User talk:Andrewa/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

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

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

please help

dear sir, can you help with ethnic issues in Japan? the article has multiple issues and needs urgent attention. Фквжьись (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

AN/I goof?

Andrew, if my latest conjecture at AN/I is correct, you might want to just hat that whole section, or move it, or in some other way address the error. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I'll completely back you if you try to get the policy on title capitalisation changed. The current situation is ridiculous, and I suspect you'll find a lot of support. G-13114 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:G-13114. It will also face a lot of bitter opposition.

Several editors have put a lot of time and effort into implementing Sanger's style decision on capitalisation. (See the very first version of WP:AT which he wrote.) They've done it in good faith, following the guidelines of the time, and to have their work thrown out is not welcome, understandably. And they've defended their actions in good faith. There has been much bitter discussion, it has lost editors, and people are rightfully sick of talking about it.

Sanger does refer to previous discussion on that point, but I have not been able to locate it. The MediaWiki software has changed a lot since then, the WikiText syntax has changed, and some of the links don't work as a result. Any help finding these previous discussions is appreciated, but it may be a lost cause.

I'm still getting my thoughts together, but personally I think we should adopt a style that says use capitals in article titles wherever it makes the topic clearer to the general reader (and not otherwise). This would capitalise for example Eastern Brown Snake.

The other obstacle to overcome is that some people have very strong feelings as to what is correct capitalisation, generally expressed in terms of proper nouns and proper names. They are I think mistaken in this. Modern linguists cannot even agree on what these terms mean, let alone the circumstances in which they justify capital letters. But in Australia most people haven't studied grammar since primary school, where such simplifications are necessary, and I suspect America (where most of our potential supporters and opponents were educated) is the same. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I really have two objections to the current rules:

1) I really can't see the logic to using sentence case for titles, virtually no publications I know of in the real world use this convention, and titles are IMO supposed to be different from the text, as they fulfil a different purpose.

2) The current one-size-fits-all convention is inflexible and often completely inappropriate for certain topic areas, and it can lead to a situation where an incoherent mishmash of capitalised and non-capitalised titles can exist within one category. I would say there is a good case for consistency within categories.

G-13114 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Good points all, but I'm not in complete agreement with several of them. It sounds as if you would use capitals in titles even more frequently than I would. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

question

Would you please remove my name from your last comment on the RSN re: Napoleon Hill? I ask because you've made it appear as if I've signed my name there and I have not. You can substitute a reply in {{ }} instead. That makes it clear that I did not sign my name there. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. I do not see any problem, but it's easily solved. Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gawker RSN discussion

Thanks for your comments and help. I'm trying to walk the line between deescalating the situation and clarifying it for editors such as yourself. I'd hope we can get to the point where we can get further discussion from outside editors. So far Collect has made clear statements against using the source, MrOllie has provided some context, and you've commented that the source might be used in a limited manner. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever looked at the hat documentation. That's embarrassing. Thanks for bringing it up. I use them regularly to de-emphasize extra details and side discussions. In this case, I was treating it as a side discussion on a topic that I'd already asked for responses on my talk page [1]. I won't be doing that again, but will continue to use it for extra details. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't help that wp:hat redirects to wp:hatnote and until recently that was a dead-end. I'd guess from that we can conclude that a great many haven't looked too hard for the doco (or it would have been fixed long ago).

Ironical that wp:hatnote lacked such a much-needed hatnote, what? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

[2] What specifically are you referring to, if anything, other than the hat? --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Apostrophectomy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Apostrophectomy. Since you had some involvement with the Apostrophectomy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Rude comment

Hi, Andrewa. I find the fact that you linked your comment aimed to the RM proposal made by me, to the newly created essay by you, quite rude. It says that you considered it humorous and asks do not take it seriously but I think you are wrong here. Actually, by my understanding everybody should take wiki policies seriously. Saying this, I have to say that I agree with your comment but not with link it to your essay. Actually, I have read WP:TITLE and WP:NCCORP (well, not in this particular case but tens times before) and my mistake was not to elaborate the rationale in more details. Actually, there is a lot of sources using the new name after the company was purchased by creditors, so I think that it is possible to establish the notability of the new name. My bad was not adding these sources (except one) to the article before nominating it for renaming. This was because of the current shape of this article. It miss a lot of information from the earlier history as also about more recent development (actually everything what has happened after filing for bankruptcy protection) and by my understanding it was just created because the company's listing and was mainly missed afterwards. I tried to sort out that mess but soon discovered that the total rewriting of this article may be a good idea. Saying this, that article is not my top priority and due to lack of time there is a long list of thing in wiki I want to do before spending my time for exploring that company and rewriting that article. Once more, I am not disagree with your comment but with link to rather rude essay. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No offence was intended, Beagel, and I apologise for any caused.

I'd like you to consider the following.

Firstly, you say My bad was not adding these sources (except one) to the article before nominating it for renaming. No. Your bad was not mentioning any of these sources in the nomination. We all make mistakes.

This particular mistake is extremely common, and I'm very curious how you came to make it. You say you've read WP:TITLE many times. And presumably you also read the many notices that say that RMs should be based on WP:AT, which is of course another shortcut to the same policy.

And yet the nomination doesn't seem to relate to the policy at all.

WP:official names is a previous attempt at addressing this. It doesn't seem to have been all that effective. How can we do better? Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Activity in Wikipedia:Administrator review

I surfed through Wikipedia:Administrator review, and I see very little activity anymore. I want to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Administrator review, but it doesn't look busy anymore. I saw your comments there, so I would like to contact you about this. What to do with it? --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

What is exactly the issue you wish to discuss? A diff would be good. Andrewa (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The declining participation on feedback subpages, like this and that. I don't think a diff is needed. The amount of comments themselves would suffice. If not, one from 2010 and one from 2015 would help. --George Ho (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the diff I would have liked, so I know exactly what comments there you mean instead of me having to guess (did I get it right?).

Not sure what if anything can be done about it. There has been a similar problem with WP:ANI. The last issue I raised there (some time ago I admit) was archived for lack of attention, with no sign that any other admin had even looked at it. I've since participated in a few discussions, thinking perhaps I could help, but it hasn't been a very positive experience. Not even sure what the problem is exactly.

But certainly agree that there is one! Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I searched for past discussions about the process but found none from 2016. To which discussion you were referring? Shall the issue be raised at WP:AN? George Ho (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not sure exactly what you hope to find. Andrewa (talk)

... On second thought, I think raising the whole issue there is premature at the moment. Instead, Wikipedia:Administrator review/Metropolitan90 needs more attention. I'll announce the feedback request at WP:VPP and WP:AN. How's that? If that's too much or not enough, where else? --George Ho (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As for the diff thing, I was in the wrong; I shouldn't have made you guess. I'll try one or two diffs next time if you want me to. George Ho (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one, if you refer to a previous comment of mine (or anyone else), so I know exactly which comment you mean and can find the context. Andrewa (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My communication skills

When you said my objections are "completely unfathomable", I realize my communication skills still needs improvement. I realize I need outside sources to improve my English and logic skills. If Wikipedia is not a good place to improve my skills, which outside sources can help me make good arguments without causing any more confusion? --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is an excellent place to improve your English IMO!

I think I see a big difference between your first post in the discussion [3] and the question you ask above. I hope you do not find my reply ungracious. I appreciate your good faith and intentions, and willingness to discuss. I am struggling a bit myself to communicate, and there are potential cross-cultural issues, which may make my reply seem rude and insulting. No insult is intended. We all make mistakes, see wp:creed#15.

But to be quite frank, I think it was a very bad idea for you to challenge a clear consensus between three native English speakers, all of us long-standing regulars at Requested Moves, and two of us long-standing admins, on a principle of article naming. I think that the discussion shows that you did not understand the question, or the principles involved, and that you still don't. I also think that you should have known that this was likely to be the case.

Contribute here by all means, but as you have asked for my advice, here it is:

Firstly, go back to the discussion in question, admit that you did not understand the question, and apologise for wasting our time.

Secondly, be a bit more cautious in intervening in such discussions in the future. The aim of the discussion was to clarify an issue. Without your intervention that would have happened. Thanks to you, the issue is still less clear. Wikipedia has been (slightly) damaged by your intervention. There is no way to take a positive view of it.

Thirdly, please do not be discouraged. I often value your insights, and welcome your contributions, even with the occasional misunderstanding. Your overall contribution is a definite plus in my opinion. And with your desire to improve your English, things can only get even better. Andrewa (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

After reading Francis' post, I think I want to strikethrough my posts as rebutted by Francis'. I'm unsure whether saying a "waste of time" is a good thing because I do want to get engage in the discussion, but I want to owe everyone an apology there. George Ho (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind after reading SmokeyJoe's latest post. George Ho (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree... maybe we should just AfD WP:AT instead. The discussion I started has been sidetracked now in so many different directions that there seems not a lot of point in it. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed comment

Hi Andrewa, not sure if you realised your edit [4] removed my comment at AN. There wasn't an reason given, so I restored it assuming it got lost in error. Regards Widefox; talk 10:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

German Pekin

EditSafe defied the RM consensus by reverting the move. Would you re-revert the page move and then move-protect the article please. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Or... you can re-open and then relist the RM to keep him happy? George Ho (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up... EdJohnston beat me to it and has also move-protected the page. You might like to thank him (I already have). Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

I got it.I will not continue to edit the page.--Tr56tr (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess that's in response to this post to your user talk page.

If so I think that's overreacting. We're all encouraged to be bold, and I did not mean to criticise you for your edit. Perhaps you see that as splitting hairs (and with a degree in formal logic and a career in audit I am both academically and professionally qualified to do that, and that doesn't always work out to Wikipedia's advantage) but to me it's the whole basis of the NPA policy.

I was trying to be helpful. I'm very sorry that I did not communicate that at all, obviously. Can I do anything to fix it now? Andrewa (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. This article is being attacked by a vandal that is not a Wikipedia member. I want the article to be protected. Thanks. - Ullierlich (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that their edits are problematic. But my initial impression is that some of your edits such as this one are no less POV than the ones you've been reverting. I have removed some of the worst text. Let us discuss on that article's talk page, see Talk:Kadir Mısıroğlu#Removed text.

But if this IP continues to insert POV material semi-protection is certainly a possibility, or a block on the address, and I am quite willing to do either.

Feel free to keep me posted here. And in case you're worried about a boomerang, I very rarely block anyone, it's a near-to-last resort. We're certainly not to that stage with you. But we are with the IP. Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Attempted edits on David Lee (screenwriter)

• David Lee (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 72.132.235.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 72.132.236.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I checked the Geolocation and found that IPs come from Palm Springs, California. Seems that the apparently same person was trying to say that the subject's relationship ended. However, no sources currently verify that the relationship ended. I'm unsure whether the edits were good faith or just unverifiable gossip. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. The first step in resolving any content question is to discuss it on the article talk page, so start a new section at Talk:David Lee (screenwriter) is my suggestion. For the moment we assume good faith and that means hoping that if we clearly and politely explain Wikipedia's methods etc to the contributor, they'll respect them. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done so. --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

EditSafe

• User:EditSafe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carbon reactions (photosynthesis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Light-independent reactions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• American Pekin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After premature archiving, the user prematurely moved the article to "light-independent reactions". I don't think I can handle the user alone. What to do about the premature retitling? --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved it back, and left a disruption warning on EditSafe's user talk page. I may also raise it at ANI, and will try to sort out the other out-of-process edits. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a million times for resolving the premature move. Well, I guess I must rely on better resources, eh? :) --George Ho (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

With the recent spate of admin-bashing, encouraged by the newish policy that admins are more accountable than other users for ALL activities whether acting in an admin capacity or not (and there are many situations where we are PROHIBITED from acting in an admin capacity) I've seriously considered resigning from the adminship. But we're seriously short of admins, and "the mop" is very useful on occasions.

Thanks for the encouragement. Appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the process at least is under control now, I called in the bot expert, see User talk:wbm1058#Help needed with a messy move. But in that we now have another admin involved I think ANI is unnecessary for the moment. Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. Also, can the poorly worded RFC be handled by rephrasing or something: Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1#RfC Previous and Current Revisions? George Ho (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think we'll just delete it from the page, in due course. Meantime don't feed the trolls. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

May I ping EdJohnston? George Ho (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing stopping you but I don't see the point. I'm guessing it's just a matter of time before either he or I block EditSafe for 24 hours, see User talk:EditSafe#Please take care. It would be good to thank him for this edit (the summary says it all). And that makes three admins now on the job and in general agreement, so I think you can relax.

But by all means keep me posted here. I have a lot going on at the moment, so heads-ups never hurt. Andrewa (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The article was moved without discussion. I was moving it back unbtil the discussion that was opened after the move is resolved. EditSafe (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, EditSafe, and you should not have done that. Once a move discussion is opened, the affected pages should not be moved until the discussion is closed. By all means state in the RM that it is reversing a disputed and undiscussed move, that's an important part of the rationale for moving it back. Or, revert the move and then open a formal RM for the undiscussed move but oppose it, you can do this with a requested move (unlike with a deletion proposal) and I can help if it seems a bit strange. But do not preempt the RM decision as you did on that occasion.

If you think this is unreasonable, I suggest you raise it at WT:RM. I predict you won't get a lot of support, but feel free. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What to do about this edit? Also, the guy assumed that I had the OWN-ish behavior, so I struck out the comment. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

...Maybe I should assume good faith for now. What to do with the source citing the info? George Ho (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind; someone else reverted the edit. George Ho (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

George Ho Interesting... it certainly bears watching. Andrewa (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Similar edit is reverted again. George Ho (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And again. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Szqecs

• User:Szqecs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know what to do with this user who persists on making changes on rules to mention Taiwan and/or RoC. Well, I did advise the user to go to some other venues where he could ask for clarity. This user seems very enthusiastic on Taiwan a lot. The user created User:Szqecs/China and Taiwan: main articles, User:Szqecs/Naming conventions (China and Taiwan), and even User:George Ho/Naming conventions (China) (to undo my edits and then paste them there). I want to mention ACDS, but I don't know what to say to the user. --George Ho (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin McLaren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail (April 2017)

Emailed you. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

George Ho I didn't receive it, suggest you check whether it bounced and resend. Andrewa (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked my mail and didn't receive the "bounced and resend" stuff. Try emailing me instead. Meanwhile, (double-)check your email address in your "Preferences" page. --George Ho (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Strange... I have now sent you an email, and I received a copy of it in my own inbox, which should have gone to the same address as your first email. Strange indeed. Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sent you email via provider. George Ho (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Got it thank you. Andrewa (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "Review your changes".

In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures to enable the ⧼Visualeditor-preference-newwikitexteditor-label⧽.

A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. [5]

The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can request multi-column support for your wiki. [6]

Other changes:

• You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this. [7]
• The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow. [8]
• The Categories item has been moved to the top of the Page options menu (from clicking on the icon) for quicker access. [9] There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there. [10]
• You can now create <chem> tags (sometimes used as <ce>) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor. [11]
• Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed. [12]
• The Special character menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) . The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt. [13]
• A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed. The team are sorry for the disruption. [14]
• There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations: Control+Shift+K on a PC, or Command+Shift+K on a Mac. It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is Control+K on a PC or Command+K on a Mac. [15]

Future changes

• The VisualEditor team is working with the Community Tech team on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of <ref> tags and other types of wikitext syntax. You will be able to turn it on and off. It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017. [16]
• The kind of button used to Show preview, Show changes, and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI. The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read. The labels will remain the same. You can test the new button by editing a page and adding &ooui=1 to the end of the URL, like this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1 The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes. [17]
• The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors. See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use. [18]

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Andrew,

I see that over the past few days I have with insufficient care posted some comments, while distracted by real life, and on an iPhone with very annoying autocorrect and an edit window that disappears while typing. Please let me know if there are any particular comments I should simply strike. Discussions on organs I think are particularly messed up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Will do of course. I live in an area with no mobile coverage so although I have a "smart"phone for use while travelling to the jungle (eg Sydney, we call where I live "civilisation") I have data turned off on it. (Actually when I bought it... saving $AUD100 on a dumb phone which was perhaps a bad bargain in hindsight... and asked the sales assistant to turn data off, he said "why?" with a look of complete incomprehension... I said "How many updates per month will exhaust the free data on my plan?" and he said "But if you don't get updates you'll have problems." I replied "Do you remember the last five customers who brought 'phones back with firmware or software problems?", he said "Yes, I think so... yes, OK... why?" I said "How many of them would have had any problem at all if updates had been turned off?" "Um, none of them, actually...")

The prosecution rests. Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia campaign update

I'm writing you this followup message, as you took the time to vote in support of a Wikipedia banner campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia.

After much planning and coordination with the WMF, Australian Digital Alliance, and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as of Monday the banner-campaign is active on English Wikipedia to a portion of logged-out readers in Australia (technical details). The banners direct people to this page on Meta: FairCopyrightOz. That page, alongside lots of information, further directs people towards the campaign website faircopyright.org.au where Australians are invited to write to their local MP to express support of Fair Use. If you are interested in supporting this campaign, please, send a letter yourself using the template letter provided at that link.

Furthermore, and with the support of the ADA & EFA, we have received fantastic media coverage - with article "Fair Use: Wikipedia targets Australians in bid to change the law" appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald and page 10 of the Melbourne Age on Monday's edition. It was for a time the 3rd most read article the Fairfax website, and Fair Use was "trending" on Twitter in Australia. We are running the account @FairCopyrightOz on twitter, and we are tracking other press-mentions on the talkpage on Meta.

Today, day 2, we published a detailed post about the campaign on the Wikimedia Blog, ran an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on the Australia page in Reddit, and [by happy coincidence of timing] the article History of fair use proposals in Australia appeared on the en.wp mainpage as a Did You Know. [The creation of that "history of..." article was a specific request arising from in the community consultation in which you voted].

And, most importantly, in a little more than a day nearly 800 letters to MPs have been sent encouraging them to support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to adopt Fair Use in Australia. I urge you - please add your own message.

Sincerely, Wittylama 16:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The Gifted

You moved The Gifted to The Gifted (album) without changing the corresponding links. You should really do that when you move a page. Koala15 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Koala15, which links do you mean? And is that according to a policy or guideline I may have missed, or is it your opinion? If it's your opinion, perhaps it should be proposed and discussed on a more appropriate talk page?

This is a collaboration. The closing admin is expected to do some of the urgent cleaning up (the fair use rationale on the cover art for example) but there's nothing stopping you doing some of the work too! Andrewa (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't move the page if you can't finish the work then, and you don't have to be mean about it. Koala15 (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I note you have not answered any of my questions.

You've been here five years and made many constructive edits, but from the above and from recent activity on your user talk page you still seem to have a very poor grasp of how things work here. Andrewa (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Jessie (TV series)

Hello Andrewa. Just letting you know Jessie (TV series) should in fact be redirected back to the disambib. page at Jessie rather than to Jessie (2011 TV series). As per my original WP:RM proposal, before that can happen though, someone with WP:AWB capability needs to change all the links listed here from Jessie (TV series) to Jessie (2011 TV series). I would do this myself, but I don't have WP:AWB (I use Macs, and AWB is still PC-only...). Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Never having used AWB I'm not the one to do it I'm afraid, and I'm not sure how to request it either... if you find out, let me know. Andrewa (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Feeder is another DAB that now needs AWB attention IMO. Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You can request AWB jobs at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks‎. If you prefer to do the job yourself, JWB is a good alternative that doesn't require Windows. Certes (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

To provide a better destination for incoming links to a dab such as Feeder, I recommend User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist. If you're trying to improve the dab page itself, Dabfix is your friend. Certes (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

New York RM

Hi Andrew,

RMCD bot has understandably run out of patience and decided to start the New York RM! Are we actually kicking off today, or has it just misunderstood your preparatory work? Certes (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The closer we get to true artificial intelligence, the closer we also get to true artificial stupidity

Thanks, Certes, it is not my intention to go "live" at this stage (although I am sorely tempted, the draft looks a lot better than I had expected). I'll see what I can do to fix it! Andrewa (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

200 years time...

Hi Andrew, just thought I'd reply here to your comment "Although I do sometimes wonder, in 200 years time, will anything I've done still matter? And I suspect that the work I've put into Wikipedia will outlast most of whatever else I've achieved."

I've never really thought of my contributions to Wikipedia this way before, but that very well may be the case for me as well, assuming Wikipedia doesn't cease to exist in the interim period. Most of what I do in my professional life becomes obsolete or replaced in 10-20 years typically. It makes me think I should work all the harder between now and the end of my life to get as many FAs as I possibly can! Although sadly even the greatest article begins to diminish as the passage of time chips away at it like an Egyptian edifice eroded by the desert winds. Without proper monitoring, the irrelevant, POV and unreferenced junk that people insert begins to drown out the remains of the previously brilliant prose.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a thermodynamic problem there, certainly. But you might find this page of mine interesting. Andrewa (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that! An interesting read. I'm probably mainly an agnostic leaning Catholic when it comes to theology, and whatever else may come after death, I'm trying to make the most of my time here and have as fulfilling and varied life as I am able to while also carrying out things I've committed to others. Wikipedia being one part of that. I hope that in doing that, if there is anything else at the end of it all, the entity doing the judging will view me favourably!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I recommend Leslie Weatherhead on that! Particularly The Christian Agnostic, the first book he published after his retirement (I've always thought it probably significant that they could not sack him then... and it's a bit like the first LP of most bands, it shows signs of many years' of work!). The word agnostic was of course coined by Thomas Huxley as the name of his mock religion intended to discredit the Church and particularly the Church of England of the time.

I judge a religion purely by its practice, and I think the Jesus of the Gospels does the same. And by that criterion, we may be of the same faith exactly. As is Weatherhead. The Wikiquote section does not do the book justice but there's some interesting and accurate stuff there. Andrewa (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:State University

Draft:State University, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:State University and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:State University during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch Legacypac, suggest speedy with its talk. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Done and thanks. By abandoned I mean not edited in 6 months - one of the criteria for the list I'm working. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A good criterion, probably not even necessary to document as it's so commonsensical. Thanks for the heads-up. Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Keeping focus

Dear Andrewa, in the context of the ongoing New York move discussion, I took the liberty of moving three four threads you initiated to the meta page prepared for the purpose of holding debates about proposal structure, past discussions or editor behaviour. I just wanted to let you know this is nothing personal, it just so happens that those threads veered too far off topic to help with determining the merits of the proposed move. Some editors have complained of your excessive verbosity already; perhaps you should twist your hands seven times in the air before starting new threads. I understand that this subject is dear to your heart, but you don't need to jump and respond to every opposing statement that pops up, unless there is substantial new information to convey. The RM has only been opened for a couple days, and there is no deadline. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 11:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks JFG. I am holding back a bit now, partly because I'm just having trouble finding time even to read the new discussions, but it's also becuase the last thing I want to do is to be a distraction.

The /meta subpage seems to be working well. I have some reservations with it. In particular, the invitation to discuss behaviour there seems out-of-process... if it doesn't belong on the main talk page, it belongs on user talk pages. If we can get away with it fine, it's a good idea from a practical viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of policy I think we'd be a sitting duck. Hopefully I'm wrong and/or we don't find out!

The other thing is I think I'd prefer off-topic threads just to be hatted. The danger is, I was replying to something, and that something has not been removed from the page, just my reply. This doesn't seem to be a problem so far, but it's a danger. This may not be covered by any policy or procedure, I'm in unfamiliar territory here, but if it is then again I think we'd be vulnerable. It might at least be contrary to the spirit of policy/guidelines, and there's a practical danger IMO.

I was also concerned that we had not heard at all from some of the usual suspects last time, and was wondering how to best cope if we had a last-minute rush of oppose !votes and little time for discussion of any new issues they raised. Requesting a relist seemed the obvious course, but it would be unwise for anyone involved to actually do the relisting. And if they'd succeeded in gagging me, that complicates it even more.

But it seems to be going well overall. I think it would be going even better if more people opened new discussion sections rather than discussing in the survey, and that's my last concern... this business has resulted in my being criticised for doing just that, and I don't feel it's good for me to reply. This encourages discussion in the survey instead, which I think has happened, and is not good. It needs to be safe for people to raise new sections IMO.

Opened 7 July, now 11 July, hopefully closes 14 July. Already one of the largest Support !votes that I have ever seen, which is by far the best answer to those who say it should not have been raised.

Marchons, marchons! Quel sang impur... (;-> (That's the version I learned in school, the current official one is even gorier) Um, maybe not. Andrewa (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out your thoughts. I'm confident the process will work well if we all stay focused on the central arguments. Some of the Oppose participants are getting overly emotional but they offer little substance. The intervening year, the shorter format and the comprehensive preparation are all playing a role in making this attempt more likely to produce a solid consensus. Sounds a bit like a crusade, which I dislike, however the status quo is untenable, and most people now understand it: several support votes say they were swayed by the new rationale and the exposure of the extensive damage that had been accumulated. Even our friend Castncoot is neutral, that's quite an achievement of patience and consensus-building. Discuss less, achieve more! — JFG ^talk 02:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: hatting of tangential threads, I took care of leaving your pointers from the survey to each section, and adding a pointer from said collapsed sections to the meta page. In this way, people are still invited to talk, whereas a simple hat would have arbitrarily closed the discussion. Only one of the threads deserved that treatment and was hatted, the four threads you started were simply moved to the meta page and remain open for discussion. Hope this helps, — JFG ^talk 02:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Allan Pease for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mardetanha (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Helmholtz pitch notation revisited

I noticed that some years ago you participated in talkpage discussions about Helmholtz pitch notation and I wondered if you still had any interest in standardizing its use within Wikipedia. Please see what I have written here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Helmholtz pitch notation. Although they're not perfect, graphically, I personally like the use of the Spacing Modifier Letters U+02CC (ˌ) and U+02C8 (ˈ) because they are actually meant as a complementary pair and are easily accessible through the Wikipedia edit window. (I have also tagged onto some other discussions on the subject elsewhere.) —Theodore Kloba (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Move of page for The Suburbs (band)

Greetings, Andrew. Please excuse if I'm doing this wrong.  :) Not sure if you're the right person to notify, but you appeared to be the approver or action-taker for the recent move of the page for The Suburbs (band), due to the conflict with the Arcade Fire album page of the same name. Here's the talk for the move:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Suburbs#Requested_move_30_July_2017

Unfortunately, the move appears to have broken all existing links to the band page. I first noticed while looking at a page for one of their albums: all links to "The Suburbs" are now connected to the Arcade Fire album page. I assume the move would have included a global find/replace, but perhaps did not, and now all the links intended to be for The Suburbs (band) page are going to the wrong place. Do they all need to be updated manually? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrimple (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, AFAIK I'm afraid they do. There's no implicit global find/replace that fixes that. There are some automated tools, notably AWB, which could help, but you need authorisation (which I automatically have as an administrator) and experience (which I don't yet have) to make AWB work. I see there are quite a lot of links... more than 100 but less than 250. [19] Not the biggest I've seen, unfortunately. Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

DAB pages and WP:RM

I think we have both contributed to at least four recent WP:RM DAB-page discussions: Electronic organ, Lhasa, New York and (ongoing) Other. (No, I am not going to dig up the relevant Talk Page links. We all have our limits.)

Should you want to WP:CANVASS support think that independent input in other similar cases from an editor who knows more about DAB pages than many though not so much as some might be useful, feel free to {{ping}} me. I will always form my own policy-based opinion. I don't think I've disagreed with you yet – but should the situation arise, I cheerfully will. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree that you have a good grasp of DAB issues. There are a few editors whose judgement I particularly respect and you are one of them. You often raise good points that I have missed. I will keep this offer in mind. Andrewa (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Tipping Point#Requested move

Since you participated, over a decade ago, in the above-linked discussion, a current one at Talk:The Tipping Point#Requested move 25 September 2017 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Someday, but, 0.02 cents for now

• Fascinatingly enough, this thread returned to memory fr:Spécial:Contributions/Mr_rnddude. This has been relitigated at AN/I more times than I can remember, probably six or seven times now with no action every time. At some point, somebody has to take a better look at it. Me? I'm avoiding it like the plague as I'm unable to actually fix it. Somebody with some content knowledge or ability to speak French could fix the content issue, an admin would have to adjudicate the behavioural question. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Mr rnddude.

I see one contribution at fr:, and a welcome at fr:Discussion utilisateur:Mr rnddude which I could translate for you but it's fairly standard. I speak and read passable French having studied it for six years at high school plus one year at University and several months living there (in Bourges, lovely spot). A bit rusty perhaps.

(To my horror they put me in the "advanced" first year stream at uni, but I passed... while several native speakers failed, academic French is Australia is scandalously bad! But my high school teachers were excellent, two of the four had worked as free-lance journalists in France, writing in French, and a third was Belgian and a native speaker. And the fourth teacher thankfully I had only in first year high school, he knew no French apart from what he'd read in our textbook the night before class but in first year that was almost enough.)

And I can well imagine that it's come up at ANI before with no action. ANI has problems. People are allowed to rant chronically and as a result nobody has the time to unravel the threads. Any help appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Move review

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in an earlier requested move for this article, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)