User talk:Andrew Davidson/Archive 2

Big game hunters

You wrote in WP:AfD/Botella (measurement) (after markup-stripping):

I was training a new editor recently and was surprised at the level of hostility which was immediately shown to her. Without my assistance, her first experience of Wikipedia would have been very negative and we would have lost yet another editor. [...] Anyway, that other editor was User:Mauladad and it remains to be seen whether she will stick with it or is now quite intimidated.

That interested me. I took a look.

The editor has so far only worked significantly on a single article, "Bali Mauladad". The subject name and username show a striking resemblance. Anyway, in this edit, User:Loriendrew added the COI and Notability templates, with a neutral edit summary. At that point, reference and external link aside, the article consisted of one (1) sentence, viz:

Mohamed Iqbal Mauladad known as Bali Mauladad was a big game hunter in Kenya.

I would say that yes, COI looks likely and notability was not established. The article did have a reference, and the reference came complete with a quotation, one that's oddly relevant to units:

"Mohamed Iqbal Mauladad, 'Bali' as he was always called, was a huge man. Born in the mid-1920's he stood six foot one (two meters) in his socks, weighed 250 lbs (113 kilos) and sported a magnificent moustache."

Er, what? I stand nearly six foot one in my socks, but far short of two meters.

It's good that you are working to rescue articles, but you seem curiously prone to see "hostility" where I see mild and justifiable irritation.

I wondered how difficult it is for a new arrival to create articles that do suggest notability and do not suggest COI, so I looked at the articles I created when I was new, back in 2004. Here they are, each in the (horrible) state in which its second editor found it:

• Voigtländer
• Bridget St John
• Jonathan Routh
• Nicholas Luard
• Michael Heath (cartoonist)
• The Establishment (club)
• Dandelion Records
• Cosina

I'd like to think that I wouldn't perpetrate anything like any of them these days. (I now prefer this style.) But I think that each of them shows minor promise, in its crappy way. None was flagged for COI or notability, and I don't think that any risked this.

Are you perhaps too quick to see hostility? -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps you don't have the full story? That first draft was put together quickly at the tail-end of the last London meetup. It was part of a crash course in which I was showing the new editor the basics of account creation, talk pages, article editing, &c. We didn't have time to do much but, when I got home, I saw those first two tags and so spent an hour expanding the article to this. That seemed good enough and it was then midnight so I went to bed. In the morning, I found that the article had now been tagged for speedy deletion and, before I could get to it again, it was gone. Both those speedy tags were inappropriate as the article made several reasonable claims of importance (A7) and was not exclusively promotional (G11) as the subject had been dead for over 40 years. Being experienced, I knew how to locate the admin that had performed the deletion and remonstrated with them. The novice editor would have had more trouble dealing with this by themselves because speedy deletion doesn't leave a good audit trail - the page in question has vanished, along with its history. The admin kindly restored the article without more ado — perhaps they realised that the tagging had been excessive. Subsequently, there was more challenging bureaucracy in getting an appropriate photograph added to commons, which required repeatedly contacting and persuading an 80-year old woman in France to log an OTRS ticket, &c. With that done, I did some more expansion to get the page nominated for DYK within the 7-day deadline - yet more red tape which a novice would have found difficult by themselves.

As for your articles, my impression is that you had it easier back in 2004. For example, looking down the list, I recognise the name of Jonathan Routh. I have no complaint myself about this as a topic but notice that your start didn't have any references. As this was then a BLP, you might nowadays find that a {{BLP_PROD}} is slapped on it if it isn't immediately speedily deleted as A7/G11, like the case above. Note that the page is still tagged as lacking adequate citations, 10 years later.

As veteran editors we can now take this aggravation in our stride, but I still reckon that the reception given to novices is too hostile. It's not just me who thinks this — see Encyclopedia Frown:

“The encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is at risk of becoming, in computer scientist Aaron Halfaker’s words, “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semiautomated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” An entrenched, stubborn elite of old-timers, a high bar to entry, and a persistent 90/10 gender gap among editors all point to the possibility that Wikipedia is going adrift.

Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've taken up the invitation in your archive page to resurrect old discussions. (This particular discussion is only four days old, and I first saw the latest addition to it just hours ago, as I'd spent the turning of the year somewhere with no computer.)

No, I didn't have the full story. But now that I do, I'm not convinced. You say that this "seemed good enough", but I have difficulty discerning notability. I don't think that big game hunters are inherently notable; for this one, there's a claim that he was unusual in being of Indian origin, but this claim is backed up by a wiki and an article of almost half a century ago from a somewhat obscure newspaper. (Yes of course half-century-old articles in obscure newspapers may be cited, but it's odd for such a source to be vital for the most important claim in an article.)

It had never occurred to me that kicking off a brand new article would be a good introduction to editing Wikipedia. (I'm surprised to discover that I did this with my fifth edit, but the situation was different back then.) Depending on the person's skills and tastes, she'd be better off starting out by fixing spellings, making changes to wording, sourcing the unsourced, or similar. Doing this brings skills, it may bring the appreciation of others, it's likely to bring understanding of what's involved, and it also is likely to avoid the suspicion that the user is primarily/exclusively here in order to boost her own company/school/chum/ancestor/whatever. In particular, I wouldn't dream of suggesting to a new editor that she should aim for "DYK": the requirements are so many and so laborious that I've never wanted to attempt it myself.

Yes, things were easier in 2004. The idea seemed to be: "If what you want to say is going to seem reasonable to people who know a bit about the subject, you don't have to source it. And what sources you do specify can simply be listed at the foot of the article." The sourcing in my early articles is atrocious by 2015 standards. (It probably wasn't good even by 2004 standards. And there was a fair amount of "unencyclopedic" editorializing, some of which has lasted until today.) But even if I were to perpetrate these now, I don't think that there'd be any suspicion of COI, and I don't think there'd be questions about notability.

I knew that there was a wide male/female gap in en:WP editing but not that it was 90/10. This is a matter for concern and it's good that you are encouraging more women to join up. But I don't see any gender issue with the treatment of either the creator of many stubs for more or less obscure units or the creator of Bali Mauladad. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• You've never done a DYK? You should not be intimidated as your work such as Ken Grant would fit in quite well. The most challenging part is not so much creating the entry but reviewing the work of others. I am familiar with the formalities as I have done several dozen now. If I should notice some new work of yours, I may nominate it for you so you can see how it's done. Andrew D. (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

When I get around to creating an article (which isn't often), I do like to start it on the substantial side; this alone would raise the chance of DYKability, I suppose. ¶ Oh dear, every time you mention one of "my" articles, I look at it and realize that it's in worse shape than I had lazily presumed. (Thence Routh [still poor], Grant.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Andrew many thanks for your wishes. Have a great start to the new year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauladad (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, Hope you are well. I have done a new article today. It is saved in the sandbox :) I got confused about the stub? Please can you have a quick look. Mauladad (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well done; it's good to see you pressing on. I am quite busy with several different issues but will put this on my watchlist and help out as best I can. Andrew D. (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bali Mauladad

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld's barnstar

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I'm glad that at least you see the value in my stubs and what is most important on wikipedia (identifying notable subjects and addressing systematic bias and working towards improving them)! Thankyou Andrew.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember if you said you're interested in Stanley Kubrick at all but I've updated the main article and will be working on getting it up to GA n the next few weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks but I'm not especially interested in Kubrick and iirc that topic already has too many cooks. I'll put it on my watchlist and just lurk in case more voices are needed to resolve some dispute. I'm much more interested in Al-'Abr which seems quite a fascinating place - rich in ancient Arabian history and then a far-flung outpost of the British Empire. But today my priority should be the boat race and I need to get ready for that... Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd thought it was you who mentioned Kubrick previously, I must be mistaken. A lot of editor interest, yes, but very few actually coming up with the goods! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting new stub, Orm Storolfsson..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Safety behaviour

Requested a dispute resolution here for an outside opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Safety_behaviors If you can, please add your side of the dispute so that this problem can be resolved. Thanks! GoldenCirclet (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am responding at the relevant talk pages. Andrew D. (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Rider ranger47 ^Talk 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Weights and Measures

Wrap reel

You created the above article, which is a fine stub, but I cannot see this going anywhere with the present title. There should surely be an article on the (mostly unsystematic) systems used for measurement in the textile industry, and I think this could be a good starting point for it. Suppose we renamed it to "Measurement in the textile industry"? Or do you have any other suggestions for titles. This would immediately mean that a list of the units we do know about could go on this page: currently both skein and lea go to a tangled web of DABs and the usual isolated claims about 4 decimal places of centimetres. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have created hundreds of articles and already have no shortage of ideas for development and expansion. What I lack is time. In your case, it appears that you have only created two articles — Johann August Just, Walter Schulthess — and they are both still stubs. Please see the Mote and the Beam, "...with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again". Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll skip your response, since you don't seem to have understood what I was saying. I am suggesting renaming this article more broadly, and I ask your comments on this, rather than plunging ahead. Or are you saying you have no further interest in the subject? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Truss

Thank you much Andrew for saving the article Truss (unit). Shevonsilva (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're welcome. It has proved to be an interesting topic and I hope to do even more. Andrew D. (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Obsolete units

Hi Andrew Davidson: Per your interest in the topic, check out the new List of obsolete units of measurement. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal stone

Since you had some involvement with the Legal stone redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ard

Is the "ard" any more real than the "Stupping ton"? OED hasn't got it (except as a light plough, or a suffix meaning "one who does to excess, or who does what is discreditable"), nor online Larousse, nor online Oxford combined dictionaries (including bilingual). Where did you find your statement that a Demiard was "originally half of an ard"? PamD 16:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The "ard" also isn't mentioned in Units of measurement in France before the French Revolution#Volume - Liquid measures where the "Demiard" is described (and to which I've just redirected Chopine (unit), along with making the missing hatnote from Chopine). PamD 16:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• The issue is best discussed on the talk page for the article in question. Please see there. Andrew D. (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

“I Was Kaiser Bill’s Batman”

Dear Andrew Davidson, on 6 March 2010 you created the article “I Was Kaiser Bill’s Batman”. That day you wrote there, among other facts, that John O’Neill was the whistler of that song. Later another Wikipedian was quite adamant on three occasions (17 July 2013, 12 August 2013, 19 May 2015) to remove John O'Neill from the article justifying this change by referring to the very same sources that you had put in there in the beginning. I’ve contacted the mentioned Wikipedian on his talk site but he insists on being right regarding the changes. But the current statement in the article (“This was credited to Whistling Jack Smith provided as a session musician by Mike Sammes of the Mike Sammes Singers”) sounds like Jack Smith was a real person and it doesn't say anything about the actual whistler of the song. But you are more knowledgable here. So, what do the mentioned sources actually say (Then, Now and Rare British Beat 1960-1969; Whistling in the wind for a good tune)? I don't have them. I got my knowledge regarding that article from some websites on the internet which might not be recognized as reliable sources by Wikipedia. Could you look at the article once more to clarify and correct it? (A couple of days ago I wrote you on your Colonel Warden talk site. But I'm not sure if you still use that account and regularly read messages there.) Best wishes (Stillbusy (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC))

• Thanks for your persistence. I have the information you seek and will get to this in due course. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• The role of John O'Neill seems well-established now. The Western Daily Press article is difficult to find online now but I'll look out for it at the BL. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Malvern pic

Hey Malvvern battle is at FAC. Are you sure the licensing etc on your pic are all perfect? Besides the location you placed it on the article is violation of MOSa• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• The image's author, licensing and formatting are similar to another existing image which appears in the article lower down. My concern was that there wasn't a good photograph of the battlefield. I started by considering replacing that second image but then decided that to add the image in the Geography section. I previewed having the image on the RHS but that didn't work so well because of the quote box. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

can't wedge text between two images or boxes.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• A similar effect is found further below in the article in more than one place. If you have some general objection to imagery on the LHS, then you should please start some general discussion at the article; I was just following existing examples. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Time

In the comments about the Signpost article (re: incorrect information in DYK articles) you mentioned the exact time of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon, and suggested confusion about why 09:37:46 would be shortened to 09:37 instead of 09:38. I believe the answer to this is the fact that time and date notations do not necessarily refer to exact moments, but to ranges of time. If a child was born in December of 2014, we wouldn't round that and say she was born in 2015 just because the first day of 2015 was closer to her birth than the first day of 2014 was. Likewise, it is 09:37 from 09:37:00.0 until the moment the clock hits 09:38:00.0 and it is Saturday right up until it becomes Sunday, and not one second early. Anyway, happy editing! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Etamni: I take your point but it depends on the context. If we were to agree to meet at 3 o'clock, you might reasonably be upset if I didn't turn up until quarter to four. In the case of Flight 77, those 46 seconds make quite a difference as the plane would have flown about 7 miles in that time. If you're watching a video of the event (which the article has) then waiting 46 seconds to reach the exact moment seems like a long time. So, it's best to be accurate and consistent in this case. Andrew D. (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more concise to specify the exact second of the impact. Regarding the 3 o'clock analogy, a quarter to four is just being fashionably late :) Actually, "3 o'clock" is usually considered to be the minute of 3:00:00.0 until the clock hits 3:01:00.0, so showing up at a quarter to four is fairly late. Although the range analogy works for most time and date terms, in English, we don't have good terms that refer to the hours, except by explicitly mentioning that we mean the hour (e.g. between three and four, or the six o'clock hour) but yes, context is king. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech and tools

A new reference tool - Citoid

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No PNG for photos

When you corrected the orientation problem on File:Rock on Top of Another Rock south.jpg you did so by uploading File:Rock on Top of Another Rock south.png. The objections to using PNG are: the file size increased from 1,322,852 to 8,680,934 bytes with no increase in information content and all the EXIF metadata was thrown away. If the situation occurs again, upload to the Commons (which is where you should be uploading anyway) and use the "request rotation" facility which is available there - or ask me to do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• My impression is that it's the EXIF data which can cause the rotation problem as there's an orientation tag in it which is not well-supported. As for the rocks, they have gone now, alas. I cycled past the Serpentine on my way to the Tweed Run recently and made a point of checking. Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Team editing experiment

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

• I have commented on that talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Collections

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form (http://goo.gl/forms/ZyYQm6uu7e). If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimeets

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE, etc.

Hey. I wanted to stop by your talk page, and see if I could address your concerns away from the heated discussion on the WP:N talk page. I spend more than half my time editing sports-related articles, and we make frequent reference to WP:ROUTINE in sports-related AfDs in determining the notability of athletes, games and rivalries. For daily news coverage of events, I see WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE forming an overlapping, interlocking and usually complementary set of principles regarding news events and the persons covered as part of them. Sometimes, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E may into play, too. None of these guidelines are intended to exclude obviously notable events or persons, and usually only come into play for subjects of very marginal notability. So, talk to me -- I want to see if we can thrash this out and address what concerns you may have. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't focus on sports so much and so suppose that we have different perspectives for this reason. One concern I have is that a simple word like ROUTINE might easily be interpreted in a non-sports context and so we'd get considerable creep. But these points are best made at WP:N where there's a particular issue under debate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, WP:ROUTINE is commonly used in non-sports contexts too, but probably not as frequently as in sports. Events like Prime Minister's Questions for December 2, 2015, an individual Monday Night Football game, and last week's Arsenal vs. Tottenham match are clearly intended to be excluded, because there is almost no in-depth coverage beyond the typical news cycle, and they are often better covered as part of a larger topic. I'm happy to move this back to the WP:N talk page, but I don't want you to think I'm trying to hoodwink you into a result you're trying to avoid. Sometimes user talk page discussions are calmer and more personal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• For sports, commonplace fixtures are included but they seem to be distilled into pages such as 2015 New York Yankees season. I expect that this is done mainly for practical reasons – baseball is played every day and it would be too much work to create pages at that rate. Such pages of results are contrary to the intent of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK but the fans create them regardless. So it goes. Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Correct. Season articles are one of the outlets for content related to regular season games; if something particularly noteworthy happened in a particular regular season game, it can almost always be covered in a sentence or two in the season article rather than creating a stand-alone article for an individual regular season game. The season articles are analogous to lists in that regard. There will be occasional exceptions for individual games whose coverage clearly exceeds the threshold standards of WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and for which stand-alone articles are appropriate. The season articles should not exist as bare lists of game results. Of course, the problem is that many editors find it easy to add game results to schedule tables, but difficult to write the accompanying narrative text that explains the results in the context of the overall season. I share your frustration in that regard, and have made a bit of nuisance of myself around several of the sports WikiProjects by suggesting that if editors can't be bothered to add several paragraphs of meaningful sourced text to these season articles, they ought not to be created at all. You can imagine how that has been received. And so it goes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

The "Note" here says it all. EEng 09:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• The article in question (Scandals of Prince Harry) has already been speedily deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more ... Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

  — Henry V

My amazement was at the nominator's idea that it "could be fun" to carry this item as a DYK on VE day. Fucking hilarious indeed that would be -- shows a complete lack of taste and judgment. EEng 18:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Great Turnstile

On 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great Turnstile, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Great Turnstile (entrance pictured, right) was originally built to keep cattle out of Holborn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Turnstile. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Great Turnstile), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I enormously enjoyed this new article. The evident pleasure you have in writing your new articles communicates itself to the reader. Smashing stuff! Tim riley talk 21:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's kind of you to say so. I tried to get it into good shape for the Meetup there today (pictured) where it made a good talking point. Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Asian Month

	The Asian Month Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I started with Methodist Girls' School, Ipoh. That then led to Sarah Crosby, which was helpful for the Women in Religion World Virtual Edit-a-thon. Sarah Crosby then led to The Foundery, which the best so far. "Only connect!" Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Foundery

Allen3 ^talk 00:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016

Wikipedia Asian Month

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Sign up now

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Did You Know

Completed DYKs are archived at User:Andrew Davidson/DYKs.

Aviation in Indonesia

Hi Andrew: Thanks for your opinion at the discussion page. I had to base my review upon the rules; so it goes. Per your IAR notion there of possibly moving forward with the nomination anyway, here's some ALTS I initially provided at the nomination page, prior to realizing that the article ultimately doesn't qualify per the rules. Facepalm North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks but I reckon there must be a better hook out there there we still haven't found. Something about kite fishing, perhaps ... Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham Koran manuscript

What is it they say, about systemic bias? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: I have nominated this for DYK, as suggested. Myself, I'd now like to work upon floccinaucinihilipilification but find that it is fully protected to prevent me. What they say is that this is now “The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite. BTW, there is now a news story about how big a news story the manuscript has become. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To further highlight the inanity of the decision not to include this in ITN, the French Wikipedia currently features the manuscript in their equivalent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: That's interesting, thanks. It will be interesting to compare the effect on the traffic. Currently, the French page has had 3745 hits while the English one is still ahead with 4624. ITN isn't essential as readers will tend to find their way to topics in the news by other routes. It's a shame that you weren't at the AGM yesterday as I was hoping to talk to you about this and the RSC topics. Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK hook

Thanks for nominating the DYK about the oldest manuscript of Quran. I'm here to suggest you to change the hook, although the current one is accepted to step toward main page. My suggestion is as follows:

...that the oldest manuscript of Quran (pictured), dating back to muhammad's era, is said to prove that "the text has undergone little or no alteration?"

My suggestion conveys what the current DYK is meant to say while has another important point within. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• By choosing a bland, uncontroversial hook and moving quickly, a fast review and approval was achieved. Reopening the nomination is not a normal process and would invite dispute and delay. Perfect is the enemy of good. Andrew D. (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

my proposal does not seem controversial as it is an statement derived from the News. Yes, it gets its way with delay, but I think it is worth trying! However, it's up to you. Mhhossein (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: After further consideration, I have reopened the nomination to propose an alternate hook. The discussion is open to all so you can propose your suggestion there too. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I made my proposal. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Peter Williams (dance critic)

Hello! Your submission of Peter Williams (dance critic) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update. Another editor did a lot of work which needs a copy-editing pass. I'll get to it in due course... Andrew D. (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Tourism in Brunei

Hello, Andrew Davidson. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Tourism in Brunei.
Message added 20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Human3015^TALK  20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have no immediate plans or time to work on the topic but I'll keep an eye out for better sources. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Caste issues

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Hello Andrew: I don't know if you are aware of the discretionary sanctions authorized for articles related to caste by the community. This message is prompted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samra and the sourcing discussed there. I really do not want to hand out topic bans, but you should know that the sourcing you consider to be acceptable is not considered such by others, and that lengthy discussions based on such sourcing becomes disruptive, as the AN discussion made abundantly clear. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Lengthy discussions are disruptive – got it and I agree. I shall say no more there and had already moved on. Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• You know that's not what I mean, Andrew. You know that I know that you know what I mean. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Trouble at t' Mill *Email to LCC

We have contacted Jo at LCC, and she hopes to talk with MikePeel at Liverpool Wikimeetup this Saturday. More news then. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Evening Snow on the Heater

Hi Andrew. Well done, that's a really informative and useful article to support a Main Page image. And one you created at really short notice. I have two questions, which I thought might be better placed here than at the article Talk Page: 1. What is silk floss? - the silk article does not explain. 2. Is that really wadding for a gun, that the woman is preparing, or is it merely this type of wadding? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: Thanks for the feedback – it's good to know people are reading. Silk floss is the raw silk from the cocoons, before it is spun into thread – see here for a picture. You're right that batting is a better link than wadding as I suppose the silk was used for padded jackets, duvets and the like. Thanks for spotting it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Cataracts

Page numbers are generally needed for books.[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Doc James: Thanks for paying attention – it is gratifying to have one's edits read by someone who actually understands them. That diff shows that I am adding page numbers in most cases. The exception was the book Essential Principles of Phacoemulsification where the statement appeared in a general blurb/preface. I have added another citation with a specific page reference.

It may help to understand what's being done here. There's a new development in cataract treatment which was recently published in Nature and reported by the BBC. This seemed a good thing and so I started a stub about lens regeneration and nominated it to appear at WP:ITN, as it's in the news. The matter is the subject of discussion there where one has to deal with editors who are more familiar with sports and video games. They want to see more citations and so that's what I'm giving them. This is arguably the blind leading the blind because none of us are qualified eye doctors but I strive to be the one-eyed man by dint of finding such sources. I did take a look at the Ophthalmology task force but that doesn't seem to be active. I also thought of pinging you but didn't want to bother you again, as you're a busy guy. But now that you're engaged, do please contribute to the discussion.

Andrew D. (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

K will take a look as I catch up on a few things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Andrew, Lens regeneration should not exist. OK, please pause and take a breath. Here is why - this is based entirely on a primary source and the corresponding hype in the media. There should not even be content anywhere in Wikipedia about this yet. Please read WP:MEDREV which describes exactly this kind of situation. Please also read WP:Why MEDRS?. As an example of the dangers of doing as you have done, please bear in mind that this happened. Then all of this. At the same time, this. Then this. Then this. Terrible. We actually have a whole article about the scandal now. The mission of WIkipedia is to provide the public with accepted knowledge. Will you please consent to the deletion of that article? Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• The topic does not depend upon one source. The latest study and trial builds upon other work such as Lens and retina regeneration: transdifferentiation, stem cells and clinical applications (2004) and Lens regeneration in New Zealand albino rabbits after endocapsular cataract extraction (1993). For an example of a review, as recommended by WP:MEDRS, see Lens regeneration in mammals: a review (2006). I might have added such material to the article already but I've been quite busy this week. Any attempt to delete the page in question should first please follow the process described at WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Will you please respond to what I wrote? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just did. Perhaps the indentation gave a different impression so I have adjusted it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You did not. Above you describe this as an article about a new treatment and it is not a treatment - it is extremely far from being a treatment. That is where all the hype dramatically misleads people. This particular hyped thing is something that has been explored for (as you note) over ten years, and has still not become a clinical treatment. And literally every paper is met with hype like the BBC article you originally cited along with the primary source. You do not seem to be understanding this... you fell for the hype that WP:MEDREV explicitly warns us against. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Lens regeneration at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Andrew D., this DYK review has been sitting unanswered for nearly two weeks. Please respond. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I only just noticed this prompt as it has been a busy weekend. Please allow me a couple more days to deal with this. Andrew D. (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

On 30 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lens regeneration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in one study, a newt was able to regenerate the lens of its eye eighteen times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lens regeneration. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lens regeneration), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Tiger Jack Payne

Thanks for picking that up, Andrew. I came across the same biography and then wanted to check it out before doing a redirect, but then I had to go out . . . Leutha (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TIES – EU English

Can I ask your rationale for this unexplained revert? AusLondonder (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would guess that it somehow related to the fact that the United Kingdom has not "withdrawn" from the European Union. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Do you think the UK is withdrawing? How long do we wait? The invoking of Article 50? The actual day of departure? AusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait until it happens, seems obvious to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The matter would be best discussed at the talk page for the policy in question, In the meantime, here's a useful link to the EU's equivalent policy: English Style Guide – A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You would also be well disposed to answer the question posed, your reason for reverting was "revert" which is not expansively explanatory, yet simply and obviously and nugatorily self-describing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And the consequence was...

1. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_187#Remove_Institutions_of_the_European_Union_as_an_example_of_WP:TIES?
2. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_219#More_clarity_required_on_"Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic"_in_relation_to_the_EU
3. going
4. gone

Requisition

I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requisition (2nd nomination) as a fairly clear consensus that the content wasn't useful in this form. In particular, Chiswick Chap changed their position from Keep to Delete so it's 4-1 by the numbers (the nomination counts as a delete "vote"). That said, there isn't really any consensus that an acceptable article on this topic couldn't be written just that what was there isn't enough to stand alone. I will go ahead and userfy to User:Andrew Davidson/Requisition so that you can go ahead and work on it. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I think that the topic by that name is always going to be very close to a dictionary entry; far better would be Requisition process, alongside a separate (historical) article on Military requisition, where I'm sure a good solid story is there to be told. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Donegal

Hi, I reverted your edits because the original spelling was correct. Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification. Looking into this strange orthography (Dún na nGall), I find that it is a feature of Irish Gaelic called eclipsis which is not done in Scottish Gaelic. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

blowing up TNT

I agreed with your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing strategy and eventually drafted essay wp:TNTTNT, although i modified it down after someone objected to calling it disruption. Your participation in refining it and/or discussing at Talk page would be welcome. It has only been invoked a few times, by just me, so far. Thanks, --doncram 23:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have much enthusiasm for essays but I'll put it on my watchlist. The point about the {{rewrite}} tag is a good one; I've not come across that before. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Great, thanks! --doncram 23:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The Fountainhead

Thanks for the encouragement, but I expect I will wait for the GA, followed by a GOCE copy edit, and only then try for FA. Considering that the subject is controversial, I might even throw in an extra peer review just to be safe! If you are interested in doing the GA review, I can provide quotes or even scans of most of the offline sources to assist with verification, and/or you could request "second opinion" input on any points you are unsure about. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm too busy currently to go through such a mass of material but will keep an eye on it and help out if I can. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK review of The Big Treehouse

I tagged Template:Did you know nominations/The Big Treehouse for a new reviewer because for some reason I thought I already contacted you. I'm finally getting around to contacting you to see if you can look over the article again. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• @SL93: Sorry but I have been diverted by other Wiki activities such as those above. I might get back to the treehouse later in the week but, in the meantime, it's fine if someone wants to pick this up. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

DYKs at AfD

What's the usual procedure for dealing with DYK nominations that then get taken to AfD? I know Abbie Hutty was one, and it seems Line the Label is another. Do we just sit around and wait for the AfD to close before doing anything? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: In my experience, there's a time-out for the DYK process while the AfD is resolved. This mainly matters for the qualification period, which usually has a 7 day limit. People will usually accept an extension if time is needed to sort out the AfD. Articles for which the DYK and AfD were close together include Bali Mauladad; De Hems; Divine countenance; Dog and Duck; Hill Street; historical figure; idiom dictionary and Teletubbies say "Eh-oh!". Typically, the AfD would generate activity which made the article good enough to take to DYK. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, per WP:DYKSG#D5: Articles nominated for deletion must go on hold until they have survived the deletion process. So for articles that are already DYK nominated, we just sit around and wait for the AfD to close. It's usually best to put a slash icon on the nomination page and say that it is on hold until the AfD has concluded. However, if this is a question about nominating the article, you still do want to nominate it within the seven-day window even if it is at AfD, otherwise it will fail the newness criterion—but you may want to hold off doing the QPQ until you're sure it will be needed. So in this case, submit the nomination before the seven days are up; I'd mention the AfD on the Comment line. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Done - DYK filed, reference to the AfD put on the comment line - as per Abbie Hutty. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Accounts

Per this policy, please connect your alternate accounts to this account. BMK (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I put templates on them already but if you want to check them out, the list is

• User:Colonel Warden
• User:Yes We Can Do it!
• User:Can We Do It?
• User:Do It, We Can!
• User:Major Vex

I used Colonel Warden as my main account for a while for privacy reasons while the others were used in a limited way for testing and training. Andrew D. (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your "Major Vex" account is linked to "Colonel Warden", not to your current account. BMK (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• That account was not active then or now and so is just listed for completeness. Colonel Warden was my main account at the time and is semi-retired. I still look in on it to check its notifications as it gets quite a lot. The priority right now seems to be RfA, as that's on a timetable. Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• To test WP:ACTRIAL, there's also User:We Cannot Do it! Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• I have also created accounts for other new editors, as an event coordinator. Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued use of alt account?

It just came to my attention (I almost never check editors' block logs...) that you were blocked indefinitely and then a week or so later your account was unblocked on condition that you retire your other account, Colonel Warden (talk · contribs). But it's since made eleven edits to the article space, six to the combined talk, Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk spaces, and four to user talk pages other than your own. Were these accidental? Perhaps you should request the alt account be blocked so you don't make that mistake anymore. Or was your unblock condition rescinded at some point? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• The issue was queried and explained some years ago here. I still log in to the account from time to time to attend to the many notifications about its legacy of contributions. For example, I was recently contacted by an author wanting to use an image (right) that I photographed and uploaded from that account. They were planning to credit that account name but I advised them that it would be better to use this name. The account is registered as a WP:VALIDALT with arbcom, who de-sysopped the admin who improperly placed the block and so everything seems in order now. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the block for socking had nothing to do with their desysopping (in the ArbCom case in question, you linked to a block from 21 months earlier, where they blocked you for lying in edit summaries, rather than anything to do with sockpuppetry), and the admin who actually placed the unblock condition on you was not Kww but Yunshui, who has not only never been desysopped by ArbCom but was elected to ArbCom the following year.

Anyway, your above explanation works for the account's edits to its own talk page, but I was specifically talking about 20 or so edits to pages "other than [its] own"; and even discounting any edits to the mainspace (etc.) that might have been related to such inquiries, Somerset Coalfield, for example, was never edited by that account before you agreed to stop using it. Also, Yun specifically told you to clarify the link between the accounts on their respective userpages, but there is not currently any reference to the CW account on this account's user page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• My various accounts are listed above. The Somerset Coalfield update was for another image (right) which was first uploaded for Duncorn Hill. Images have to be used to avoid deletion and so this avoids waste. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

{{Annual readership}}

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:The Adventures of Tintin were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Prhartcom (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:DTTR. Further discussion should take place at the talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that your version of the graph will rapidly go out of date and be meaningless in months to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, the graph updates automatically. For example, see Talk:European_migrant_crisis which I updated a month ago. The template therefore belongs at the head of the talk page with the other permanent features. We just need a good way of presenting this with the other standard talk page templates. It's a new feature and we don't seem to have a standard approach for its use yet. Andrew D. (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so the blip will soon not feature, so your graph placement and associated commentary are pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The presentation can vary as appropriate, depending on the page and its traffic. In the case of the European migrant crisis, we see a steady decline in the page's modest traffic. If it spikes again then this is a clue that something is happening. In the case of the Tintin page, we had a massive spike in interest making it the #1 popular article. The reason for this was not explained at all on the page until I spotted this and added an update. Andrew D. (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And once the blip moves off your graph, it and you comment relating to it become pointless. You need a snapshot of the pageviews, not a live graph which will render your entry meaningless. As for most popular, see WP:TOP25 which is regularly sent to Signpost readers. It's mostly tabloid garbage, as you'd expect, far from what is expected from an encyclopaedia to be presenting on its main page I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just above, TRM was complaining that the graph view would go out of date. Now TRM is complaining that it won't. There's no pleasing some people. Myself, I shall continue to experiment with this and other new features. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• What? I have said the pageview graph will go out of date, in all instances, and as such comments relating to it on any given day will become outdated and then irrelevant. If you want a graph to be relevant to associated personal commentary (as you seem to desire, at the top of article talk pages for some reason), you need a snapshot of the graph to avoid the personal commentary becoming unrelated to the graph. You are of course welcome to experiment in sandboxes etc, but do not use the encyclopaedia for such joyrides, particularly when you're not actually doing it correctly. And feel free to attempt to tout the garbage on the top 25 list as what an encyclopedia should be featuring on its main page. Perhaps you should consider a career with something even more stately like Britannica as you clearly have such standards in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Annual readership has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• The result of the discussion was keep. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting "guidelines"

MOS:COMPSCI has more history and more sense that MOS:COMP, which is not a real guideline but an essay, with few long-term editors, that someone just slapped a guideline tag on without any kind of WP:PROPOSAL process. Most MoS regulars were not even aware the page existed. It's causing problems, like editwars over trivia, and appears to be WP:OWNed by an uncivil tagteam. I think merging what's salvageable from it into MOS:COMPSCI and then MfD'ing MOS:COMP would be useful. I would support COMPSCI being an actual guideline, since it's stable and reasonable (would also entail moving it to a "Manual of Style/" name).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• The good thing about MOS:COMPSCI is that it actually has a reference: Writing for Computer Science. Andrew D. (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Amusement

Hi, I noticed that you wrote a review for this nomination a few hours after a different editor started a review. Since the other editor is new, he didn't know to put an icon on it. I wonder if you would mind letting the other editor finish the review, so he could gain more confidence in the QPQ process. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On second look, I see that you were questioning the purpose of the page itself. Sorry for not noticing that sooner. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's a vital topic but difficult to define and so I'll be keeping it on my watchlist now I have started to engage with it. But the fate of the DYK is no big deal as the extra attention may help it along. Andrew D. (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew, David from Wikimania 2014

Now back in London, in Forest Gate with my relatives, and pleased to find you again. I will be here at the London match-up tomorrow, no plans for today. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave your London phone number here. I have no email to use.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Hello again. I'm fairly busy today but will come early to the London Wikimeet tomorrow, Sunday 10 June. Not sure I want to publish my phone number so publically here so I suggest you email me with a number to call. Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: The sight to see in London today, Saturday, is the World Naked Bike Ride. Westminster Bridge at about 16:30 would be a good spot to catch it. See website, Time Out or the Standard. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I could have seen that bike ride, but I did not see your reply until much too late. Did you take pictures? I will be delighted to see you Sunday at the Pub. I am guessing that before noon is fine, and my laptop can keep me busy. I have working on Jersey since December, and I just returned on Thursday evening.

• @Dthomsen8: The pub opens early but the Wikipedians start arriving from around 13:00. As for the bike ride, there's always lots going on in London, especially in the summer. See Twitter for coverage of today's clash... Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

* 17 Unassessed, 115 ???, 843 Total--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC).

• 1201 Total--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC) (Now 1204)

Andy, tell me about having dinner together tomorrow. Simple arrangement is to meet at the restaurant at a set time. So, name and address of restaurant, time good for you.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)