than my sandbox. Any edit protection request will be disputed by SPAs. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the reason why we have full protection. Don't worry... the patrolling admins are used to this. Make the edit request and a proper review will be given, without undue weight to SPAs. — MusikAnimal talk 20:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I will not make any edit request because the SPAs continue to dispute non-controversial changes for no valid reason. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is no consensus for the protection. At least two editors (publicly) disagreed. Some of the edits were a minor misunderstanding. QuackGuru (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Pages are not protected based on consensus. Administrators make the decision. What I observed was a long-term, multi-faceted content dispute, not your traditional back-and-forth edit war. I only mentioned the two editors as it showed mutual interest in helping establish some stability. Anyway, I've made it abundantly clear to other admins protection can be lifted as they see fit. So, feel free to request unprotection at WP:RPP. I won't be offended. — MusikAnimal talk 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There are also benefits with full protection. Editors can't delete sourced text or replace sourced text with OR or SYN violations! QuackGuru (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Which accounts do you think are SPAs? I can explain to you what have been the problems with the OR and so on. QuackGuru (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Thanks, but my involvement stopped after responding to the request for page permission. Edit requests are getting responded to swiftly, as I stated they would. I truly hope what I've done will aid in achieving a more neutral and reliable collection of information that we as an encyclopedia strive for. Thanks for all of your input, and your understanding. Best — MusikAnimal talk 01:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't want the edit requests responded to swiftly when there is no consensus. Editors should not ignore what the sources actually said. One of the edit requests I disagreed with on the talk page and now the text is ambiguous and misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My signature

Thanks for your input regarding my signature, although there is one problem.

On my talk page the sigma letter is purple whereas on every other page it renders as blue. I would like to keep it this way. I tried compare your version of the signature to my version and it renders as blue on my talk. If you see anyway around it it would be appreciated.

Thanks for your input and well done on being an awesome admin!

Cheers, Luxure Σ 21:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Luxure: Aha, just replace the "color:blue" part in my code to "color:#6A0888". Does that do it? The colour should not change page to page. Wikilinks are usually coloured black if the link is to the same page that you are currently on, but here we are explicitly setting the colour so I don't see how which page you're on could affect it. Maybe I'm wrong though, dunno! — MusikAnimal talk 23:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
PS – Thank you for your kind words and for being an awesome Wikipedian yourself! — MusikAnimal talk 23:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done Yeah, that seems to do it. Thanks! Why does it set as purple on my talk page? Luxure Σ 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village.

6:30pm–8pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Hello from

Hello, I noticed you deleted the request for deletion for Chris Putnam. Could you perhaps create a discussion at the venue you mentioned yourself? I think the 'single event' Putnam is notable for, according to you, is in itself not notable at all and therefore this guy does not need an encyclopedia page. Thanks. (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Asking someone to send their own article AfD is like asking them to request to be blocked. Even so, I have initiated a discussion, mainly because I sort of agree with you ;) Feel free to chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Putnam. Best — MusikAnimal talk 18:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, I did not know you created the article yourself. Could you tell me, not for wikipedia 'disputes' or anything, why you were so interested in this Putnam - so much you wrote an article about him? :) (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No particular interest. I think I was just looking into the story behind :putnam: and thought he was worthy of an article. — MusikAnimal talk 19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If you don't mind me asking, why are you so interested in having this article taken down? ;) I'm of course also not trying to be confrontational. You just don't appear to be a regular here, which is why I ask. — MusikAnimal talk 19:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Good question, I cannot put my finger on it. It's just that although I think Facebook is notable enough for wikipedia (although I always wonder how notable companies actually are in encyclopedias - which doesn't make such entries less useful when trying to do some research some decades later of course), I am more opposed to simply treat everything that is related to Facebook (or any company for that matter) as noteworthy. I mean, I had never heard of this Putnam guy before, and let's face it, all he did was change the lay-out or something of a website. Without embedding these things in larger contexts, it just feels like, no offense, obsessive writing.
The same goes for what wikipedia calls 'current events' I believe. When something happens in the world, which is covered by media, such as the political crisis in Ukraine, the wikipedia page on that topic will absolutely explode. It's just so unnecessary, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some historical research project that tries to mine every little detail - mainly because the details are not really placed into larger context, rather as simple events. It also makes articles very much unreadable in my opinion.
Anyway, I have been editing for a decade or so, but I decided to leave my account - because of wikipedia 'politics' and arguments which can seriously drain your energy. My apologies if this answer fits in the category of 'energy draining'. (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

Hiya MusikAnimal,
I was wondering if you could possibly delete this talk page only for the simple reason it's added itself to my subpages which I'm rather uncomfortable with - The name doesn't bother me in the slightest it's just the subpage part that does, If there's a way I could remove it from my subpages I'd rather choose that option but as far as I'm aware there's not,
Anyway thanks,
Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 19:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I see, you're using Special:PrefixIndex which is why it was showing up. With no meaningful history I don't see an issue with it being deleted. — MusikAnimal talk 17:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant thank you :) –Davey2010(talk) 18:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Leicester Tigers

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: Though the disruption appears to be less frequent, there are BLP violations here so I've gone with an additional two weeks. Best — MusikAnimal talk 22:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting restore of Afc draft

Hi MusikAnimal,

I was wondering if you might be able to restore a draft of an article I was working on: Draft:Wendall_K._Harrington. I realize that there was copyright issues, and I would like to fix them and try to resubmit the article. Can you help me with this?

Thanks. Mfbergmann (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mfbergmann: Hey there! I've restored the article with the copyrighted material removed. Unfortunately this is all I can provide, but I can tell you the content was borrowed from Copyright violations are taken very seriously, as there are real legal concerns involved. From what I could tell the article otherwise looked fairly good. Best of luck this time around, just be sure to use your own words. Let me know if you need anything else! — MusikAnimal talk 22:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Some of the content is gone (that I don't think was the copyrighted material in question), but this gives me a good place to pick up from. Thanks again. Mfbergmann (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday.

Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November.

In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles.

For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges.

Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year.

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Revision Deletion

Hi MusikAnimal,

I would ask you to delete [this edit] by an IP. It discloses several emails of individuals at those universities. I think it would be a breach of privacy to those people named with their names and emails on Wikipedia.

Check it out for yourself and let me know.

Cheers Luxure Σ 11:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Luxure: Definitely doesn't belong in the article, so I've revdel'd per WP:RD5. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from

If you did not watch PTI and see the segment, you are the one making edits in poor fashion. I'd appreciate you not taking down my post for no reason, and sending threatening messages. I noticed you're a volunteer admin, I'll review your behavior accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry if you don't realize what you were doing was wrong, but you were informed why it was removed. The messages sent are templated, that is, put there by semi-automation (we go through a lot of edits everyday). They start out with friendly wording and progress to more stern warnings, when the user repetitively causes disruption. Now, as to why your additions were removed and considered disruptive... they fell under one of our most strict policies, the one on biographies of living persons. Why is this so strict? Our goal as an encyclopedia is to provide reliable, neutral information for the world to use freely. We're not out to defame people. Also, years ago there was a lawsuit, so to this day we take any negative unsourced content added about a living person very, very seriously. The content you added was clearly contentious, wholly negative, and unsourced. For this reason it had to be removed. Your second edit which is now hidden from view may have attempted to credit the claim to a televised event, but was done so incorrectly, and again per policy it was removed. In my opinion, what you are trying to add to that article is not really that important to say unless there was a major coverage of that claim, I'd leave it out. For future reference, see WP:REFBEGIN on how to properly add references, and the relevant policy in full is at WP:BLP. Thanks for your understanding! — MusikAnimal talk 23:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Frederic Nimani

Hi please change apps, you can corrected see on career burnley and see atédéric_Nimani thankyou. Saya Indonesia (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from - YoYo Games

I would request we delete YoYo Games as it relies on 1st party information and is also nothing but a copy and paste of bad sections from GameMaker: Studio there is also links to on the Studio page which themselves link back to the Studio page - the whole thing is a mess and it has been setup to attack the company (which full disclosure - I work for) there is even more information from our positive users here Thank you for any help - this has been frustrating for me and my colleagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ok. Thank you for letting me know, I will investigate this deeper and ensure the information is neutral and reliably sourced. For now, please refrain from removing the content. I'm impartial to all of this so don't worry we will get things fixed! — MusikAnimal talk 17:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that all of the content on the page added by editors has been properly sourced, the company has an ongoing history of copy and pasting unreliable content with unreliable sources. Their affiliate companies do as well such as HandyGames which were verbatim copying and pasting mission statements from their website still including trade mark and copyright unicode symbols. This is currently why the protection level of GameMaker: Studio has been raised to prevent vandalism by anonymous editors. I am going to recommend that the protection level of YoYoGames be raised and that they refrain from further editing without first reaching a consensus. BlitzGreg (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@BlitzGreg: I'm only removing what is unsourced or poorly sourced and has been challenged, or what contains copyright issues. This is in accordance with policy. Beyond that everything requires consensus, so let's continue this discussion at Talk:YoYo Games. Thank you both — MusikAnimal talk 17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That is not a basis for removing properly sourced non-copyrightable content with the disputed content as you did here. BlitzGreg (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@BlitzGreg: I again will refer you to our policy on external links, see WP:ELNEVER. That YouTube video contains copyrighted material. YouTube is in general not an acceptable source to begin with, see more at WP:YOUTUBE. I began this crusade not involved but now I guess I am, so I will take no further administrative action or continue to edit war, but I will get someone else to look at this. Thanks for your cooperation. — MusikAnimal talk 17:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh - Is it worth mentioning that BlitzGreg works for a competitor? I don't know how that works. Seems pretty shady and petty imo :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism"

I generally respect administrators, and I have no reason to believe that you are not a valuable contributor to the project. However, I will admit my anger with regard to your handling of the Cultural Marxism article. You started a merge discussion, but refused to close it. I was forced to let it flounder in AN/RFC for weeks, with no result. Meanwhile, off-Wikipedia canvasing began, targeting me specifically. SPAs from all over appeared, trying to defend this scourge of an article. Therefore, I've closed the discussion myself and merge the article. You may say this is improper, but it is what is best for the encylopaedia. No one else seems to care enough, so the least I can do is try and resolve the situation. Am I supposed to sit back and watch this nonsense unfold, all because a long stale merge discussion that you initiated was not closed by anyone? No. So, I've taken action. I hope that you, as an administrator, keep an eye on this now merged article, and make sure that these SPAs do not take over. If you look at the talk page there, one editor has conveniently provided a link to a message board thread whereby people engaged in the behaviour I've mentioned. Please, I beg of you, take responsibility. Do not let this nonsense continue. RGloucester 18:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Again, it's not my inhereted responsibility to close it. In theory I would not mind, as I am truly impartial. However I've even had some fellow admins tell me that in this kind of scenario I should not close any ensuing discussions following a full-protection I put in place. It's a gray area, I think. Anyway I'm sorry myself and/or another admin never got around to it, to be frank it was a very uninviting discussion. I will say this, your closing statement doesn't really state how consensus was built or how both sides of the debate weighed out, it just says what you've done. You might want to amend that to be more descriptive so that people are less likely to challenge it. As for me... I'm staying out. This is all volunteer work, and I've got a lot of things higher up on my list. You can reach out to other admins as well, you know. All the best — MusikAnimal talk 19:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It is volunteer work, but you decided to enter into the fray, and deferred a resolution to the problem. Having done so, it is irresponsible for you as an administrator, with the necessary tools, to let an editor be assaulted by members of off-Wikipedia message boards. RGloucester 19:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

Hi, you placed the Electronic cigarette page under protection. Would you please do so again. As soon as the protection ended the problems resumed. There is a request on the page protection notice board and it has a few editors agreeing that its needed on the talk page. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 22:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Improving the article is a problem? QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Not enough edit warring yet to warrant protection, in my opinion, but based on the support I wouldn't be surprised if it gets fully protected again. It won't be me who protects it, though. I find it only fair to let another admin throw in their judgement. — MusikAnimal talk 22:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The only reason there isnt an edit war is because I am trying to stop one. If it isnt protected soon it will become one. The problem is tendentious edits that are disrupting the page and the consensus building process by avoiding it. But thanks for your reply, I hope another admin protects it soon. AlbinoFerret 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Cigarette

Hi MA, There have been 75 edits to the Electronic Cigarette article in the 24 hours since protection expired, about half of which are full or partial reversions. East718, who declined the request for extending protection (which is supported by most of the editors, surprisingly enough), has a message on his talk page that he is away for an extended period. He had stated that rather than protecting, he would block those engaging in edit warring, but I guess he's not actually monitoring.

Suggestions on how to proceed? Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: You can report edit warriors to WP:ANEW. Be prepared to provide diffs of the user's reverts, clearly showing their disruption. Honestly, I don't see that yet from any sole editor. Looks like this is the primary disputed content. Has this been discussed on the talk page? Full protection may again be inevitable, sadly! — MusikAnimal talk 16:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Minecraftmichael

i want to edit a page to help players but i can't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecraftmichael (talkcontribs) 17:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Minecraftmichael: Hey! What page are you trying to edit? I reverted your changes to Glass production because you inexplicably removed content. Maybe you didn't mean to? — MusikAnimal talk 17:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to edit the five nights at freddy's page but i can't i can't find a edit button — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecraftmichael (talkcontribs)
@Minecraftmichael: Aha, well it looks like Five Nights at Freddy's is currently semi-protected due to persistent disruptive editing. All this means is you'll have to request the changes rather than be able to make them yourself. Just go here and click on the big blue button that reads "Submit an edit request". Someone will review your request and if it's deemed constructive it will quickly be implemented. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal talk 17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

With all due respect, I disagree with your assessment that advanced vandalism warnings are unwarranted. The user is just coming off of a previous block for vandalism, and advanced warnings are warranted for apparent repeat vandals. I'm not going to change it as it's not the hill I want to die on. --McDoobAU93 17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from ThomasMyers1029

I'm concerned about how you could delete an informational company page for a company that provides critical support services for the two largest government-owned enterprises in the U.S. (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac). Services that foster homeownership nationwide and keep the real estate economy pumping? There is, and was , nothing insignificant about Active Data Technologies, a company that provides similar services to, but with far more significance and far less controversy. Is this just a simple misunderstanding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMyers1029 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@ThomasMyers1029: Hi! I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. I never made an edit to Ocwen. Are you referring to a different article? — MusikAnimal talk 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to the Active Data Technologies Inc. page you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMyers1029 (talkcontribs) 18:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I see, allow me to explain. Wikipedia has a notability guideline in place, this is to prevent it from growing into a indiscriminate collection of information. We want to keep things encyclopedic, which not everything is. That's not to say Active Data Technologies Inc. does not have a place here on Wikipedia, however, it just means the article will need to be better prepared with reliable sources to establish notability. For more information, see the notability guideline on corporations. I recommend using the article wizard to recreate the article. That will set things up so that you can submit a draft for review. Then other editors can help you refine it and ensure it won't get deleted again. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal talk 18:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


"My conscious is a jukebox" is a cool quote. But it's not grammatically correct. 'Concious' is an adjective, not a noun.[8] Might I suggest either "My consciousness is a jukebox" or "My conscience is a jukebox". :) (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a noun to me! :) Seriously though, the #2 entry of that liked definition states usage as a noun. The free dictionary defines it as a psychoanal term, with a definition that's even more aligned with what I'm going after. I would say "conscience" but that's a different word altogether, right? That would mean "knowing right from wrong" rather than "awake". Meanwhile Wiktionary has not adopted a noun form yet :( And frankly consciousness is too much of a mouthful. I don't know what to do! — MusikAnimal talk 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/대우건설/Archive#05 November 2014

I saw it now, so replying now...
Global lock does not autoblock globally, so local block is nessesary to apply autoblock. (Though autoblock lasts only for 24 hrs...) (PS. I think kowiki filter #50 (filter to preventing this sock) would be useful here... (It has been disallowing lots of 대우건설's edit on kowiki) If you are interested in creating a filter, I can send a copy. (#50 is private.) ) Revi 04:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Revi: I see. It's been about a month since the last report, so not sure if we should move forward with an edit filter, but good to know we have that on hand if we need it :) Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 04:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
New friend is here: User:신용회복위원회 - that's why I mentioned edit filter.  Revi 04:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Aha. Well then, you can email me at Special:EmailUser/MusikAnimal and I'll get on that :) On second thought there may not be enough long-term disruption to warrant a filter, but still happy to take a look. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 04:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
He was around since August 2013. I think it warrants "long-term"... Anyway I sent it already.  Revi 05:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


I see you have blocked Amamamamama for a week. Given that 90% of this contributor's edits seem to consist of homophobic vandalism, can I ask why the block wasn't indefinite? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And incidentally, this 'contributors' user page probably merits attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: It was more just to halt the disruption so I could get a chance to examine the user's contribution history. No doubt WP:NOTHERE and I've reblocked as such. Sorry you had to go through that — MusikAnimal talk 19:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from

Ya it needs to be noted that 'queer heterosexuality' is and always will be a extremely offensive term to actual queer people, mainly because it forces common gender stereotypes onto people who do not want to conform to them and claims an oppressed title to someone who has never been oppressed because of who they love. My writing on it was merely noting that it is an offensive term, and I do not believe it should have been deleted. (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You should bring your concerns to the talk page. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored, and rest assured the authors of the article are not out to offend you. That article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, a community-wide effort to improve these types of articles. Consider getting involved with that project, I'm sure they'd love to have someone who is as passionate about the subject as you are. — MusikAnimal talk 20:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Arrowsmith Program

I moved the Arrowsmith School article to be called Arrowsmith Program and added tons of information with sources, and then a different user, Taeyebaar (talk · contribs), undid all of that and changed "Arrowsmith Program" back to "Arrowsmith School" deleting everything I had added, without explanation. I want to revert what that user did. Can you please help me do that or do it yourself? Do you have any other comments or advice? (I don't know how to revert what the other user did myself.) Eaqq (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I worry my above message isn't clear enough so I will restate my problem:
1. I moved "Arrowsmith School" to "Arrowsmith Program" because almost all of the content and sources is actually about the Arrowsmith Program, NOT the Arrowsmith School.
2. I added a lot of information and added sources (about the program) and removed unsourced sentences.
3. A different user, Taeyebaar (talk · contribs), undid the move.
4. I very much want to move "Arrowsmith School" to "Arrowsmith Program" again but I know that edit warring isn't allowed so I would like your advice. I know I can make a new Wikipedia article named "Arrowsmith Program" but I don't think that's the best thing to do and don't want to do that. For example, everything in the "Criticism" section is about the Arrowsmith Program (NOT the Arrowsmith School). The notability is with the program, NOT the school. If I were to make a new article (Arrowsmith Program) and leave the "Arrowsmith School" article, that would be wrong because (not to repeat myself....) the content in "Arrowsmith School" is actually about the program! (Again, the Arrowsmith School is *not* notable. The program is what is talked about in news articles. So if I were to make a different Wikipedia article entitled "Arrowsmith Program", the content at "Arrowsmith School" that is about the program would need to be erased and then there would be barely an article. The Arrowsmith School in Toronto does not warrant its own Wikipedia article.)
5. If I do what I would like to do (move it again, and if the other user Taeyebaar (talk · contribs) wants, I can add a section for the Arrowsmith School in the "Arrowsmith Program" article), I fear the other user will revert again and it will be an edit war.
6. Can you please tell me what to do? I really believe that moving "Arrowsmith School" to "Arrowsmith Program" is the right thing to do. Should I just move it again and see if the other user reverts or not? Thank you.
You can see here how I vastly improved the article.
And you can read Taeyebaar's side here. I strongly disagree with Taeyebaar and it doesn't look like consensus between Taeyebaar and I will be reached. Eaqq (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Eaqq: Wow, sorry! Forgot to get back to you! Anyway, addressing your concerns is pretty simple. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so if someone else disagrees with something, it's up to you and them to find a consensus, or something you can both agree on. The best way to do this is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is at Talk:Arrowsmith Program. That way others who are also familiar with the subject can chime in as well. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal talk 22:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Eaqq: Sorry you already said you tried to reach a consensus. In this kind of scenario, you should seek dispute resolution. The kind folks over there will help decide what's best. Not that I don't mind you reaching out to me directly (by all means, feel free anytime!), but I am busy at the moment. Sorry! — MusikAnimal talk 22:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

filter #648

Please add this user's last replace on own talk page - it's post-block vandal on his talkpage.  Revi 05:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Specifically this string; [removed]. I had to revert war with this user until he is locked.  Revi 17:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 8#Nicholas McDonald

Nicholas McDonald - Revdel and perhaps indef semi. The IP resumed adding material on 24th November merely hours after the protection expired. - NQ (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@NQ: Nothing else revdelable in my opinion, but I've semi-protected for another six months. I had mentioned other possible preventive measures but I think sticking with semi is probably best. Thanks for being on top of this ongoing issue! — MusikAnimal talk 18:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Revdel: [9] [10] and [11]. - NQ (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 10) and List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 11) are often targeted, although the disruption is relatively less. [12] [13] - NQ (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe a temporary protection of List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 11) is in order? Not sure though, since there are constructive edits by other IPs. Rev del : [14] [15] [16]. Thanks! - NQ (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, if revdel criteria is met, I'm not willing to do anything less than semi – even if the edit rate were low enough for pending changes. — MusikAnimal talk 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. - NQ (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Tournesol.png Thank you for conducting the Good Article review for Duesenberg Model A, and for your guidance in improving the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! — MusikAnimal talk 15:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-50

17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jack Walsh (boxer)

I don't understand why you removed the speedy deletion tag from Jack Walsh (boxer). The reference you mentioned doesn't support the fight record in his bio, the claim that he is WBC champion (which is obviously false) or even his purported weight class. This is an obvious hoax. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tchaliburton: You are correct that data does not match up. I just saw that Walsh was also a boxer from the UK and assumed there was something to the article. Turns out the data was copied from Anthony Joshua, another UK-based boxer. Speedy deleted as A10, but agreed it may have been intentionally created as a hoax. It might have also just been a test page, where they copied the table from the other article but never filled in the correct data. I'll leave a message on their talk page. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 18:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Cynlouise

HI MusikAnimal I continue to remove the citing of a court trial because it is listed under police misconduct. There was never any police misconduct assessed from this case. As I had previously suggested to the person who includes this that it it better suited as an entry under Austin Municipal Court. Also, if you a fairly monitoring this site, ArizonaComback seems intent on making this an anti-APD website instead of allowing all factual information on the page, such as patrol areas, pictures of sub stations, etc. They keep being removed and the person's comments to me are juvenile and insulting. I would appreciate any help to keep this page neutral. Cynlouise 12/9/14 Cynlouise (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cynlouise: Hey! I see that you are relatively new here and may not be familiar with our policies and guidelines. For starters, I know nothing about the Austin Police Department, I just saw your edit while patrolling recent changes. I noticed you removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content. Generally this, in any capacity, is not allowed. Verifiability is a backbone of an encyclopedia, and we need to do our best to maintain that. The content you removed may be negative, but it was reliably sourced, and from what I can tell, relevant to the subject. So, you are correct that we want to maintain neutrality, but we also want to include any relevant information, negative or not, provided it is well-sourced. That being said I don't know that removing that much content without consensus is the best idea. I recommend taking your concerns to the talk page. There you and the other editors can together decide on what's best for the article.
Finally, while it's sad it occurred, I'm not sure if listing all the fallen officers is really appropriate for an encyclopedia. We should instead only write about officers that are themselves notable. This is to comply with the notion that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hope this all makes sense. Let me know if you need help. — MusikAnimal talk 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Kmvhmv (continued)

Hi, back in October you blocked Kmvhmv for disruptive editing, see User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 9#Kmvhmv. You provided a much appreciated 1 month block. However, the vandal is back again. What do you think is the most appropriate next step? OSX (talkcontributions) 08:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@OSX: I don't think we're left with much of a choice. The user fails to communicate or get the point. There's enough evidence, particularly with the lack of communication, that they will continue to behave in the same way, so I have block the account indefinitely. — MusikAnimal talk 15:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good outcome to me. Thanks for that. Have a good day. OSX (talkcontributions) 22:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Heart tattoo AfD

I have changed it on your suggestion; I definitely did not intend for it to be that harsh and did not realize the original editor has been trying to work to make it acceptable. A long week with finals coming up, I should not have taken it out on the AfD and I apologize for my tone for sure. Nate (chatter) 06:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries! I figured you meant no harm :) Thank you for rewording it. — MusikAnimal talk 06:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Uploading images

MusikAnimal Hey! What's up? I have a question. In any article, how can I upload an image? Please check and tell me ASAP. Thank you. Adham Baghdadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adham2911B (talkcontribs)

@Adham2911B: Hey! Everything you need to know is detailed here. In a nutshell, if the media was released under a commons-compatible license or you own the copyright, you should upload to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be shared amongst other Wikimedia projects. Otherwise if it falls under fair-use you can upload it locally via the File Upload Wizard. Just make sure it is within the confines of our image use policy (if you are unsure you just can ask me). Finally, once the file is uploaded, see WP:IMAGESYNTAX for the syntax to use in the article. Let me know if you need help.
PS – You can sign your post on talk pages by inserting four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end. That will automatically insert your username and a timestamp. — MusikAnimal talk 21:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi mate, just FYI I sent you an email the other day. You don't have to prioritise it or even reply at all considering it took me an absurdly long time to reply to yours. Just letting you know. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Fabian Johnson

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/11268151 and some more

Not sure why this is caught... Filter shouldn't disallow thisnuser's edit... I turned off disable for now.  Revi 06:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Revi: The filter looks for new_wikitext (the whole page), which on my talk page contained the last entry of the filter. I've removed it, so you should be safe to re-enable the filter. The likelihood of a new editor editing a page with that same text is very low. It was just coincidence that those were vandals editing my talk page, so no harm done :) — MusikAnimal talk 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Still other abusefilter hits (see abuselog for 648) is weird... Only valid hit for DWGS is the first few with Korean names. (부당이득)  Revi 16:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Heh, mistake. Re-enabling.  Revi 16:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs a Check.

Hi, I was reviewing the AFC Articles when i saw this draft.I looked that whether this article existed in Wikipedia,then i saw that an article with same title and content was created on the same date as on when this draft was created.I require your help so that i can know that which editor has copied the other editors work or whether these two editors are same.The link for the article on wikipedia is as follows: Computational Fluid Dynamics for Phase Change Materials.--Param Mudgal talk? 11:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Param Mudgal: Looks like Priybrat created the live article, while Monisharastogi7 created the draft. I'm not sure what you want me to do? I am not a checkuser, if that is what you were after. I don't believe this would meet the grounds for checking anyway, as there doesn't appear to be any disruption or what I would consider abuse of multiple accounts. Have you tried asking these users? Sorry I could not be of more help. — MusikAnimal talk 16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No i had not asked these users as i thought of first sharing this matter with you so that i can get useful help.Well,Thank you for the help.This issue would have been an abuse of accounts if Priybrat had created an article on wikipedia by using the information added by Monisharastogi7 but this is not the case now.Anyways,Thank you for your help once again.--Param Mudgal talk? 17:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

You have mail!

Hello, MusikAnimal. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yeah, it's about him. (I usually tag this first and send mail...)  Revi 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In case you are not aware, I sent you one mail 12 hrs ago (not via wikimail, I had limited internet connection...)  Revi 06:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Rudolf Virchow

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Smisek

Thank you so much for intervening with the Jeff Smisek situation. The same person has been deleting well-sourced content for years, and adding unsourced content of his/her own. Thank you for keeping an eye on the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraface32 (talkcontribs) 00:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Unfortunately, Suzier444 has ignored your warnings and has begun to delete material wholesale without seeking consensus. Would you please look into this again? Thanks! Lauraface32 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lauraface32: Hi. While patrolling recent changes, I saw that Suzier444 removed sourced content without leaving an edit summary, so I reverted it. I go through a lot of edits every day, and somehow did not see what I was restoring. After taking a good look at it, it's clear the content is in fact far from neutral. We have to be very careful with biographies on living persons. If there's something negative to say that is reliably sourced and relevant, okay, but you cannot push the boundary into unnecessary defamation. A blog and sources that do not mention the subject at all do not count as reliable sources. I realize you may not have been aware of how strict we are with these types of articles, so don't take my critique personally. I and another admin have tweaked the content to be more neutral. Hopefully what's there now will satisfy everyone. Thanks for your understanding. — MusikAnimal talk 04:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Thanks for your helpful edits. I have cleaned up and perfected your language slightly. But as you can see, I left the substance of your contributions in place. I would appreciate it if you would please keep an eye out over the next few days. Thanks for all of your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraface32 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-51

16:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

About the edit on Spar article

I guess I should make a new page about a new Serbian supermarket chan that has the Serbian singer Maja Nikolić as its CEO, but with a similar name to the famous Dutch chain. Sources (all links are in Serbian): — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If the chain you are talking about is different than Spar (retailer), then yes you will need to make a separate article. Otherwise you should first discuss on the talk page before removing that much content again. Best — MusikAnimal talk 18:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Marlonroclac

OMG, yeah, it was really a mistake. I was gonna edit only the episodes, but i just ended up editing the whole page. I'm so sorry. Thank you for restoring the page! I'm gonna do my best to pay attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlonroclac (talkcontribs) 22:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Kit Carson

Please explain why you removed a revision of Kit Carson. The original "content" was removed because it was unsourced. This article is in a state of revision and should be given at leat 5 minutes to take shape. A personal description section is a brilliant idea even if I do say so myself. Please refrain from making wholesale reverts. The article needs extensive revision. Take your finger off the "revert" key. Thanks. (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I've got you wrong. I take it you are the same user as SeeSpot Run? Perhaps you didn't realize what you were doing. With this edit you removed a substantial amount of content that was sourced. You also blanked the infobox and the lead. Surely that was a mistake. Anyway, two things (1) you can preview your edits before saving. That way you'll know if you messed something up on accident. (2) Use an edit summary explaining what you're trying to do so that others don't misconstrue your edit as vandalism. Blanking content in articles is a common disruptive edit, it is procedural to revert these. Thanks for your understanding. — MusikAnimal talk 17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing has been "messed up". Let things take shape. The pic of Carson in the infobox was snapped shortly before his death. It does not adequately depict Carson. There is no reason for a "military man" infobox. Carson's military career was brief and undistinguished. His fame rests on his career as a mountain man. Assume good faith, which you are not doing with you finger plunging the revert key time and again. SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@SeeSpot Run: For starters, I of course assume good faith, that's my thing. Blanking sourced content without explaining why is perfect rationale to revert it, anyone else would have done the same. Again, you'll have to understand that's a common form of vandalism. If patrollers didn't revert it the wiki would disappear within days. Anyway, let's assume this version (the one you created) is in fact what you were after. Infoboxes are commonplace in articles, and instead of removing it you should change the info if need be. Secondly, the lead is always constructed in roughly the same way across the encyclopedia, and summarizes the article. You should retain this structure and summary style, more on that at MOS:LEAD. Finally, if you do in fact want to remove that large amount of sourced content, you may need to find consensus first. I say that because it's just so much content you're removing. What's wrong with it? Is it inaccurate? Someone worked hard on that, maybe you should talk this over with others who are familiar with the subject on the talk page. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal talk 17:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you looked over the added material but the supplied reference, <ref>Kit Carson</ref>, makes no sense. That reference was added six times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for blocking vandals and disruptive users on Wikipedia. You deserve this barnstar. JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! It's a never ending war! — MusikAnimal talk 17:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 Revi 09:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -revi! To you as well :) — MusikAnimal talk 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Please comment on Talk:Objectivity/DB

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Objectivity/DB. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—December 2014

Screenshot showing how to add or remove columns from a table

Did you know?

Basic table editing is now available in VisualEditor. You can add and remove rows and columns from existing tables at the click of a button.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on table editing and performance. Their weekly status reports are posted on Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

VisualEditor was deployed to several hundred remaining wikis as an opt-in beta feature at the end of November, except for most Wiktionaries (which depend heavily upon templates) and all Wikisources (which await integration with ProofreadPage).

Recent improvements

Basic support for editing tables is available. You can insert new tables, add and remove rows and columns, set or remove a caption for a table, and merge cells together. To change the contents of a cell, double-click inside it. More features will be added in the coming months. In addition, VisualEditor now ignores broken, invalid rowspan and colspan elements, instead of trying to repair them.

You can now use find and replace in VisualEditor, reachable through the tool menu or by pressing ⌃ Ctrl+F or ⌘ Cmd+F.

You can now create and edit simple <blockquote> paragraphs for quoting and indenting content. This changes a "Paragraph" into a "Block quote".

Some new keyboard sequences can be used to format content. At the start of the line, typing "*  " will make the line a bullet list; "1.  " or "# " will make it a numbered list; "==" will make it a section heading; ": " will make it a blockquote. If you didn't mean to use these tools, you can press undo to undo the formatting change. There are also two other keyboard sequences: "[[" for opening the link tool, and "{{" for opening the template tool, to help experienced editors. The existing standard keyboard shortcuts, like ⌃ Ctrl+K to open the link editor, still work.

If you add a category that has been redirected, then VisualEditor now adds its target. Categories without description pages show up as red.

You can again create and edit galleries as wikitext code.

Looking ahead

VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme designed by the User Experience group. The new theme will be visible for desktop systems at in late December and at other sites early January. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" theme and the new "MediaWiki" one which will replace it.)

The Editing team plans to add auto-fill features for citations in January. Planned changes to the media search dialog will make choosing between possible images easier.


If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta.

Thank you! WhatamIdoing (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)