User talk:Andrewa/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

CfD nomination of Category:Nuclear power by country

Category:Nuclear power by country has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Beagel (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 14:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

G6

Hi Andrew. Could you please re-delete Talk:Palmyra, New York. My deletion was a valid use of the G6 criterion, that's why "(G6: Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article)" is one of the drop down options in the deletion interface. The reason it should be deleted is because it actually creates more problems than it solves – redirects don't need talk pages, it's stupid for the talk page to redirect to "Talk:Palmyra (town), New York" while the redirect points to "Palmyra (disambiguation)", and it makes it easier to move an article to "Palmyra, New York" should there ever be consensus there's a primary topic. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disagree... but perhaps I am out of date here. The deletion created broken links and the redirect did no harm. The dropdown menu should match the criterion, and it doesn't seem to. Where should this be discussed? Andrewa (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion started at WP:AN#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD:G6 [1] and Jenks24 notified [2]. Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Moscow City

Hi Andrew I disagree that there's a consensus to redirect "Moscow City" to "Moscow" - User In ictu oculi indeed has a reason for arguing to do it but the other user is basing it on Google hits, which doesn't take into account that "Moscow City" is the proper English name used for the business center. Two people including me oppose such a redirect. As a compromise I made it a disambiguation page. Keizers (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with that. Personally I feel that there's no call for the two-way DAB there, but there's not a lot in it either way, and even assuming IIO is correct about the primary meaning, the relevant MOS section reads in part In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. So I see no problem with your solution, and you may quote both me and the MOS to IIO if you need to. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Sims (series) and The Sims (video game)

I temporarily reverted your page move because there are alot of redirects targeting the The Sims page, and if the bots had "fixed" the double redirects, and in the process retargeted them to the article about the series, that would have been quite a mess. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... so two questions...
  • What's the correct procedure? Have I missed something in the documentation?
  • What do I need to do now to clean up?
TIA Andrewa (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that The Sims has been targeted at The Sims (video game), the bots will take care of all those redirects to The Sims. After their done feel free to move The Sims (series) back to The Sims. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not very satisfactory IMO. The bots need to be cleverer than that. Are you sure you're doing the right thing here? Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not explaining this well. I'm tired. The problem is that the redirects that target The Sims are supposed to target the article about the video game, not the article about the series. Your move turned them into double redirects to the series, and the bots have no way of knowing that their supposed to target the article about the video game. All the bots know is that their double redirects, and that's it's the bots job to fix double redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I'm probably a bit tired too, and I appreciate the problem and thanks for giving it a stitch in time.
But this would be a chronic problem for multiple moves of this structure, would it not? The bots should give us time to fix the double redirects. I'm appalled that they don't. It would be good for the move dialogue to mention this problem, too. It took me by surprise, but now that you mention it I see what's going on, and to repeat, glad that you stepped in.
But we now we have a situation where the talk page says the move has been carried out, and it hasn't been. Or not completed. And I will receive no notification when it is possible to complete the move that I've already said is done. Not at all satisfactory IMO. Andrewa (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, the double redirs seem to be done, but there are lots of incoming links that the bots won't fix that will need manual fixing.
That's not a reason to oppose the move IMO. A hatnote will help for the short term, and I'll have a look at the longer term cleanup over the next few days. Andrewa (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That above description isn't quite right, like I said I'm tired. The problem is that the redirects that target The Sims are supposed to target the article about the video game, and the redirects that target The Sims (series) are supposed to target article about the series. Your move turned the ones to The Sims into redirects to the series,and turned the ones to the The Sims (series) into double redirects. and if the bots and fixed the double redirects that targeted The Sims (series), we'd need to figure out which redirects were supposed to target the video game and manually re-target all of them back to the video game article. There are allot of redirects targeted to those pages so that would have been quite tedious and rather error-prone to do that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm manually fixed the remaining double redirs. Feel free to redo the page move. I'd do it myself, but only an administrator can move a page to The Sims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 05:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged "The Sims" with {{db-move}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Move redone. If and when you decide you'd like admin I'd be glad to nominate (it's no big deal according to Jimbo). Andrewa (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

History of the Palestinian territories

In response to what you said here and here I didn't want that redirect deleted I wanted it retargeted. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. And that's a possible outcome of RfD, and you said from the start that this was the result you wanted, and it's the result you got, and one I supported. But as I said (not very clearly obviously), what I don't understand is why it needed to go to RfD when it hadn't been discussed on the talk page. That would seem to me to be the first port of call, and without the links I provided there, there would even be a danger that the result of RfD would be forgotten in time and we'd need to start it all over again. Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Andrewa. I noticed where you asked people to comment here instead of here. I took that as an invitation, and I do have a curious question. You, and several others have elected to publish pages that haven't answered a single question, which is fine. I can't figure out if there's an intended message by this action. I know you can not speak for the others, but regarding your; is there a message you are implying by not answering? I hope I didn't confuse my question by asking in a poor manner, but I appreciate any insight you may have on the matter. Cheers, My76Strat (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ten-string guitar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Perry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed! Thank you, Bot! Andrewa (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Compound engines

Please see my question about turbines at User talk:Andrewa/Compound engine. Biscuittin (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a very good point. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Dingley has been disparaging me again at Talk:Flash boiler so I have responded at User talk:Andy Dingley. I thought you might like to know. Biscuittin (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's disparaging, and yes he's promoting his own WP:OR as fact, but it's a long way from the other departures from civility that we've seen elsewhere. No name-calling at all as far as I can see, am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"Another round of trivial linguistic sophistry because you've failed to understand the engineering?" I find that offensive, so I think it is incivil. Dingley has not answered my question as to whether he is better qualified in engineering than I am. Biscuittin (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Aha, yes I did miss that. Agree it is offensive, incivil, but more important it's what we used to call a personal attack before that page was castrated. But in my confrontation with User:Viktor van Niekerk I found that because I had also criticised him we were treated as equal aggressors, so beware. Andrewa (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between criticism and a personal attack. Biscuittin (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. A personal attack, as Wikipedia originally used the term, is similar to but not identical to an ad hominem argument.
Valid criticism of behaviour is never a personal attack. Where it gets tricky is when it's not clear whether or not the criticism is valid. Good faith criticism based on behavioural policies and guidelines is probably not a personal attack.
Ad hominem argument is always a personal attack.
Criticism of a contributor in the place of replying to a valid argument is always a personal attack. Again this gets tricky when it's not clear whether or not the argument is valid. Criticism of a contributor in the place of replying to a good faith argument is always a personal attack.
I think this is a personal attack because it takes the place of replying to a good faith argument. But that is based on my belief that the policy on personal attacks has not changed significantly, despite changes to the wording that have made it a lot harder to interpret. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Eugene Francis Kinkead

Hi! I'm not entirely sure what the protocol for this is, but I just wanted to let you know that I've just opened a move request to undo a different move request you recently closed due to what I believe were deliberately misleading attempts at an improper move. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You might consider also informing the proposer of the move you want reversed. And IMO allegations of deliberately misleading and improper aren't necessary or particularly helpful; Even if true are they relevant here? Save them for an(other?) RfC/U if and when it's needed is my advice. Other than that I think your protocol is admirably good. Andrewa (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Kanekapolei

Could you merge the histories of User:KAVEBEAR/Kānekapōlei and Kanekapolei and move the merged article to Kānekapōlei?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

According to TexasAndroid [3], Vegaswikian is handling this already, and this seems to be the case [4] [5]. Andrewa (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass RM

There's a mass RM at Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories you might be interested in. I'm telling you this because you participated in the RM at Talk:Prostitution in Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

saved book template

Hi,

There's a template called saved book on the english version of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Saved_book), and i would like the templete in the french wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Livre_sauvegard%C3%A9) to be the same.

Is that possible?

Yours faithfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve92341 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it is possible, but I'm neither involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books which is a fairly active WikiProject whose members seem to have set up that template here at English Wikipedia, nor am I familiar with the design and maintenance of templates. I do speak French (un petit peu) and have an account at French Wikipedia but have contributed very little there.
Yes, it does appear to me that the two templates to which you link may have a similar function, but I also notice that the (supposed) French version is not linked to as such from the (supposed) English version, while versions in eleven other languages including for example Italian and Turkish are so linked.
So it may not be quite so simple. The system of which this template is part may or may not work quite the same at French Wikipedia as it does here, and it is the contributors at French Wikipedia who will decide how it does work there.
But I'll see who I can find to handle this. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Enquiries placed now with two involved users. [6] [7] Andrewa (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New RM of Prostitution in Palestine

There's a new RM of Prostitution in Palestine at Talk:Prostitution in Palestine#Requested move. I'm informing you because you participated in the last one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 08:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Pripiat

I don't know what you think you are doing sneaking this controversial move through on Christmas Day when you think no-one is looking but if you think this is the last word on the issue you haven't been here long. Have a nice day. Britmax (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The RM was opened on 10 December [8] so it was hardly a case of sneaking it through on Christmas Day, and it attracted no opposition in almost a fortnight so it was hardly controversial. And I've been here a little while longer than most.
Perhaps we should shut down WP:RM for Christmas, but we don't, particularly when the request has been relisted once already. And of course if we did we'd then get even more complaints from people who wonder why the admins (who are volunteers of course) take so long to action RMs.
There doesn't seem much chance of an RfC/U or similar against me, so my talk page probably isn't the best place to contest the move. Try the article talk page.
But I don't suggest you revert the closure of the move. It was valid. And your post above already raises some issues concerning your own behaviour. Don't dig the hole any deeper.
I'm sorry you feel as you do about my motives. Doing my best. It was an exceptionally good RM proposal IMO, but the reason I closed it as move was simply that there was strong consensus to move. I'll be interested to see how you support your (presumably contrary) views on the article title, in the face of the case presented.
Merry Christmas. Andrewa (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I am being dealt underhand threats about my "behaviour" and assumptions about my opinions by someone who closed a debate which had no active debate since the 18 December seventeen minutes into the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day. That move had at best very weak support. Do you know what the word "disengenuous" means? I will be watching your use of your admin powers with great interest. Britmax (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that my comments above are underhand. They are not even meant to be threats. They are advice.
I concede that you haven't directly expressed an opinion as to the naming of the article, but I'm fascinated that my assumptions are called into question. What are you complaining about if you don't oppose the move?
Feel free to watch my use of admin powers, and see User:Andrewa/creed for where I stand on those. You might first review my previous usage, it's all in the logs, and if you feel that I am misusing my admin powers on any issue in which you are uninvolved, or departing from my personal creed in any other way, I'd very much like a heads-up here with criticism of my actions.
Similarly, if you are involved in a discussion and feel I have made a mistake, a polite request here for me to review and perhaps reverse my decision is always welcome.
But this does not seem to be either of these. This seems to be an attempt to reverse a decision with which you disagree by insulting the admin. Not good. We are volunteers too. Note that WP:AGF applies to admins too, and to yourself, as does the policy at Wikipedia:Harassment. Worth a read if you have not already done so.
My strongest advice still is, if you feel there is a case for reversing the move either because of procedure or because of article title guidelines or policy, make it at Talk:Pripyat, not here. You have as yet made no attempt at this, nor so far as I know to raise questions of my use of admin powers in the channels provided for this.
I'll say again that I do make mistakes. I'll even concede that I looked long and hard at this RM before deciding. I don't think I made a mistake in this case, but either way your reaction to that (hypothetical) mistake is a far bigger mistake IMO.
Would you like to start again? What is your opinion on the article name? Better to state it here than not at all. I thought it was clear from what you said above, but now as I said above, I'm fascinated to know.
And based on that, what would you like me to do about it, and why? Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually if the spelling now used is the one most common in English I would not change it. However you might wish to avoid waiting twelve days then editing on a day when few others will be watching, then becoming upset when someone who is watching finds that sequence unacceptable. And your "advice" to me about stopping digging and behaviour reads like the kind of advice given by suited gentlemen who tell you that if you don't pay your protection money you might have a nasty accident. Britmax (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I think and hope it's more like your mechanic saying that if you don't get your brakes fixed you might have a nasty accident. But I guess some people would then blame the mechanic.
Frankly I am resigned to people finding my actions unacceptable on occasions. I most certainly do not enjoy it, but ten years as an auditor taught me many things. One is not to get too upset about being unjustly accused. A lemma to this is the louder they squeal, the more likely it is that you're right. If taking a little flak improves Wikipedia, it's worth it.
Have a look at this. Interested in your reaction.
This isn't really the place to discuss proposed changes to WP:RM procedures, but I take it that you think that, despite this particular RM having been twice around the normal period for comment, and having received no (that's no as in none whatsoever) opposition in that time, my closing it was premature on account of the public holiday and the enormous number of people who would have been unable to edit because they were watching Her Maj QEII live in 3D.
What do you think went wrong? Did I fail to follow the correct procedures (which include WP:IAR of course, and see also WP:consensus can change), or do the procedures themselves need tweaking? Or should we perhaps go for a software solution and disable all updates during important ceremonies featuring British royalty? (;->
I am, just by the way, an Australian who supports Australia continuing indefinitely as a Constitutional Monarchy. Prince Charles on the other hand is an Englishman who has publicly said that in his opinion Australia will inevitably become a republic. It's a strange world. Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Background

This section appears to be a complaint about my closing the requested move at Talk:Pripyat#RFM to Pripyat (with better justification & references).

There were two similar previous move requests, both unsuccessful, and several other moves that did not deal directly with the Pripyat/Prypiat issue. I voted against the last request saying This is discussed at great length above. The eventual consensus was to use the Ukrainian spelling Prypiat for the article on this very newsworthy ghost town. No new information to reopen this (endless) discussion has been presented.

I did not of course vote in the latest RM, but assessed it as successful as there was strong consensus to move and a well-argued case in terms of WP:AT. The move had already been relisted once having failed to gain any comment on the first time around, and could arguably have been closed as move on that occasion. The user who relisted, who is not an admin but a very experienced and respected editor and a regular RM patroller, gave no reason for relisting but I assumed it was because of the previous discussions and believe they acted correctly. In the following 24 hours two other users then voted in favour, one of them another highly experienced RM patroller who gave only weak support, and the other not previously known to me who gave unqualified support. There was then no further discussion until the second RM discussion period closed and I performed the move.

The complainant above has made some quite hurtful and in my view baseless accusations, and they also now say if the spelling now used is the one most common in English I would not change it. That is exactly the case made, very well it seems to me, by the proposer of the move.

They have been invited to discuss how procedures could have been better followed or how they could be improved, and they have failed to answer. All I have is a rude and in my view unhelpful commentary on my actions.

And it now appears that they do not even oppose the move. Words fail me. Andrewa (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are taking my remarks this personally, particularly as the owner of a Shergold Guitar (I used to have a Masquerader that I couldn't play). I now see that you waited until the discussion period ended and closed the issue in good faith.
However, procedures cannot tell you everything; my concern was for the transparency of the process. You appeared to wait until a large number of our volunteer editors were highly likely to be distracted with family and other matters before making the change. This is a common tactic used by those who wish their actions to pass unobserved, I am afraid. As a last point neither "what this reveals about me" or whether I agree with the result or not are really relevant. Britmax (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Relevant to what? Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that I would not oppose the result is not relevant to my incorrect suspicions concerning the transparency of the process. Britmax (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. It's part of the pattern of both poor research and poor communication on your part. Sorry if that's blunt. Andrewa (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Taking your remarks personally? You falsely accuse me of sneaking, then liken me to a gangster when I object, and don't see these remarks as personal? Again, words fail me.
If you have evidence of such, now or in the future, then please bring it to my attention. Please note, I don't just mean that you believe that some admin has made a mistake. I mean that that some admin has clearly and deliberately timed their action to disenfranchise other editors. This is what you accused me of doing, and it seems to be what you are describing as a common tactic.
To more pleasant distractions. The Modulator has been a wonderful asset. The neck and pickups are superb, and it's remarkably well balanced rather than head-heavy like most electric twelves, and keeps its tune remarkably well. Despite the negative comments of some on the body shape it is very comfortable to play either standing or sitting, with excellent access to all frets and no back problems likely. It has two disadvantages. It's extremely heavy, the Ibanez copy of a Gibson twin neck which was also available in Aust at the time was actually a little lighter (and a little cheaper, but I'm very pleased I bought the Shergold). So you need a wide strap and reasonable physical condition to play even the second song let alone a three set gig, but it's possible and worth it. The other problem is that the electrical connectors are all terrible. I have replaced the jack, and live I always use Module 1 as none of the other modules connect consistently to the body, completely defeating the modulator concept.
Don't give up. We can't all be Mark Knopfler. If you have music in you, find people who will value it. You owe that to the music.
Stage one: You play for yourself and maybe a teacher. Stage two: You play for people who enjoy your playing, but they're your friends, family and other hangers-on. Stage three: You produce music that blesses complete strangers. Go for stage two ASAP, it's good training, and don't stop before stage three. The music is worth it. And tell me how you go, if you like.
What music do you most like? Andrewa (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a wide range but mostly play Genesis, Peter Gabriel, Horslips, some folk (quite often go to Cropredy). Quite like Keane these days. I don't listen to as much as I used to. Britmax (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

barnstar

I'd like to give you this reward for your commitement on french related wikimedia articles.

The French Barnstar of National Merit
message Steve92341 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Andrewa by Steve92341 (talk) on 17:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical error in relisting

Hi Andrew, just wanted to let you know that your RM relist at Talk:Transylvania University of Brașov didn't go through. I don't always understand the technical side of the RM bot's listing, but I would've thought you did it right because yours is the first timestamp. But you may want to take a look. Maybe you can tell what's wrong. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, and I can't tell what's wrong either. I'll try again. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, still seems to be in the backlog. The bot still hasn't found the new date obviously. Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of California (The Electric Prunes album)

The article California (The Electric Prunes album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no evidence that this is a notable product.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

talkback

You've got a message at your enwikt talkpage. (I'd appreciate your reply there, if anywhere.)—msh210℠ 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And fair enough too. Done! Thank you for the heads-up here. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Y'all come back now, y'hear? :-)—msh210℠ 15:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mock orange

Note to myself, and to put this issue in the searchable archives.

Recently mock-orange was moved to Philadelphus without leaving a redirect following a requested move [9].

I'm inclined to think that something needed to be done, but not this. Wiktionary has a definition for mock-orange [10] linked to from our DAB at Mock Orange [11].

So at the very least a redirect should be maintained.

The old title was heavily ambiguous. Probably the botanical name is the way to go. It's more the argument, citing the local naming convention over the common name and reliable references over common usage, and the lack of attention to navigation for those that do use the common names, represented by the lack of a redirect and the chaos of hatnotes and lack thereof in the various articles on plants known (in general locally) as mock orange or mock-orange that concerns me.

Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fender Jaguar Baritone Custom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scale length (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Andrewa (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Parable of the Lily

Hello. I want just say to you that you could write the parable of the lily (Matthew 6:28-34), isn't it. I am french and I don't speak a perfect english, so it is the reason I tell you this, and I don't write this parable with references. Cordially.--Zavatter (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Political status of the Palestinian territories

Political status of the Palestinian territories was unilaterally moved to "Political status of Palestine", and to be honest, I don't want to be the bad guy who reverts it, and I'd rather not get involved (I'm a little surprised it hasn't been reverted already). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Relist error (again)

Hi again Andrew, it looks like there was another relisting error, this time at Talk:Raions of Kyrgyzstan. Maybe the "relisting see below" comment is too long for the bot to recognize or something? Again, it seems like it should've worked. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting... thanks for fixing it. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

RfCs

Hi. Are you aware of anywhere where there's a "pass" level for RfCs discussed, like 66% or 75%? I vaguely recall such a level being mentioned for something in admin context, it may have been RfA rather than RfC. Ring any bells? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

None whatsoever, sorry! Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!

A pleasure to be working with you and all of the other drummers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Should your 2006 user space copy of an article be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES ?

Hi, what is the purpose of User:Andrewa/Nuclear power phase-out ? It appears to be ready for deleting or archiving per WP:UP#COPIES NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, no further use. Its talk page should go too IMO, but I'm not quite sure how to arrange that. Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, this joint has fast service! Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you too. Andrewa (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drum kit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodblock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 16:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I mentioned your name

Hi Andrewa,

FYI I mentioned your name on a user talkpage here. Your input welcome but is not requested by me, nor is really needed insofar as I am qualified to judge. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Drum kit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Score (music)
New Testament people named Mary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Marian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a helpful heads-up, but both of these are the intended targets. Andrewa (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Aaclashcymbal2.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 05:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not terribly helpful:
  1. The information is in fact all there so far as I can see
  2. The file is already in Commons and used by several other language Wikipedias (but not en)
  3. The bot's page links to a problem recording system that would require me to create a userid
No urgent action required I think. Andrewa (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:File talk:Aaclashcymbals.jpg. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, Andrewa! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No particular reason

A pint of Guinness for you. Brocach (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And welcome it is too! Drop around and I'll pour you a Jamesons. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help

Dear Andrewa, could you please check the talk page and help to achieve fairness in materials put on article about Robby Robinson? I would like to hear your opinion if you also support that within a couple of days an article about a famous bodybuilding legend turned out into an article about a criminal junky. All the previous contributions were deleted, not only those from me, and new ones are presented so misleading that people who know Mr Robinson and his life and achievements will never believe this is an article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWM (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I Apologize once again for forgetting to sign my comments RRWM (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Andrewa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Andrewa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I haven't received it. These two posts were by User:96.255.244.131 [12] [13] who is perhaps just testing the system. Their only other contribution to date is to a sandbox [14]. Welcome posted, anyway! Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That was me, I didn't bother to log in sense all I was doing was leaving a {{You've got mail}}. Resent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you - I (subsequently) suspected that and it makes sense... the only problem was that Wikipedia was faster than the email system, so when I checked at first, your email was not yet there! But it was logical, and I've now received your message, and again in hindsight should have waited a little before replying here. (Noting that for particularly sensitive matters, an IP is in a sense less private.) Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Andrewa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Andrewa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lists of Bengali films move request

I want to inform you Talk:List_of_Bengali_films_of_2013#Requested_move where you commented has been included in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#2013_Bangladesh_India_WikiProjects_dispute_resolution where editors from both the WikiProject's editors are participating now. Please consider joining the discussion! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of torpedoes by diameter

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of torpedoes by diameter , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Petebutt (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC) --Petebutt (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I suppose you were misunderstood by what we were discussing at Talk:Sydney–Newcastle Freeway‎.You thought we were discussing about the Queensland Pacific Motorway right? Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, but I made quite a few blunders there... which I reverted [15]. I'll try to get a sensible contribution together... I travel along that road about once a fortnight, hear traffic reports concerning it every weekday morning, and have several times called emergency services to attend incidents on it, and I'd never heard the name "Pacific Motorway" before. It's always "F3". But "M3" was a complete blunder... I must be tired... Andrewa (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Its part of changes occuring this year that are currently being implemented by RMS, ive posted some links back at the discussion for you to browse :). I will also point out that we dont name Australian road articles by route or former route (else we would have M1, M2, M3, M4, etc. all over the place - rather they are named by the actual name (unless none exists (see A8, Sydney formerly Metroad 10). -- Nbound (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The question then is, where do we draw the line? It seems to me unlikely that we should reject F3 for this road while the name is so commonly used, particularly as we need to disambiguate Pacific Motorway. Andrewa (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia trainers requested in New South Wales

Wikimedia Australia is looking for experienced Wikipedians to help out at training sessions across New South Wales, in particular in Newcastle, Wollongong, Port Macquarie and in Parkes. If you're interested, the details are at the following link:

We'd love to see you there! Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Drum kit

Hello! I'm still very much a newbie, especially on talk pages, and so feel free to delete what I'm writing if it's inappropriately placed, or whatever. I just wanted you to know that I'm traveling now, but I just read your messages re: the Drum Set page. It's too bad about sizing photos, as I think the photos really add to the understanding, and do a much, much, better job if they're a bit larger. On the other hand, I was absolutely not the person who deleted the information you mentioned.

Thanks for writing, and I'll keep in touch as I'm able. - Laura Morland LMorland (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The link to Trinity is a perennial problem, there seems to be some person who objects to it for some reason. No evidence that it's more than one person who objects, but they edit anonymously and (assuming it is one person) change IPs from time to time, so it's hard to discuss it with them. I have finally found some other sources, so this issue may be solved in a couple of weeks. But as the new citations will be from commercially printed drum methods, arguably they're worse than Trinity, which isn't in competition in quite the same way... Trinity is in an unassailable position of authority, while these drum methods are in a very competitive environment. We will see the reaction, anyway. (And they're good drum methods, and one is even by a friend of a friend... perhaps that makes it worse... the Trinity syllabus is also pretty good as you'd expect...)
The sizing and placement of images is also a perennial problem. Have a look at the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial if you haven't already. There is quite a lot going on! Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter

Hey Andrewa! We've just deployed some fixes to the VisualEditor. These include:

  • "Edit" will load the latest version, not the version you're looking at (bug 49943)
  • "Edit" will load the latest version, not the version you edited last time if this is your second edit (bug 50441)
  • VE edit section links will load the latest, not original, version in diff view preview (bug 50925)
  • <big><big>Foo</big></big> and similar repeated tags will not get corrupted any more (bug 49755)

In the meantime, testing is proceeding well, and hopefully we can get some more fixes out over the next couple of days. If you're interested in helping out, we have a set of open tasks we'd really appreciate your assistance with :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Onslow torpedoes

Hello, Andrewa. You have new messages at Talk:HMAS Onslow.
Message added 09:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VE newsletter

Hey Andrewa

We just deployed another VisualEditor release; bugs fixed include:

  • Firefox 13/14 has been temporarily blacklisted, to avoid the insertion of broken links [[./that look like this]] (50720)
  • Changing a reference in a template should no longer produce the bright red "you don't have a references block!" error (bugzilla:50423)
  • Notices are now shown if you're editing a protected or semi-protected page (bugzilla:50415)
  • The template inspector will no longer invite you to insert parameters that are already being used (50715)
  • Same as above, but with aliases (50717)
  • Parameter names in the template dialogue now word-wrap (50800)
  • The link inspector will not show in the top left if you hit the return key while opening it (49941)
  • Hitting return twice in the link editor will no longer introduce a new line that overwrites the link (51075)
  • Oddly-named categories no longer cause corruption (50702)
  • The toolbar no longer occasionally covers the cursor (48787)
  • Changing the formatting of text no longer occasionally scrolls you upwards (50792)

Not specific bugs, but other things; cacheing is now improved, so people should stop seeing temporary breaking when the VisualEditor updates, and RTL support has received some patches. I hope this newsletter is helpful to people; I'll send out another one with the next deployment :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

VE newsletter

Hey Andrewa! Another set of patches :). Today we have:

  • Required template parameters are now automatically added to new templates (50747)
  • Templates with piped links now display correctly when you alter them (50801)
  • If your edit token expires, you're now informed of it (50424).
    You still won't be able to save - that's due to be fixed on Monday :).

More on Monday, I suspect. Hope you have a good weekend :). I should also have some news about the IP launch pretty soon. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(if you're seeing this and aren't the newsletter recipient - please do sign up here)

VE newsletter

Hey Andrewa; hope you had a decent weekend :). We've got a pile of patches, some of which went out on Monday, some yesterday:

  • If you insert wikitext such as links or section headers, you get a notice in the top right corner (over the save button). It doesn't go away until click, though once dismissed you don't get another one that edit. (49820)
  • If your edit token expires, VE fetches a new one for you so you can save. (50424)
  • If the page is empty of content but does have something non-content (like a category or an HTML comment), VE no longer crashes on load - (50289)
  • sub tags are no longer removed ((49873)
  • If you type at the end of links, they now extend
  • Templates now only take a single click to insert
  • Clear annotations clears links (50461)
  • The link inspector stays open when you click to another item (50895)
  • Typing after multi-byte characters no longer creats pawn icons (51140)
  • Resizing thumbnails that have a default size set now works (50645)
  • References made by tag:ref now display properly (bugzilla:50978)
  • The VE is integrated with the spam blacklist (50826)
  • Feedbacl link goes to the right language (bugzilla:47730)

There are a lot more improvements coming, but that's it for Monday and Tuesday. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for donating your time to improve the Sting (percussion) article. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wolfgang Lackerschmid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

VE newsletter

Hey Andrewa. The newest updates:

  • Links now don't extend over space/punctuation/workbreaks when you type (bugzilla:51463)
  • Users with the "minoredit" preference set get working functionality (bugzilla:51515)
  • You can tab to buttons in dialogs, including the save dialog (bugzilla:50047)
  • We now show the <newarticletext> (or <newarticletextanon>) message as an edit notice (bugzilla:51459)
  • You can scroll dialog panels like in transclusions' templates' parameter listings (bugzilla:51739)
  • Templates that only create meta-data and no display content at all (like Template:Use dmy dates) now can't be deleted accidentally or deliberately, but still don't show up (bugzilla:51322)
  • FlaggedRevisions integration (bugzilla:49699)
  • Edit summary will get the section title pre-added if you launched from a section edit link (bugzilla:50872)

Along with some miscellaneous language support fixes. That's all for today; as always, let us know if you spot more bugs. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carl Tuttle

The article Carl Tuttle has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carl Tuttle

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Carl Tuttle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Carl Tuttle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carl Tuttle 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/Carl Tuttle 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. reddogsix (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi, Andrewa, I'm new here in en wiki, but I'm an editor in ar wiki. I'm asking your help getting this photo on wikicommmons. So please check the LICENSES, or teach me to do so. Thanks in advance.--Marwa Fayez (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for 06 August 2013

Quick tip: Need to wikilink a word in VisualEditor? Select the word and type Control+k or ⌘ Command+k to enter VisualEditor's link tool without taking your hands off the keyboard. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Keyboard shortcuts for more time-saving keyboard shortcuts.

It's been almost two weeks since the last newsletter, and a lot of improvements have been made during that time. The main things that people have noticed are significant improvements to speed for typing into long pages (T54012), scrolling (T54014) and deleting (T54013) on large pages. There have also been improvements to references, with the latest being support for list-defined references, which are <ref>s defined inside a <references> block (T53741). Users of Opera 12 and higher have had their web browser removed from the browser black-list, mostly as a result of work by a volunteer developer (T38000). Opera has not been fully white-listed yet, so these users will get an additional warning and request to report problems.

Significant changes were made to the user interface to de-emphasize VisualEditor. This has cut the use of VisualEditor by approximately one-third. You can read about these at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Updates/August 1, 2013, but they include:

  • Re-ordering links to the editors to put "Edit source" first and VisualEditor second
  • Renaming the link for VisualEditor to "Editbeta"
  • Disabling the animation for section editing.
  • Changing all labels for the classic wikitext editor to say "Edit source", regardless of namespace.

There have also been many smaller fixes, including these:

  • Horizontal alignment of images working correctly on more pages (T53995)
  • Categories with ':'s in their names (like Category:Wikipedia:Privacy) now work correctly (T53902)
  • Magic JavaScript gadgets and tools like sortable tables will now work once the page is saved (T53565)
  • Keyboard shortcut for "clear annotations" - now Control+\ or ⌘ Command+\ (T53507)
  • Fixed corruption bugs that led to duplicate categories (T54238) and improper collapsing when multiple new references were added in a row (T54228).
  • Improvements to display elements: The save dialog in Monobook is restored to normal size (T52058), pop-up notices on save now look the same in VisualEditor as in wikitext editor (T41632), and the popup about using wikitext has a link to the definition of wikitext that now opens in a new window (T54093)

Most of the Wikimedia Foundation staff is traveling this week and next, so no updates are expected until at least August 15th. If you're going to be in Hong Kong for Wikimania 2013, say hello to James Forrester, Philippe Beaudette, and the other members of the VisualEditor team.

As always, if you have questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 23:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewa/Archive_4&oldid=1144258203"