User talk:David Levy/Archive6

Help with High traffic template[edit]

I noticed you're familiar with template code and can use it correctly, so can you help me update the High traffic template? Here's the background info and explanation:

I've noticed that Google Doodles link to the search results page and cause high traffic to sites and high surges in page views on a topic people would normally not look up as often. I saw the High traffic template was implemented on the Charles Addams article, so I copy-pasted it for the other Doodles of 2012, replacing the date for each topic (I stopped after the February 7th one since it was a bit tedious).

But this template has some limitations and doesn't allow for other descriptions for things such as Google Doodles to describe thoroughly. I had a hunch that it would cause mis-understandings, and I wanted to add some code (when I was putting the template in the pages) to further clarify that it came from a Doodle. So as I thought, my hunch was right, and this ambiguity in the template text resulted in people not knowing/remembering about Google Doodles, so they might say that things can't be linked from Google as shown here.

What I want to do is to add template code to allow the linking to a list of Google Doodles for each year depending on the input for the date parameter. There can be an additional phrase about the Doodle, and that phrase will link to the section on the list of Doodles for that year. So for example the template text for Charles Addams can say: "On January 7, 2012, Charles Addams was linked from a Google Doodle on Google, a high-traffic website." where the Google Doodle being mentioned is coded to link to the date that the Doodle was shown on the Google main page. The field parameter for the date (e.g., January 7, 2012) should take care of the input requirement.

A problem with this is the list of Google Doodles for 1998-2009 doesn't follow what I think will be the standard Google Doodle article naming procedure, so for Doodles in those years, the template will need additional code to specifically link to the date sections and the page (1998-2009). For future Doodles, the standard code for linking to the article list and section date can be used if Doodles for 2013 and succeeding years will be titled under the name List of Google Doodles in 20xx (or xxxx). Google seems to be making Doodles for each year now, so the articles will probably be titled like that, unless people decide they should all be moved into a single article for each decade under (2010-2020), which might require the code to be tweaked a bit at a later time (but that most likely won't happen and sorry about the unnecessary comments).

I'm not familiar with the template code, so can you help me with this endeavor (for lack of a better word)? Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think using a bot would be better for adding this template to the articles that were linked by the Doodles. It's a bit tedious. Do you know which bot is able to do this task? - M0rphzone (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Before going any further, I need to understand the underlying purpose of this endeavor. (How would the tagging be useful?)

The intended purpose of {{high traffic}} (which originated as {{slashdotted}} and was generalized as a result of a TfD discussion) is to warn editors of ongoing/recent traffic spikes possibly resulting in problematic editing by users suddenly arriving from linking websites. It's meant to serve a temporary notice (removed when traffic returns to normal), not a permanent record. (Editors have neglected to remove some transclusions, which probably has promoted misunderstanding of the template's purpose and encouraged further misuse.)

Your goal, if I understand correctly, is to permanently commemorate past and future instances in which Google Doodles resulted in increased traffic at related articles. (If this is desirable, it would be best to create a new template.) What's unclear to me is the reason behind this. In what respect is a record of this information, permanently occupying the article's talk page, beneficial to the project? How does it encourage or enable improvement to or maintenance of the article? How is it helpful to know that a Google Doodle caused a traffic spike in the past? —David Levy 00:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure, but I suppose if the template were to stay, it's for documentation purposes to let editors know why there are/were so many edits and edit requests on a particular day, as well as go back in the revision history for those dates to check for and cleanup any disruptive/incorrect/test edits that were missed. It's most likely unnecessary, but then why is the infobox still present on Talk:Wood? That's where I first encountered this template. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, editors inserting the template sometimes neglect to remove it, causing stale transclusions to linger indefinitely. (This issue was mentioned during the 2009 deletion debate.) The problem snowballs when others see the old tags and assume that they're intended to be permanent.

We probably should deploy a bot to clear out all instances from 2011 and earlier. —David Levy 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion needs to involve more people's opinions since I have a feeling that we don't have all the reasons. How about discussing on the community portal? - M0rphzone (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "reasons" you mean, but feel free to initiate such a discussion. (I'm fairly busy at the moment, so my participation might be limited.) —David Levy 01:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I didn't think the explanations quite represented other editors' opinions. I'd like some more explanations about it from other people as well, but nvm. Also, are you going to archive this page anytime soon? It's been 2 years since your last one, and it's taking quite some time to load as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Thanks for the reminder. I always seem to forget, so I probably should look into having a bot do it for me. —David Levy 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with a talk page that long, I thought you were doing it on purpose, lol! - M0rphzone (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, archiving my talk page never seems to occur to me until someone mentions that it's gotten too long. In one instance (archive #2, from 2006), an editor apparently took one look at the page and did it for me! :) —David Levy 04:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly recommend one of the mainstream archiving bots for a fairly quiet talk page like yours. Rich Farmbrough, 12:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)[reply]

Google AP links[edit]

Here is an excerpt from Template:Cite_news
Do not post urls of Google or Yahoo! hosted AP content: that content is transient. Use MSNBC or another provider that keeps AP archives.
Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:TFL#Renaming and re-stylizing Today's Featured List?[edit]

My proposal is dead... dead into the bottom. I know your concerns about the way I write. One question: how can I write a better proposal of this idea: turning "Today's Featured List" into "this Week's featured list"? Must I do it in WT:Main page, as I should have? --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have no major concerns about the way you write. (In the above-linked discussion, I objected only to a specific piece of text.)

The proposal is clear. It simply isn't something that's going to gain consensus. Leaving a dynamic main page section static for a week is undesirable, and it would interfere with other elements of the page and ideas currently planned.

But if you wish to resubmit the proposal, Talk:Main Page is the correct forum. —David Levy 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For fixing yet another of my ITN grammatical errors that I'm simply putting down to anglo-australian-american confusion. Step hen 04:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The error was present at ITN/C, and this is one of the trickiest ENGVAR issues I've encountered. It certainly has tripped me up on occasion.

In one instance, I attempted to follow another English variety's convention, only to be informed that it didn't apply in that particular context (so the wording actually should have been the same as it would have been in American English). I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to understand all of the intricacies. —David Levy 05:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia nationalization[edit]

Why did you change the spelling to nationalise? There's no support for that at ENGVAR. --Trovatore (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with the article and the bold link's target.

I'm American, incidentally, so this was a change from my English variety. —David Levy 08:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Just came around to say Hi :) Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Orbit Tower[edit]

Can you come decide whether this should be posted before it expires in under an hour? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Awarded for the very long but ultimately fruitful discussion culminating at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#New proposal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (: —David Levy 00:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master race[edit]

Check out the hatnotes on this one. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can do something like: "Master race" and "Herrenvolk" redirect here. For other uses, see Master race (disambiguation) - since herrenvolk is just a translation. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the television episode and the comic book story have titles ambiguous with terms redirecting to Master race, but they don't have titles ambiguous with each other. Someone seeking the television episode won't search for "Master Race" (so it should appear only on a hypothetical "Herrenvolk" disambiguation page) and someone seeking the comic book story won't search for "Herrenvolk" (so it should appear only on a hypothetical "master race" disambiguation page).

The relevant section of Impact (EC Comics) comprised extraordinary claims, attributed solely to material excerpted from a reprint of the comic book itself, the extensive quotation of which raised copyright concerns. So I've removed the entire section and the corresponding hatnote. —David Levy 21:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that hatnotes can be combined, when dealing with translations of a same term. But since you've dealt with one hatnote, we can maybe look at maybe 2 or 3-dabbing the other. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —David Levy 21:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. On something else, when I rework divinity a little bit (um, quite a bit, actually), maybe you can move divine → divine (disambiguation), and redirect divine → divinity? -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the revision history of Divine (disambiguation) to enable you to perform the move yourself. —David Levy 22:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (I really do think I need to work on the divinity article before I do the move though.) -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like taking a crack at Terahertz radiation's hatnotes? -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best. —David Levy 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITN[edit]

Seeing as you just made some tweaks, I'll bypass WP:Errors and ask that you wiki-link MVP. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! —David Levy 00:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example template[edit]

Hey, David. I reverted your changes because it's transcluded into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news, and it might be confusing to change it after other editors have commented on the original. I was reluctant to substitute it because I didn't want to fill up the discussion page with a bunch of extra code if I didn't have to. About the changes themselves, I don't have too much of an issue with the divider, but I'm not sure I like the bullets. Everything else on the main page is separated by dashes, I believe, and I think using bullets might look a little out of place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I thought that minor changes would be acceptable, given that your proposal refers to "a format similar to the example on the right" and the only comments about the specific style were requests for better division.

Good point about the dots (though we do use them in the Wikipedia languages section). —David Levy 04:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no problem. I've put back the divider because it's a good idea, and I think I've overestimated the potential for confusion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! And you're right about the dashes, I think. —David Levy 04:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked or Banned[edit]

I think this person, Gwern Branwen, User name User:Gwern should be blocked or banned. It seems that he or she has a "hacker's mentality" and has no respect fror Wikipedia's rules and therefore has no business on Wikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone[edit]

Why do opposers there use the "long-term" criterion? Have I pointed out correctly that significance and impact of this novel does not reflect reader's interests? Now that the discussion is closed per WP:SNOW, would this make me look disruptive? --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do opposers there use the "long-term" criterion? Have I pointed out correctly that significance and impact of this novel does not reflect reader's interests?

You seem to be conflating separate criteria ("usage" and "long-term significance").

Now that the discussion is closed per WP:SNOW, would this make me look disruptive?

Probably. —David Levy 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did I conflate separate criteria? How can I be less disruptive? --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did I conflate separate criteria?

"Readers' interests" falls under "usage", so it isn't a valid consideration in the context of "long-term significance".

How can I be less disruptive?

I suggest that you try harder to understand others' arguments before attempting to refute them. —David Levy 00:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I understand arguments without requesting a move? Asking them to elaborate? --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I understand arguments without requesting a move?

I didn't mean that you shouldn't request a move. I wasn't referring to any discussion in particular.

Asking them to elaborate?

That probably would be helpful. —David Levy 00:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many years must I wait for the right moment to propose again? --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, it's extremely unlikely that such a proposal would succeed, no matter how long you were to wait.

It was noted that the issue pertains to the naming of the Harry Potter articles in general. If you still believe that the setup should be changed, a broader discussion (with no actual move requests) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter probably would be a much better idea. But be advised that consensus on this matter is longstanding and appears to be quite strong. So instead of proposing an immediate course of action, you'll need to persuade others that the underlying logic is sound. —David Levy 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's one problem; the talk page isn't that active anymore. Maybe I'll deal with the renaming neither too soon nor too late in WP:village pump (idea lab). Right now, I must establish a proposal to turn the WikiProject into a task force. --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to be my mentor[edit]

Say, would you like to be my mentor for a while? I would like some help. If not, then would you be my helper, as jc37 is right now? --George Ho (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what distinction you draw between "mentor" and "helper". Irrespective of terminology, I'd be glad to assist you to the best of my ability. —David Levy 00:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Wikipedia:Editor assistance. If you like to be my mentor, here is user talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions. However, you may ask the difference by asking one of my mentors. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have free time to decide. --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to read the relevant pages yet. In the meantime, feel free to request any assistance that you feel I'm able to provide. —David Levy 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the confusion. He had asked me, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable being another one of his mentors, but I told him I'd be happy to help as I may per Wikipedia:Editor_assistance#What_to_expect_from_assistance. - jc37 22:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I declare you officially my helper... mentor is not what you desire, as far as I can see. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that I've been busy and haven't had an opportunity to look over the information. As that explanation evidently didn't satisfy you, it's probably best that I not "officially" be anything. —David Levy 00:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source or external link?[edit]

What do you think: http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/5520 --George Ho (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITN note[edit]

Hi David. I have a great deal of respect for you as an editor, and also a great deal of respect for your contributions to the ITN-related discussions. I find you to be one of the most sensible voices at various debates that take place there, and in the past there has most certainly been occasions where I have been convinced by your arguments, which I initially may have opposed. I feel as though the recent comments in that area have become very heated, and thus decided not to further engage for the time being to do some reflection. I have full intention on creating a positive atmosphere on those pages, and have often attempted to cool things down when they get heated. I do apologize if I have caused frustration, or seem obstructive, uncooperative, etc., and I do hope you accept this apology. Colipon+(Talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate the above message, but no apology is necessary. I disagree with some of your comments, but you have every right to make them (which you've clearly done in good faith). If I appeared to take personal offense, allow me to assure you that this is not so.

My frustration stems from the same source as yours: our inability to generate sufficient participation. My criticism of your approach was intended to be constructive, and I apologize if it came across in another light. —David Levy 03:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poker decision[edit]

Yes, in short. There are too many discussions going on without conclusion. After one week, both discussions have gone to a natural conclusion, in my opinion. I know it's not "the done thing" but I think I've been reasonable in my conclusions doktorb _words^deeds 10:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point well made. If someone questions it, I'll make my case though will accept if it needs re-opening. doktorb _words^deeds 17:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship Committee?[edit]

Hey David, I vaguely recall you weighing in at a recent VP discussion about adminship (although I can't seem to find it right now). There, I offered a proposal to create a community-elected "adminship committee" to do away with RfA drama, and create a streamlined, manageable, drama-reduced (because let's be honest, drama-free is wishful thinking) and community-accountable process, for all kinds of adminship recall, confirmation, and maybe even forced breaks in cases of burnout.

The latter relates to a section I stumbled upon on Jimbo's talk page, where someone proposes term limits for admins. These are imho a good idea in principle, but not manageable for the community in the form of traditional RfAs; and recall/confirmation RfAs are an even worse cesspit than usual RfAs.

I don't know your stance on adminship term limits or recall/confirmation process, or whether RfA as a bit of a problem child is on your radar at all. At any rate, I thought you might be interested since you are one of those few people who try to inject sanity into Wikipedia at every turn. --87.79.131.112 (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment templates[edit]

Hi, I noticed your comments on Template talk:Unsigned and thought you might be able to help with this. Thanks. --xensyria^T 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree[edit]

Block him David or this is likely to cause a chain reaction. You are correct. Someone, it seems, is covering for him. The silence is deafening. Mugginsx (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you're referring to Gwern. I've become far too involved in the dispute to even consider doing that. Regardless, the mailing list discussion certainly hasn't shown that such a measure has the community's backing.

If you wish to initiate an on-wiki discussion, I'll weigh in with my opinions. But I won't intervene in an administrative capacity. —David Levy 17:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Mugginsx (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page[edit]

Thank you. -Blake Burba (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request your advice[edit]

Hi David - I know we haven't always seen eye to eye in the past, but I wanted to ask your advice as an experienced and uninvolved admin. I'm in a dispute with several editors over two articles: Politics in the British Isles and Ireland-United Kingdom relations.

I created Politics in the British Isles a few days ago; it was then nominated for deletion by User:Snappy. A discussion about what to do with the article has been ongoing here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles.

RA, one of the editors opposed to Politics in the British Isles, proposes that the article should merged to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Rather than wait for consensus to confirm his opinion, he took the unilateral step of copying the entire contents of Politics in the British Isles, and pasting it here to Ireland-United Kingdom relations [1], after which he used its existence there as an argument to try to prove that the original in Politics in the British Isles content is in fact just a fork. To me, this move is the essence of WP:POINT.

My experience has been, in a normal situation, this would be dealt with by a merge discussion on the talk pages, and once consensus is to merge, the content is moved and the original deleted. However, the original content cannot be deleted, because in this case, the article in question is up for AfD, so its contents are extremely relevant and can't just be blanked. In this particular case, I thus believe copying the content across the wiki is disruptive.

As a result of this disruption, edits I've made to improve the content in one place do not show up in another; synchronization issues abound; and ongoing discussions about the content have been moved from place to place. The end result is an absolute mess of dual maintenance that will persist until the AfD closes, which may be a while given the heated debate. I admit to have engaged in edit warring to attempt to undo this mess, along with Snappy and BHG on this issue, which I regret, so I'm not claiming innocence here.

In any case, my opinion is, during an AfD, the content should remain in the original article and not be copy-pasted elsewhere, until the outcome of the AfD is clear - either delete, or merge, or keep. Then if consensus agrees, we merge (and delete from the original). Otherwise, allowing things to continue will mean that dual maintenance will continue on these two pages, one of which is basically a complete content fork of the second, to the detriment of the wiki. Sadly, experienced administrator Brownhairedgirl has encouraged this forking, rather than allowing consensus to decide at the AfD what should be done.

I'd welcome your POV and advice on what, if anything, to do about it; my attempts to revert did not work, my pleas to request them to undo the fork did not work, so I don't know what else to do. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be best to await the AfD discussion's outcome before proceeding with a merger (if that's what consensus dictates). As you noted, this would entail the elimination of Politics in the British Isles as a standalone article (via redirection, not deletion). An extant article should not be mirrored in another article (apart from small excerpts accompanied by "main article" links), so the current setup certainly isn't viable on a permanent basis.

However, I disagree that RA has done anything pointy or underhanded. You appear to have misunderstood what's meant by "content fork", leading you to mistakenly believe that RA attempting to spin the facts in a manner that he/she isn't ("I just copied everything from A into B - see - now A is a POV fork of B!!").

The term "content forking" refers not to the duplication of text, but to the intentional or unintentional creation of an article on a topic already covered in a different article. The assertion is that the creation of Politics in the British Isles constitutes a content fork not because it has text in common with Ireland-United Kingdom relations (which isn't your doing), but because it covers the same topic (and has from the start), comprising material that should have been added to the existing article instead of creating a new one.

To be clear, I'm merely explaining RA's position, not expressing agreement with it. I don't know enough about the articles' subject(s) to formulate an informed opinion on the matter.

My advice is to simply continue arguing your points (minus the accusations of sneakiness), finish up the AfD debate, and take it from there. My advice to others involved in the Ireland-United Kingdom relations edit war would be essentially the same. At this juncture, whether the additional material is included or omitted is of relatively minor consequence; its back-and forth addition and removal is what's disruptive.

If synchronization proves difficult, you should focus primarily on improving Politics in the British Isles, whose specific prose might affect the decision of whether to retain it as a standalone article. If it isn't kept, the improvements can be copied over to Ireland-United Kingdom relations when a proper merger (including redirection) occurs.

I sincerely hope that I've been helpful. —David Levy 02:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I appreciate your input and insight. I of course also welcome your input at the AfD itself. But thanks again for your thoughts. --KarlB (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI comment removal[edit]

Hi David! Sorry to bother you. I hope this was a mistake. --SMS ^Talk 23:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was accidental and unnoticed. My sincere apologies.

On my first attempt to save my reply, I experienced an edit conflict, so I followed the standard copy/paste procedure. I don't know why this resulted in your post's removal, and I can only speculate that a MediaWiki glitch occurred. I've restored the message to the now-hatted thread. Sorry again. —David Levy 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all and Thanks for restoring it. Sorry I didn't mean to ask for apology, it looked like a mistake but just wanted to check that was it removed mistakenly or it was something I am not aware of regarding that IP, but Thanks anyways. Cheers! --SMS ^Talk 23:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a deletion review on WP:articles for deletion/Fictional women of All My Children, volume 2[edit]

I have made a deletion discussion that had people turn against me. Now I want to make amends with soapie people by reviewing my own AFD. How can I not anger them? And I have my proposal here:

I don't want to undo the damage because that would make me look wrong and foolish in the past. Nevertheless, I must for the sake of lessening the anger of people and of making more friends, especially those who are solely dedicated to soap operas. Anyway, I come into conclusion that there must be, at heart, some cleanup to be done, and I think portrayers of their characters have made their roles notable... unless I'm missing the real definition of notability. Suddenly, plots about them and their deaths suddenly impacted their roles and the whole show: I'm talking about Myrtle, Phoebe, and Mona. They were part of the show because... primary sources and affiliates made them, yet I solely depended on Google and their current state of articles to look for third-party and non-primary sources to determine their notability. I let you down in the past; this time, this discussion is proof of undoing the AFD I started. Recently, I have posted an idea of notability about television-related topics in WP:village pump (idea lab), so I'm still working on television notability. Meanwhile, this discussion could help starting to make friends, right? If not, how can I be friends?

--George Ho (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 05:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Finalizing_the_new_proposal[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Finalizing_the_new_proposal. Since you participated in the earlier discussion about trivial hatnotes and what to do about them, your input is requested on a finalizing a proposal. KarlB (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David; it looks like JHunterJ is taking a break from the wiki so I'd like to ask your advice - do you think we can close the (long) discussion at Wikipedia:Talk:Hatnote? The templates are created and the changes have been made to the guideline, so I think we can close the discussion down. I'm happy to do it, just wanted your advice first. --KarlB (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITN and TFL[edit]

In light of this remark and this revert from Rambling Man, I'd like to request in advance (in case you were planning on doing so) that you not remove the UEFA 2012 blurb from ITN in deference to TFL (as you did with Eurovision back in May). Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Tariqabjotu:

I undid your edit. WP:TFL is entirely independent of the vagaries of ITN, please leave the blurb as is. It may be that it takes a week for the community to decide on a suitable hook/update for ITN. TFL has an updated blurb, and updated article, we don't need ITNers to pop by to "fix" our work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this how TFL functions? No one else can make changes to your section? The main reason I made the change is because I thought it was completely unnecessary to so strongly emphasize an event that just happened today with a list that talks about fourteen finals. But, I understand. This was discussed well in advance, which explains why it took you five attempts to put in a sentence that was grammatically acceptable in English.

P.S. Especially since you're being such a jerk about a reasonable change, I'll make sure that I prevent David Levy from dropping the UEFA story from ITN in deference to TFL since, you know, you are "entirely independent". -- tariqabjotu 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "how TFL functions", how TFL functions can be found at WP:TFL. We are promoting a list, not an ITN item, they are coincident but independent. I'm very interested by your comment "which explains why it took you five attempts to put in a sentence that was grammatically acceptable in English." which seems to be quite indicative of some kind of personal issue you have with my ability to write English. I'm also interested in where your sudden change to the TFL blurb was "was discussed well in advance". Finally "since you're being such a jerk" is, without a shadow of a doubt, a personal attack, which is really disappointing and something which I hope you won't repeat. Oh, and any issue you have with David Levy has no relevance to the content of TFL. If you would like to contribute to TFL, please do so, but please don't just "drive by" and assume it'll be fine by you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In closing, I suggest you just leave the TFL blurb alone unless there are clear errors. It may or may not coincide with some half-sentence in ITN, but there's no harm in that. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have implied that making a change to the blurb without some sort of approval from a community or discussion with you is unacceptable. There is no other conclusion I could possibly make because, even until now, you have provided no reason at all as to why your version is actually better. Your edit summary and your comments here have only cited the point about ITN, and mocked the ITN procedure in the process, and your second comment here made no effort to respond to my point about excessively emphasizing one final.

I said what I meant and meant what I said. I imagine you can write English perfectly fine, and we all make mistakes, but the fact that you didn't get it correct on the first (or second, or third...) time seems to contradict the concept that there is some sort of process that needs to be followed before making changes to the blurb. And, yet, you described my edit as "drive by". Any more than yours? What the hell did you expect me to do? Inform you that I combined a couple sentences? Oh please, get off your high horse; I did not and do not need to do that. I need no one's permission to make such an innocuous change, and I don't expect such derisive and flippant remarks from prior editors when I do so. -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our standard practice is to not include the same event in more than one main page section at the same time. For example, we routinely remove one from OTD if it's mentioned (typically in much greater detail) in TFA or TFP. In this respect, no two main page sections are "entirely independent" of each other.

In May, when TFL was about the Eurovision Song Contest, I inserted code to suppress the ITN item until the end of the day. As I explained at the time, I did so both to prevent redundancy and to support TFL. (A related ITN item greatly increases the likelihood that someone interested in the topic will click away from the main page without even seeing the featured list section.)

The above disagreement notwithstanding, I believe that the same approach is warranted in this instance. An item's omission from OTD means that it doesn't appear until at least a year later, so an ITN item's one-day absence is relatively minor. —David Levy 22:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't really agree with your decision to do that last time, as I feel TFL and ITN tend to emphasize different aspects of the content. For example, you really have to search through the TFL blurb, if you get down there, and get to that part of the blurb, before you see the link to the final of Euro 2012. And UEFA Euro 2012 isn't linked at all. Further, I think the omission of Euro 2012 would be far more glaring than the omission of Eurovision was (given it's substantially larger viewing audience).

And, yes, of course, I also feel given Rambling Man's insistence that TFL and ITN be completely independent, I see no pressing reason to coordinate with TFL. -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't really agree with your decision to do that last time, as I feel TFL and ITN tend to emphasize different aspects of the content. For example, you really have to search through the TFL blurb, if you get down there, and get to that part of the blurb, before you see the link to the final of Euro 2012. And UEFA Euro 2012 isn't linked at all.

If The Rambling Man would permit it, we could add a such a link.

But my point is that it isn't very harmful if the ITN item is simply absent (irrespective of something serving as a substitution) on Monday (UTC) — the only day of the week on which TFL appears on the main page, and the only instance in which this particular featured list will ever appear there. The ITN item would return on Tuesday, which isn't even outside our normal update window.

Further, I think the omission of Euro 2012 would be far more glaring than the omission of Eurovision was (given it's substantially larger viewing audience).

It would be a more radical approach, but instead of suppressing the item, we could modify it to serve as an anchor link to the TFL section, thereby directly promoting it.

And, yes, of course, I also feel given Rambling Man's insistence that TFL and ITN be completely independent, I see no pressing reason to coordinate with TFL.

I disagree with him and see possible ownership issues, and while I understand the temptation to say "okay, have it your way" and leave TFL to sink or swim on its own, I feel that we should instead set aside the above disagreement and act in the best interests of Wikipedia's readership and community at large. —David Levy 23:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man made a comment on my talk page that I think may have been in response to your comment. If you would like to respond to him, please do so on his talk page. -- tariqabjotu 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu "reverted" my good faith comment (like vandalism), rather than simply undoing it, after his personal attack on me; but in any case, feel free to continue the discussion with me about trying to make things better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the normal process and also Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions where we, as a community (albeit a small one) review blurbs and get a consensus for them before posting them. It's not ownership to count on consensus to provide you with a decent, fully-worded blurb per our standards. Someone turning up to change it as they see fit at the last moment isn't really appropriate, particularly given the reason that Euro 2012 would feature in ITN – we all know how long some articles can take to get to ITN. TFL lists are scheduled weeks, sometimes months in advance, so there's no reason why anyone interested in trying to "merge" the ITN and TFL process on the occasions that are suitable. The difference is that TFL presentation on main page is stable, i.e. we know any given list will run on a Monday, for 24 hours, hopefully updated if need be before featuring. ITN is very much the opposite. Sure, for an item such as Euro 2012, we'd hope that there were sufficient readers interested to do the updates necessary on the day to get it to meet the requirements of ITN before being posted, but that isn't always the case. Come 00:00 (UTC) on Tuesday, the list disappears back to whence it came, while ITN can persist for.... well... some time in certain situations. If ITNers wish to appraise themselves of the scheduled lists and collaborate for ITN/R items that may be featuring (hopefully on the same day on the main page), then perhaps that could work. If you can see a way of making that work, either of you, then I'm all ears. I would appreciate it if you refrained from calling me a "jerk" in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

("jerk") The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rambling Man. You're welcome to continue the discussion here (and Tariq is welcome to participate if he's so inclined).

Please see the normal process and also Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions where we, as a community (albeit a small one) review blurbs and get a consensus for them before posting them. It's not ownership to count on consensus to provide you with a decent, fully-worded blurb per our standards.

As far as I can tell, it wasn't the reversion that upset Tariq. It was the wording and tone of the message that you posted.

I'm not defending his reaction, but I suspect that you would have received a very different one to something along the lines of the following:

Hi! I've reverted your edits to the TFL template. The content was determined through discussion on the process page (where the part that you removed was felt to be important), so I ask that you please suggest changes there beforehand to give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback. If you're interested in helping out, we'd be happy to have you on board. Thanks!

Instead, you scolded him and denigrated a section on which he focuses, declaring that TFL is "entirely independent of the vagaries of ITN" and declaring that you "don't need ITNers to pop by to 'fix' [your] work."

It might not have been your intention, but this came across as extremely rude and disrespectful, as well as disproportionate to the relatively minor, good-faith edit that Tariq had performed.

You need to understand that no Wikipedia subcommunity (including those focused on the various main page sections) has the authority to control reader-facing content and bar others from changing it. Any administrator (or non-administrator if something hasn't been protected yet) may edit any main page material in accordance with his/her understanding of consensus and expectations within the Wikipedia community at large. That includes you, and I would say the same thing if someone were to tell a TFL regular that ITN "doesn't need TFLers to pop by to 'fix' our work." We might focus on different areas, but we're all in this together, working to deliver the best main page possible. This should be collaborative, not combative.

Certainly, you were entitled to revert Tariq's edit (on the basis that it altered the template in an undesirable manner), but the suggestion that he had done something wrong was inappropriate, and there was no need to treat his edits as an attack on TFL waged by the incompetent ITNers. (Again, perhaps this wasn't your intention, but that's how it came across.)

TFL lists are scheduled weeks, sometimes months in advance, so there's no reason why anyone interested in trying to "merge" the ITN and TFL process on the occasions that are suitable.

No one seeks to "merge" the processes. We simply need to cooperate.

As I explained, our longstanding convention is to not include more than one mention of an event on the main page at a given time. To this end, the various sections are routinely coordinated. Tariq merely sought to trim out a small bit of text that directly overlapped with the ITN item. I prefer a different approach (adjusting ITN), but Tariq's was reasonable and in line with the community's established practices.

What's your opinion of the solution that I implemented (temporarily repurposing the ITN item's bold link as a pointer to TFL)?

If ITNers wish to appraise themselves of the scheduled lists and collaborate for ITN/R items that may be featuring (hopefully on the same day on the main page), then perhaps that could work. If you can see a way of making that work, either of you, then I'm all ears.

Given the fact that TFL is scheduled well in advance, it would be very helpful if someone involved in the process were to notify the other main page processes when a list's appearance is planned to coincide with or immediately follow a related event. (This is most likely to impact ITN, but it could affect the other sections.) That way, all of us would have plenty of time to prepare (and settle any possible disagreements) instead of scrambling (and potentially stepping on each other's toes) at the last minute. —David Levy 21:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the final point, yes, I'll see what I can do. As I said, all scheduled TFLs are available for everyone to see, but we will endeavour to notify interested parties of time-critical lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I'm interested in your opinion of yesterday's TFL pointer in ITN. —David Levy 09:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great way of doing things. The only reservation I would have is that the coding is slightly more intricate than most editors are used to, perhaps if we do this again, we could add a comment to help people understand what we're trying to achieve? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there would be no harm in that.

We might also want to consider providing some sort of visual cue (e.g. special coloring, a shaded box, or an explicit mention of TFL). One user complained that he/she was confused by the link's unexpected target (though another deemed it a "pleasant surprise"). —David Levy 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea either. I'll go through future TFL listings in due course and identify those time-critical lists. By the way, we are relatively new as you said, but still, over a year on the main page now without breaking it! (Incidentally, amongst the 6,300 pages on my watch list is your talk page, so you needn't "talkback" me, I'll find your replies!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thank you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David:

When I was blocked, I was limited to my talk-page, at which I repeatedly wrote that I regretted having written "editing like an asshole" here.

Having returned to editing, I wish to extend my apology personally and publicly.

The comment about The Beast numbering Americans was a joke, the absurdity of which seemed to me to have been self-evident (especially given our user names).

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37

I just wanted to thank you for the discussion(s). I think it's a good thing when Wikipedians can come together and positively discuss something, even if they may disagree (or even not quite understand each other at first).

So with that in mind... - jc37 17:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar![edit]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For joining in on several lengthy discussions with me and others, and working - again, through discussion - to learn and understand, despite the many confusions we all had along the way. - jc37 17:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Resilient Barnstar and the kind sentiment behind it. I, too, am glad that we were able to engage in constructive discourse.
As I can think of no award more suitable, please allow me to second LuK3's presentation of the Barnstar of Diligence. You've certainly earned it! (: —David Levy 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've very welcome, and thank you for your kind words as well : ) - jc37 19:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA European Football Championship: Germany vs Germany and Spain[edit]

Hello David,

on UEFA European Football Championship there is always the same deletion.

Most successful team: Germany 3 titles, 3 runners up

Later:

Most successful team: Germany, Spain, 3 titles

Later again:

Most successful team: Germany 3 titles, 3 runners up

etc...

So I made a sort of solution, but someone deleted it again.

Solution I made:

| most successful team = Germany 3 titles, 3 runners-up^[note]

[note] Germany is the most successful team because it won three times (gold) and was runners-up three times (silver). Spain won three times but was only runners-up one time. So Germany won three golden and three silver medals, Spain won three golden medals and only one silver medal.

In the references I added the note so that it was clear for everybody, but Peejay2K3 deleted it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UEFA_European_Football_Championship&diff=500700930&oldid=500700306

Can you do something? Or decide something?

A reasonable solution I made was deleted again, etc ...

Klodde (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators possess no special authority to "decide" what material should appear in an article, and my limited knowledge of the sport and our coverage thereof doesn't enable me to formulate a valid opinion. Such a dispute should be resolved via discussion on the article's talk page. —David Levy 22:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date-critical TFLs[edit]

Hello David, just a quick long-distance view on what WP:TFL has scheduled that may coincide with WP:ITN nominations.

August 6, running with List of Olympic records in athletics which possibly could be linked from an ITN blurb, but if, say, Usain Bolt runs 9.4s then I suspect both sections of the main page would feature him.
November 12, would ideally run with List of solar eclipses in the 21st century which is coincident with the solar eclipse, the last until May 2013.

At the moment, that's it. I know you're not responsible for what goes on ITN, but as we discussed, at least as someone who frequents ITN more often than I, you are at least forewarned, if not forearmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! I don't anticipate any major issues.

I doubt that ITN will cover the eclipse. As far as I can tell, the only likely overlap to address is the simultaneous appearance of Usain Bolt's photograph in both sections, which should be easy to avoid; ITN probably could use a different image for the day, though on the off-chance that no free image is available for a different item, it would be helpful to select a backup image for TFL (perhaps File:Tirunesh Dibaba Victory.jpg). —David Levy 23:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moderators[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Moderators_.28redux.29 --RA (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STS-135[edit]

I was actually planning to use that on July 21, as that would mark the end of the Space Shuttle program. But today is fine too, seeing as how we have no backup items at all. —howcheng {chat} 04:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm sorry about that. I investigated several other possibilities from July 8 (all of which were tagged or stubby) before going with that one.

The July 21 date did occur to me, so I checked Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 21 and saw that there are plenty of eligible articles (including the moonwalk). And I figured that even there weren't (and we were forced to reuse STS-135), this would be preferable to resurrecting an ITN item dated "June 29".

Thanks for your understanding. :) —David Levy 05:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of 2 or 3 dates where there are no alternate blurbs. One of the other days is worse because they're all US-related too. I spent a good amount of time on Google trying to find articles that may have been missed, but was unable to dig up anything suitable at all. —howcheng {chat} 06:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you must receive a fair number of complaints about that set. When adding OTD items to improve the main page's balance, I try to select non-US events (if feasible), specifically to avoid the appearance of bias.

Regarding those two or three dates, it might be helpful to ask Raul654 and Dabomb87 to schedule an article with a short blurb (unless a specific article was requested due to the date's relevance). —David Levy 06:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed expecting a rash of complaints, but surprisingly none came that day. *shrug* Must have been the luck of the draw. That's a good idea ... I normally work on OTD the night before, so I'll have to look ahead to find those dates again. —howcheng {chat} 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful vocabulary[edit]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disingenuous

Definition #3 in particular. DS (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a front page issue in general, it's a DYK issue. The DYK entries are short and lack depth, whereas the intro to an FA is broad-ranging. DS (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking indefinite article[edit]

It has been delinked, and I am considering to revert it since we are talking about a specific explosion. What do you think? --BorgQueen (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I undid the edit. —David Levy 01:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Century 16 on Commons[edit]

Could you fix the link from 2011 Aurora shooting to 2012 Aurora shooting? I was going to fix it and you protected it before I got there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —David Levy 00:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on main page talk regarding the possible use of File:The Century 16 theater in Aurora CO - Shooting location crop.jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD[edit]

So, in my day, the LEAD summarized the whole article. If half the article is about a suspect, then roughly half the lead summarized that. I think I recognize your name from the old days, so I'm wondering if something has changed, or ??? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here since 2005, and I don't recall the lead ever summarizing everything in the article. As noted at WP:LEAD (to which you linked), it "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

Please be mindful of the three-revert rule. —David Levy 04:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2005, same year as me. "most important aspects" means (roughly) if it's important enough to get a para in the article, it should get a sentence in the LEAD. I took Jackie Robinson to GA and FA, and Abraham Lincoln to GA, plus a bunch of other recognized content. I know how to write a lead. But, getting blocked for 3RR because people don't know how to write a LEAD is silly, so good night. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

77 people slaughtered in Norway[edit]

Hi David. Were all of your comments addressed to me? Or just the harsh accusatory ones? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I just noted at Talk:Main Page, I indented the "jumping to conclusions and blaming others" reply directly below the original poster's message, not yours. I replied to you with a different indentation level and separate signature. —David Levy 12:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But I'm not quite sure why you've now moved my comment. That seems to makes me look even more stupid! ~~Originally you double indented your reply to the ip beneath your reply to me. Making it look like that~~ But your note suggested it was a subset of your reply to me, or possibly to both of us. Not that anyone would now know this without checking the history very carefully. The ip seems to have taken offence at your reply, for some reason. Perhaps they are as stupid as me, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But I'm not quite sure why you've now moved my comment.

You posted it in the wrong place. (It was a reply to me, but you inserted it directly below Kevin McE's message, with two additional levels of indentation.) —David Levy 13:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff [2]. You did indeed outdent the second part. But with the note "See below", making me think that part was also meant for me! Your edit summary just said "replies". Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed outdent the second part. But with the note "See below", making me think that part was also meant for me!

I meant that you should "see below" for the explanation that we generally don't include one-year anniversaries in OTD. I don't know what conclusions you thought I was accusing you of jumping to, but I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Your edit summary just said "replies".

Yes, plural. —David Levy 13:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wondering what conclusions I had jumped to as well! But thanks for your apology. I had also misunderstood. Easy to get "caught in the cross fire" sometimes, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Looks like this thread is now a bit redundamt. Feel free to delete if you wish - it's a bit of a waste of space on your Talk Page. I'm afraid. The story and article now seem to be settling down a bit now, thank goodness. How intriguing about the recent gun club "refusal". Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Jots and graphs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cool off[edit]

Levy, you need to cool off for 24 hours and stop pulling wild accusations about my intentions in 24 hours. Your latest contribution to the debate about my 3RR edits is wrong and based on misinterpretation of me. I am completely enraged by your remarks. You've really fucked me up, just so you know. Back off, get your facts straight, don't make fake accusation, and step back and ask yourself if you can substantiate accusations based entirely on inferences. My restoration of that picture to the shooting article was completely legitimate and does not constitute an edit war under any definition. You owe me an apology at the 3RR edit war discussion, where I have replied. I am completely pissed off by you. — O'Dea (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question...[edit]

hi. Overall, yes, move on, it was an interesting discussion, etc, and I admitted that we use some words differently than in the past, and I don't want to be too dogmatic about "film", and that it can be used I guess in a broad sense, like "mix tape" even if it's a CD, etc, but there was a question I asked at the end of that comment, that was more than just rhetorical. I'm actually kind of curious in a way. In Britain, do they ever use the word "movie"? Just wondering... Do English people sometimes say "movie" as well as "film" or "cinema"? Jots and graphs (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American, so I'm not the best person to ask. My understanding is that Britons sometimes use the word "movie", but generally not in formal contexts. I believe that they treat it as slang, comparable to American usage of the noun "flick". —David Levy 04:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

over text[edit]

Adding this here as to not say it in front of all - There is no need to repeat everything in green. The format your using makes you look very very young as the format is used at the primary school level so student can follow along. I know your much older - just want you to know that it looks like replies are from a grade 6 student. Your replies show your not young - but first impressions are profound. Moxy (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted, but that quotation style has served me well for years. It enables one to clearly address individual points without confusion or misunderstanding.

While we're exchanging advice, if you don't want to come across as a primary school student, I suggest that you learn the difference between "your" and "you're". I'm not questioning your intelligence, but first impressions are profound. —David Levy 23:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer & subchannel[edit]

Neutralhomer is on the warpath about subchannels and attacking me again on my talk page (threatening to block me) and on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. He was taken to ANI over the issue which showed he lied in a previous argument and his bullying me (over the years going back to the PTEN argument) and other editors but was rejected as a "content dispute". Spshu (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to report a user.[edit]

I would like to report a user User:Rajashekar india3434. He has been making unnecessary pages with only one sentences in them. Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thank you. ZSpeed (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please express your concerns at User talk:Rajashekar india3434 and attempt to resolve the issue there. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for additional information. —David Levy 21:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RRA[edit]

WP:RRA

I was thinking about our past discussions, and thought I would ask if you would please take a look at this proposal, and let me know what you think. - jc37 21:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Grammar School[edit]

I created the article with the sole intent of mentioning the details of the branch.I later realized and moved the page.It makes no sense to move it back to the original name with no change in it.Please revert. Thanks TheStrike Σagle 06:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. As a matter of style, we don't redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)". An article intended to cover a particular branch of the school should be titled differently (e.g. "Johnson Grammar School, Nacharam branch).

2. There's no valid reason for the article to include information on only one branch of the school. It should be expanded to cover the complete topic. But if the title specifies a particular branch, that's unlikely to ever occur. —David Levy 06:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking[edit]

Hi David. Just saw your edit here. I'm afraid I just don't see why it's useful to link Syria when Aleppo, Battle of Aleppo (2012) and Syrian Armed Forces are all already linked in the same sentence. Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link leads to an article containing background information on the country in which the civil war is occurring.

ITN's current country linking standard wasn't my first choice, but it's the compromise for which we were able to establish consensus (and I think that it's been working rather well). —David Levy 12:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still thinks it's fairly stupid (you almost never need to link after the comma, e.g. "Los Angeles, California" and "Melbourne, Australia" are just poor and it's a similar situation with "Aleppo, Syria"), but if you say it's the current consensus I guess I'll just have to live with it. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences ranged from "link no countries" to "link all countries", so it was impossible to fully satisfy everyone. Some users wanted to link only the "unfamiliar" countries (which was problematic for several reasons). Linking countries directly relevant to the events was the compromise most acceptable to editors across the spectrum of opinions. —David Levy 02:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation[edit]

When I bolded the title, it appears I simply misinterpreted what the comment was. I thought the comment was saying it doesn't appear in bold, but per WP policies it should, so I made the edit. Thanks for clarifying that it wasn't. However, I'm still a bit confused specifically why it doesn't - is it because of "awkward wording?"

Thanks. --Activism1234 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one reason. (In normal English, one wouldn't state that "the Deeper Life Church shooting was a shooting at the Deeper Life Church" (or similar). It conveys exactly the same information twice.

Another reason is that such article titles are merely descriptions (not formal or widely accepted names), so they have no special significance warranting the highlighting.

Incidentally, I could have worded my edit summary better, and I'm sorry if it came across as accusatory. I didn't intend to imply that you deliberately set out to misrepresent the pages' advice. —David Levy 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No no your edit summary was fine, it wasn't accusatory at all. Thanks for the clarification though, I'll keep it in mind for future articles. I appreciate your help. --Activism1234 01:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lihaas itn[edit]

I see you just reversed one of Lihaas' recent edits. As an admin I request you hat his new section pretending he was unaware of the current RfC on ITN and attempting to hijack the debate. I cannot believe such action by an ITN contributor. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas created a standalone section and changed it to a subsection a short time later (with a notation that the RfC initially was overlooked). I see no reason to doubt this explanation, as Lihaas certainly isn't pretending that the RfC doesn't exist.

The proposal to remove the "recent deaths" link from ITN has no realistic chance of succeeding, but it violates no rules and doesn't appear to be causing any harm. —David Levy 05:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you understand I find it a rather blatant and disgusting abuse. The topic has been under discussion for five days, has been on the talk page for the last four days not nominated by me, and the recent deaths link has been on the front page since at least 2006. Allowing Lihaas to create such a bad faith proposal, as if it 'just occurred to him out of the blue' to object to a six+ year old feature, severely harms actual good faith actions. By refusing to simply hat it and suggest that he vote on the current RfC you are suggesting I should have to answer him in kind. I hardly think that is fair or helpful. I ask you to reconsider hatting his proposal and asking him simply to argue and vote like everyone else in the current RfC which I began only after others suggested I do so. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas was edit warring at Deaths in 2012 minutes earlier. It's likely that this inspired the idea to remove ITN's link to that page.

Regardless, Lihaas wants to modify ITN and has proposed it on the correct talk page. How, in your view, does this harm the RfC?

You mentioned the possibility of raising the issue at ANI. If you still want to do that, I'm fine with whatever decision is reached there. —David Levy 06:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for pointing out the edit warring. I find it frustrating that you would, as an admin, reverse an edit of his, and admit he is edit warring, yet imply I should go to ANI rather than expect a cognizant admin to take action. Is my request that you simply hat his competing proposal at ITN talk so unreasonable? I really would rather focus my time on contributions than fights. I do hope you have looked at the history I have given the diffs for and i really would hope Admins exist to facilitate editors like myself. μηδείς (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the subsection created by Lihaas is harmful/inappropriate and therefore see no justification for the action that you request.

I'm not implying that you should go to ANI. You mentioned this as a possible course of action, and I'm noting that you're welcome to pursue it (and I won't object if the discussion reaches a determination different from mine, which is far from sacrosanct). —David Levy 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)[edit]

Hi David Levy ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curt edit summary[edit]

I happen to agree with your assessment of this ("not an improvement"), but I remind that you WP:CONSENSUS calls for providing more helpful reasons and explanations than that when reverting, especially something like this. In particular, you might want to review Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing, starting with "Any such revert should be explained. One option is to leave a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, ..." Simply stating your opinion that it's not an improvement is hardly stating why it's not an improvement. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's not too late to state why on the policy's talk page... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I initially typed a more detailed explanation of why the changes didn't constitute an improvement, but I decided that it would accomplish little other than possibly offending James (Cpiral). Because I don't know what he/she hopes to achieve, it's difficult to offer any criticism that doesn't boil down to "your wording is bad" (which is less constructive than simply stating that it isn't an improvement).

If James explains his concerns on the talk page, I'll gladly participate in the discussion. At this point, I don't even know what he's trying to do (beyond my assumption that he wants to improve the page). —David Levy 00:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but as the reverter (which is an inherently rude but albeit sometimes necessary action) saying something to that effect on the talk page -- e.g., "Sorry I reverted, but I have some issues with your change... what are you trying to accomplish?" -- would probably be helpful. Or maybe I'm just hypersensitive from being on the receiving end of unhelpful reverts too many times. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When performing a reversion, I post a talk page message when I have substantive comments to contribute. And as noted above, I'll gladly participate in a discussion initiated by the user I reverted.

James is familiar with talk pages and knows what to do if he wishes to reinstate the changes. So in my view, posting a message along the lines of the above would needlessly draw attention to the reversion ("Hey, everyone! Look at the bad edit that I reverted! What is Cpiral trying to accomplish?!"), thereby adding insult to injury. —David Levy 02:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tokyo Sky Tree under construction 2011-08-04 cropped.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tokyo Sky Tree under construction 2011-08-04 cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Gi[edit]

Template:Gi has been nominated for merging with Template:Tq. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Hex [^t/_c] 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was to merge. I've updated {{tq}} with italic functionality (see documentation). -- Hex [^t/_c] 12:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for extending this olive branch. :) —David Levy 13:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) I look forward to further working with you, we both have the interests of the project at heart regardless of any communications confusion that may happen from time to time. -- Hex [^t/_c] 16:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work on the birds capitalization[edit]

		The Purple Barnstar
		Thanks for wading back into it yet again, and for presenting such an impeccable message. JHunterJ (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "closing" the proposals that were made today and not any of the rest of the discussion is absurd, to say the least. You can probably find a better way of reopening it though. Normally discussions are open for at least a week, or a month before they are closed. There is clearly no reason for closing this section in less than 24 hours. Apteva (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you correctly stated in the first sentence of the above message, I haven't closed the discussion (or even removed the guideline's pointer thereto). Editors (including you) are welcome to continue commenting.

I closed your poll, in which you ignored others' input and repeated exactly the same arguments made (and discussed) directly above. I've tried very hard to assume good faith, but it's difficult to believe that this is anything other than deliberate disruption on your part. Please stop. —David Levy 19:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a poll. You may have re-titled the section as poll, but there has been polling going on from the outset. This is an attempt to move the discussion forward, by analyzing various options. You can close proposal 1, but what if someone comes along in a week and likes it? That robs them of the opportunity of saying that. I have moved on to proposal 2, but am still waiting to find out what is wrong with it. Apteva (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a poll, but that's immaterial. Quibbling over the label is unhelpful.

You didn't "move the discussion forward". You flooded the page with restatements of the exactly same arguments already under discussion, thereby disregarding others' input and treating your disputed claims as uncontested facts.

I don't seek to silence you or obstruct debate. The discussion remains open and the pointer remains in place on the guideline page. If someone "comes along in a week and likes" your ideas, he/she is welcome to comment. —David Levy 23:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments at the Village pump[edit]

I just wanted to drop a note that my comments in no way are directed at you but as I mentioned I have completely lost faith in the RFA process and in a large number of the admins now frolicking about the site. Too many have let the power go to their heads and the process has degraded to that of a bash fest causing few to want to endure it at all. As I mentioned in 2007 we promoted around 400 admins and this year we stand at 20 so far and likely won't get more than 1 or 2 more. Each year we see approx half the year before and I just don't have any faith that changes to the RFA process at this point will turn that around. We are losing admins at a rate faster than we are promoting new ones and at the same time increasing the amount of work the admins do by protecting more content, submitting more things for deletion and blocking more and more users for smaller and smaller infractions. Its gone on far too long and it will take too long of a time before the community trusts the process again. By that time it may be too late. It might be already. Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write the above note.

I share your concerns. I only disagree regarding the best course of action (as I've explained in greater detail at the village pump). —David Levy 20:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist details[edit]

Heya. I understand the change and don't mind it, but the individual notices can at least be completely hidden. Right now, we're stuck with the big green text no matter what, even if all the messages are hidden. Is there a way this can be toggled or hidden as well? --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on it when the change was reverted. So I restored the individual items' new wording without the green text, which probably is the best solution. —David Levy 17:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into it. That works for me as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection?[edit]

Hey, I was wondering, since you are an administrator, could you look at protecting the page Athillas_Thasos? We requested page protection already, but I don't think it's going to be fast enough. In the past two hours alone, we have had to re add the AfD template 6 times. And this has been going on for almost 5 hours now. Thanks in advance! Jeancey (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've temporarily semi-protected the page. —David Levy 08:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RRA[edit]

I may have asked you about this already. If I have, my apologies.

Would you look over Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship? I'd sincerely like to discuss this with you. - jc37 22:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it. I must say that I find it very impressive. It's obvious that a great deal of consideration went into addressing the usual criticisms. Barring the revelation of major flaws that I've overlooked (and I haven't read the talk page yet), I'd be included to support the proposal. —David Levy 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear : )

I'll wait til you've read the talk page, especially since there are some further explanations there. - jc37 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth I read through it too and its very well written and thought through. The only comment I would add would be that of the Arbitration committee. Historically the acceptance of a case against a user by Arbcom was basically that of Wikideath so how would this be different? Since Arbcom would in this proposal be the final determining factor wouldn't this just be another avenue to submit an arbitration request? Kumioko (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Maybe we should move this discussion there, instead of poor David's talk page? : )

Anyway, to answer your question, no, because this wouldn't be opening a case. It would require arbcom to create a single subpage (somewhere) for them to vote/comment on a particular RRA. (For that matter, it could be a subpage of the RRA request. I'm not really concerned about where the review/discussion occurs.) They could decide to have a case instead, but that would be up to them, and would be beyond this process. - jc37 23:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Message Notification[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Talk:WNBC#Move_(undone).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Move-specialized[edit]

Template:Move-specialized has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red-linked templates[edit]

OK, Is there a list of these? I.E Templates that are no longer present but still nominally in use? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of such a list. Hopefully, there aren't many instances. —David Levy 00:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"thoughtful and accurate"[edit]

Thank you. Or should I say, thank you... Bencherlite ^Talk 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, you're welcome. (: —David Levy 19:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

You can read my reply over on the WP DYK talk. But I'd like to personally apologize to you that you felt it was about you. I never meant it to be that way. I've explained in detail over on the DYK talk page. Honest, it wasn't about you, but a venting of frustrations that DYK is becoming less alluring since the summer. You just happened to be the person who stepped in and tried to help. Sorry if I made it sound like you were at fault. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom elections[edit]

It's that time of year again. Any chance you might be interested? - jc37 21:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently too busy outside Wikipedia, but thanks for inquiring. —David Levy 03:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for considering it : ) - jc37 03:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi David,

I apologize for any frustration I have caused you. Looking back through my talk page history, I see your note back in August explaining how to perform a local upload; I should have remembered. I try to put up images on the TFA blurbs before the blurbs go up on the main page so that the images can be discussed beforehand, but I do not always catch the blurbs in time. I have not uploaded any images that I believed at the time to be off-topic, but I will attempt to keep them more centrally on topic in the future. I think TFA images to be a valuable part of Wikipedia, which is why I often edit in this area. I hope my TFA blurb edits will be more agreeable to you in the future.

Neelix (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I have added images to several of the TFA blurbs scheduled for the next few days. Do I need to perform a local upload or does that happen automatically if the image is placed on the blurb before it goes up on the main page? I would be grateful if you would let me know if any of the images I have uploaded for the currently scheduled blurbs are insufficiently related to the subject of the corresponding articles. Neelix (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 22, 2012. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, not sure if you saw it[edit]

I think I found the source of our misunderstanding, and why we seemed to have been talking past one another. I hadn't noticed it at first, but it finally sunk in; I've left a last note on my talk page for your perusal, but to clarify a bit more; it seems you were working under the assumption that I had flagrantly disregarded an established consensus intentionally; I had not done so. As I explained, I really had never heard of such a consensus, and since it doesn't appear to be written in any of the guidelines on the ITN pages, I'm really not sure how I would have known about it. To clarify again: I would have never violated an explicitly written guideline which clearly advocated against posting an item in the manner I did. I knew nothing of such a clear consensus before you brought it up. In the future, I will be more careful not to violate such a consensus, but in the meantime, you would need to update the guidelines to indicate that such a consensus exists, with diffs/links to the relevent discussions, because those of us that didn't participate in the discussions wouldn't know about it. I hope this clears things up between us; looking back I know see where the misunderstanding comes from, and I apologize for give you the impression that I was being just being obtuse or obstinant. Had I realized what your main objection was, I think I would have responded differently to the discussion than I did. I thought you were primarily concerned about the fact that I didn't post after exactly 5 sentences had been updated (which is a guideline itself that is rather fuzzily worded) not that I was deliberately ignoring a known consensus. Let me assure you, it was not my intent to do so, and had I been aware of that ruling, (like, if it were written out as such at WP:ITN) I would have never posted in the first place. --Jayron32 07:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1[edit]

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last-minute rescheduling[edit]

Out of curiosity, can you give me an example of the last-minute TFA rescheduling you referenced here? -- tariqabjotu 08:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any specific instances, and I was unable to find any via Google (so it's possible that I misremembered). I've asked Raul654. —David Levy 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your presumptions[edit]

...About what I think are not welcome. I request you cease all speculations phrased as fact regarding what I think; I have had enough of your statements (ie, "You think..." "You want..." etc.) regarding the inner workings of my mind. You have no idea what I think and your pretense at mind reading is uncivil and insulting. As Durova once put it: "Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification." KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained in the discussion, we seem to have experienced a mutual misunderstanding. I've engaged in no such speculation. If any of my statements are inconsistent with your expressed positions, it's because I misinterpreted your comments (for which I sincerely apologize). Likewise, you appear to have misinterpreted some of mine, and I also apologize for any ambiguity on my part. —David Levy 19:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to simply revert your last "replies" edit and archive that section. It is dead, it is over, SandyGeorgia has already called for it to be archived. I will not be replying to you there; it is an epic waste of my time to explain ad infinitum my thoughts on this; especially as you have exhibited an almost unbelievable ability to misunderstand whatever I say, and as it is a closed subject anyway. While I appreciate the apology, your presumption and rudeness of telling me what I think and feel is something you might wish to try to avoid doing to other editors in the future, as it is almost always taken extremely poorly, even when you are right (and you were very, very wrong about my thoughts and wants, which you so freely informed me of.) Do you not see the issues inherent with telling someone what they think, want, and feel? I will only say this; and if you misunderstand I won't trouble to try to explain it to you: There is such a thing as editorial judgment, and it has nothing to do with censorship. Now, please be done. I am. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've engaged in no such presumptions, nor do I seek to tell you what you think, want and feel. All of my descriptions of your position are based upon what you've written. If they're inaccurate, it's because I misinterpreted your comments (for which I've repeatedly apologized), not because I speculated as to your unexpressed thoughts. Likewise, you appear to have misinterpreted some of my comments, and I've even apologized for failing to convey my thoughts more clearly. I'm taken aback by the above response and genuinely don't know what else you want me to say. —David Levy 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed said precisely that, multiple times. "You think.." etc. There is a gulf of enormous difference between "It sounds to me like you're saying" or "Are you saying..." and "You think" or "yYou want." Now, if you can't see that huge difference, you need to re-read what you wrote and think long and hard about it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those statements were based upon my understanding of what you wrote, not upon speculation as to your inner thoughts. If my wording's inelegance made this unclear, I've already apologized for that. Had I doubted my interpretation of your comments at the time, I certainly would have noted this or asked questions instead. As soon as you brought this issue to my attention, I apologized and requested clarification. I've also sought to clarify my comments, which you've interpreted in a manner different from what I intended. (I neither speculated as to your motives nor described them in the derogatory manner that you seem to have perceived.) —David Levy 20:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want or need an apology, although the gesture is appreciated. I am trying to encourage you to be more circumspect in your phrasing. You were certain you knew my meaning; you were wrong - so far as I can tell you were wrong every single time. You certainly stated things positively about what I thought and what I wanted, and that is inappropriate. Now, I am completely done here, as I seem to be repeating myself with no comprehension on your part, and I cna think of no clearer way to say this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I "stated things positively about what [you] thought and what [you] wanted", based upon my understanding of the thoughts and desires that you expressed, not upon wild hunches. If I misunderstood you, I accept the blame for that. I won't, however, apologize for referring to positions that I genuinely believed you'd taken in the discussion.

I honestly don't know whether I was "wrong every single time", as you've perceived meaning that I didn't intend. Your responses seem to reflect the belief that I accused you of harboring some sort of underhanded motive, which couldn't be further from the truth. I don't doubt that you're acting in good faith, with no goal other than the encyclopedia's betterment. My goal is the same.

If my wording was poor, I've apologized for that too. I thought that it went without saying that I'll do my best to avoid committing such errors in the future.

When I wrote my first reply here (explaining that a mutual misunderstanding had occurred), I honestly thought that it would fully resolve any discord between us. As I noted above, I was taken aback when you responded by reiterating your criticism that I rudely engaged in speculation about your thoughts and feelings. I'd just gotten done explaining that this wasn't the case, and you've literally been telling me what I was thinking. If my repeated assurances to the contrary and sincere apologies for failing to make myself clear are insufficient, I don't know what else to offer. I'm truly sorry if that's how we're to leave things. —David Levy 21:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as "underhanded motive" and thought, dear god, he's gotten it wrong again, but at least he is phrasing it correctly now - "seem to reflect" rather than "you think." Yea, progress. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I'm actually speculating, I word my messages accordingly. I always have. (I'd prefer not to speculate, but I understand if you don't want to revisit a matter that you consider moot.) So if I author a positive statement that's inaccurate, it's because I've made an honest mistake. When such an error is brought to my attention, I know of no response better than an apology and request for clarification. —David Levy 21:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You ARE actively speculating when you state what someone else is thinking. Phrase it so, unless it is a verbatim quote. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained repeatedly, I made no claims about what you were thinking. My statements were based upon what you wrote.

Your "verbatim quote" request is interesting, as you've attributed the wording "You think..." to me several times. You actually had me believing that I'd started one or more sentences that way (and apologizing for my poor choice of words) until I just examined the discussion and realized that I used the phrase "you think" in the two instances quoted below:

"And I assure you, KillerChihuahua, that I don't seek to read your mind or tell you what you think."
"As I've explained above, I haven't 'presumed to tell [you] what [you] think and want'."

—David Levy 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) telling someone You think yadda-yadda is still asserting you know what they think and/or feel. Your quotes above are from after I protested at your verbiage on Raul's page. Here are examples from that page:

"you seek to fundamentally alter "
"you want us to deem it bad."
"You want to suppress material from the main page "

Three instances in one day, in one conversation, of telling me what I think, and being dreadfully wrong all three times btw. "You want" "You seek" both are presuming to tell me what I think and want. That's unacceptable. Sure, AFTER I protested, you offered "I'm sorry if I misunderstood" which is weak. You should say "I'm sorry I presumed to know your mind" or "I'm sorry for my horrible phrasing" or something, and vow to cease such phrasing. Now, you do as you wish. Carry on with your rudeness and pretend to read minds and insult people and piss them off and then offer an inadequate ex post facto "apology" - not "I'm sorry I did that" but simply "I'm sorry I got it wrong" which is useless, sorry to say - or stop using that kind of phrasing. It is no improvement to tell someone "You think this" and get it right - it is still wrong to say such. Getting it completely wrong, as you did with me, is merely a heaped on insult. Now, I hope this time I have been clear enough to get through to you what I'm saying, as apparently I have been failing to do so thus far. Killer Chihuahua 13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

telling someone You think yadda-yadda is still asserting you know what they think and/or feel.

And despite your repeated claims to the contrary, at no point did I make such assertions.

Your quotes above are from after I protested at your verbiage on Raul's page.

Right. As soon as you brought the issue to my attention, I explained that you'd misunderstood my statements (which were not speculative) and apologized for being unclear.

I cited those replies because they were the only instances in which I wrote "you think". Four times, you attributed that phrase to me (complete with quotation marks) in the context of me telling you what you think.

I indirectly quoted you in a manner that you regard as inaccurate. For this, I've apologized repeatedly. But apparently, you won't be satisfied until I admit that I didn't base my statements upon my honest interpretation of yours, but actually sought to read your mind and divine thoughts and feelings that you hadn't expressed. This simply isn't true.

Meanwhile, you've directly misquoted me ("You think...") over and over. I assume that this was accidental, and I don't even request an apology, but an acknowledgment would be nice.

Here are examples from that page:
"you seek to fundamentally alter "

Unless I misunderstood (and I welcome your clarification), you opined that a subject's "importance" should play a role in determining its article's eligibility to appear as TFA (particularly if said subject is "objectionable"). I commented that this would fundamentally alter the TFA criteria (which currently include no such considerations). I was referring to the change that you explicitly stated "should" occur ("Importance, relevance, should play a role, IMO."), not to something that I imagined you to believe.

"you want us to deem it bad."

You supported the proposed cancellation of an article's TFA appearance because you regard its subject as "infantile and puerile". I wrote the following:

"Our goal is to cover subjects from a neutral viewpoint, without regard for our personal opinions. We aren't deeming the TV episode good. Conversely, you want us to deem it bad."

My point was that we feature articles on the main page without regard for our personal opinions of their subjects (so the Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo article's upcoming appearance doesn't reflect a belief that the cartoon episode is good). Conversely, to cancel the article's appearance on the basis that its subject is "infantile and puerile" would constitute a formal determination that the cartoon episode is bad. You're entitled to disagree with this assessment (in which case I'd ask you to explain how "bad" is an inaccurate substitute for "infantile and puerile"), but it was based upon what you wrote, not speculation as to what you thought.

"You want to suppress material from the main page "

You didn't support suppressing the scheduled appearance of Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo as TFA?

Three instances in one day, in one conversation, of telling me what I think, and being dreadfully wrong all three times btw.

If I misinterpreted your positions, I'm sorry (as I've made abundantly clear). But again, I was referring to what you'd written, not what I imagined you were thinking.

"You want" "You seek" both are presuming to tell me what I think and want.

My intention was to describe (and comment on) the things that you said you wanted/sought.

That's unacceptable.

But apparently, it's perfectly acceptable for you to tell me what I was thinking. I've repeatedly clarified my comments' intended meaning, and you're still arguing that I actually meant something different.

Sure, AFTER I protested, you offered "I'm sorry if I misunderstood" which is weak.

I am sorry if I misunderstood (and had no knowledge of this until you protested).

You should say "I'm sorry I presumed to know your mind"

I refuse to apologize for something that I didn't do. I'm sorry if you believe that I'm lying.

or "I'm sorry for my horrible phrasing" or something,

"...I also apologize for failing to make myself clearer." "...I also apologize for any ambiguity on my part." "I've even apologized for failing to convey my thoughts more clearly." "If my wording's inelegance made this unclear, I've already apologized for that." "If my wording was poor, I've apologized for that too."

and vow to cease such phrasing.

"I thought that it went without saying that I'll do my best to avoid committing such errors in the future."

—David Levy 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. Really. From what I scanned, there are four issues here in communication:

You're still going off about the FA thing: seriously, drop that. Dead horse. Bones, even. Not an issue.
You think it "went without saying" that you wouldn't do it again, becasue why? I can read minds? wtf, seriously?
You are still going on about how much you apologised. Yeah, got that the first time, don't need to hear it again, pleasefortheloveofgod stop repeating it. No argument from me that you apologized. Apology accepted, notarized, framed and hung in a place of honor.
"At no point" - yes. three times. Are you saying you see some significant difference in meaning between "you seek to" "you want to" and "you think"????? Do you honestly think that the declarative sentence beginning with "You want to" is not you telling someone what they want, ergo what they think????? I am at a loss. This to me is key to this whole miscommunication issue. There is no real difference. It is the difference between me calling you a moron, me calling you an idiot, and me calling you mentally impaired. No difference. Killer Chihuahua 12:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. Really.

That's rather disheartening. I'm sure that it took me much longer to write than it would have taken you to read. And believe me, I'm not doing this for fun. I'm sincerely attempting to resolve a dispute.

You're still going off about the FA thing: seriously, drop that. Dead horse. Bones, even. Not an issue.

I've explicitly acknowledged that the original FA issue is settled. I'm addressing the matter in the context of our communication thereon (including your claims regarding my statements in that discussion).

You think it "went without saying" that you wouldn't do it again, becasue why?

No, I can't promise that I'll never choose my words poorly. As a human, I make mistakes. But "I thought that it went without saying that I'll do my best to avoid committing such errors in the future." When someone explains that something was accidental, expresses regret and apologizes profusely, that's generally implied.

I quoted that statement, originally appearing in my message time/datestamped "21:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)", in response to your message time/datestamped "13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)", in which you wrote that I should "vow to cease such phrasing".

You are still going on about how much you apologised. Yeah, got that the first time, don't need to hear it again, pleasefortheloveofgod stop repeating it. No argument from me that you apologized. Apology accepted, notarized, framed and hung in a place of honor.

In the aforementioned message, you wrote that I should say "I'm sorry for my horrible phrasing", so I quoted the five previous instances in which I mentioned apologizing for my wording's inadequacy. If you don't want me to repeat this, please don't complain that I haven't said it.

"At no point" - yes. three times.

And I've explained — over and over — that you misunderstood my statements. In debating this point, you're literally telling me what I was thinking when I wrote them.

Are you saying you see some significant difference in meaning between "you seek to" "you want to" and "you think"?????

It depends on the context.

Had I written "You think..." (as you stated four times, claiming that I "indeed said precisely that"), it would be easier to understand why my statements came across as speculation as to your thoughts. But all of those phrases — "You seek to...", "You want to..." and "You think..." — can precede either speculative or non-speculative statements, depending on what information is available to the person writing them.

"You seek to discuss this with me on my talk page.", "You want to edit Wikipedia.", and "You think that I've been rude." are not a speculative statements on my part. I know, based on the information available to me, that these things are true.

"You seek to elect like-minded leaders.", "You want to buy a red dress.", and "You think that chocolate tastes delicious." would be speculative statements. I possess no knowledge on which to base such conclusions.

The statements to which you've objected, which you believe misrepresented your positions, were based upon what you wrote. My intention was to describe (and comment on) the things that you said you sought/wanted. If I failed in that respect, it's because I misinterpreted the information that you provided, not because I attempted to read your mind.

Do you honestly think that the declarative sentence beginning with "You want to" is not you telling someone what they want, ergo what they think?????

Not when it's based upon an honest understanding of what she said she wants. —David Levy 18:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to answer all your points right now, but "You want to..." intended as a speculative rather than a declarative would be fine, But a speculative has a question mark, not a period. Your statements had periods, which renders your argument that they were speculatives moot. Do not confuse my attmpts to exlain how your declaratives read to others as the same as your bizarre "mindreading" bullshit. I am explaining to you what your words mean, to others, and why that's a problem. I'm explaining (or attempting to explain, although this is taking days and I see almost no progress) what's wrong with your phrasing. I am using declaratives because I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about ENGLISH. Your sentences were terminated with periods, therefore to anyone not living in your mind they were statements, not queries. "You want to go to the zoo." has a very different meaning from "You want to go to the zoo?" Also, "I'm sorry" does most certainly not (magically and unstated) carry with it the intention to not do so again. Even if it did, nothing "goes without saying" here. You have a multigenerational, multicultural environment. If you don't say it, it remains not only not unsaid but also not reliably implied, inferred, suspected, hinted, ... you get the idea. If it wasn't said, it might as well not exist even as a concept. And regarding knowledge and speculation: you don't know as much as you think you do about anyone else. Make this a mantra. If you remember this, then when you type your comments, you will avoid your presumptive and rude comments, which even if they are "based" on what someone said, are not necssarily, and in my case not even remotely, close to what that person thinks, feels, or was trying to say. Remember that text is fraught with danger for miscommunication; one study found that 95% of the time readers are positive they know precisely what someone was trying to say in text, and 80% of the time they were wrong or partially wrong. You have no magical abilities to do better. When someone says 'You misunderstood what I was trying to say, you do NOT TELL THEM 'I BASED MY STATEMENT ON MY WHAT YOU SAID" you say "my bad, what did you mean?" (That's intended as instruction, not description.) The first is arguing with someone about what they meant, regardless of how you meant it in your mind. It is, in effect, telling them what excellent reasons you had for your wrong statement. You are justifying your wrongness, and it very much sounds like you're telling the other person how wrong they are about your wrong statement. Which being a statement about them, rather than a query to them, is a huge problem. It is the entire reason we are here having this discussion. Killer Chihuahua 13:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to answer all your points right now, but "You want to..." intended as a speculative rather than a declarative would be fine, But a speculative has a question mark, not a period. Your statements had periods, which renders your argument that they were speculatives moot.

My "argument that they were speculatives"? You've asserted that I engaged in speculation. I don't care to count the number of times that I've explained otherwise.

I am explaining to you what your words mean, to others, and why that's a problem. I'm explaining (or attempting to explain, although this is taking days and I see almost no progress) what's wrong with your phrasing.

I've apologized for my phrasing and promised to do my best to avoid such errors in the future.

I am using declaratives because I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about ENGLISH. Your sentences were terminated with periods, therefore to anyone not living in your mind they were statements, not queries.

They were statements, based upon my understanding of what you wrote. They weren't intended as queries.

"You want to go to the zoo." has a very different meaning from "You want to go to the zoo?"

Indeed. I wasn't asking questions. I was making statements.

Also, "I'm sorry" does most certainly not (magically and unstated) carry with it the intention to not do so again.

I didn't merely apologize. I explained that any appearance of speculation regarding your positions and misrepresentations thereof were unintentional. If someone didn't intend to do something in the first place, why would one think that he/she intends to do it in the future?

But that's moot. As soon as you expressed this concern, I provided such an assurance. My statement that "I thought that it went without saying" was merely an explanation as to why I hadn't done so up to that point.

And regarding knowledge and speculation: you don't know as much as you think you do about anyone else. Make this a mantra. If you remember this, then when you type your comments, you will avoid your presumptive and rude comments, which even if they are "based" on what someone said, are not necssarily, and in my case not even remotely, close to what that person thinks, feels, or was trying to say.

As soon as you expressed your concern that my statements were inaccurate, I apologized and requested clarification. Conversely, throughout much of the above discussion, you've rejected my explanations and insisted that my statements meant things other than what I was trying to say.

Remember that text is fraught with danger for miscommunication; one study found that 95% of the time readers are positive they know precisely what someone was trying to say in text, and 80% of the time they were wrong or partially wrong.

Yes, I read this when you posted it on Raul's talk page.

Has it occurred to you that my messages seemed "presumptive and rude" because you were positive that you knew precisely what I was tying to say in text, but you were wrong or partially wrong?

Given the danger for miscommunication, is it prudent to deem someone's writing "tl" and gauge his/her intentions on the basis of a scan? (I don't know whether you've done that more than once, so I don't mean to imply that you have.)

You have no magical abilities to do better.

I don't claim otherwise. So when you took issue with my statements, I immediately apologized for any misinterpretation on my part and requested clarification. I also apologized for any poor wording that led to misinterpretation on your part. In other words, I accepted full blame for the misunderstanding.

When someone says 'You misunderstood what I was trying to say, you do NOT TELL THEM 'I BASED MY STATEMENT ON MY WHAT YOU SAID" you say "my bad, what did you mean?" (That's intended as instruction, not description.)

I wrote the following:

"If I've misunderstood your position, I sincerely apologize and welcome clarification."
"Perhaps I've misunderstood. Do you not advocate that we disqualify subjects deemed insufficiently important (particularly those also deemed objectionable)?"
"As stated above, I apologize if I've misunderstood your position. You don't want to suppress the scheduled appearance of Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo as TFA?"

You responded by coming to my talk page and stating that I "may wish to simply revert [my] last 'replies' edit and archive that section."

When I note that I based my statements upon what you wrote, I'm not arguing that my interpretation was accurate. I'm merely explaining that I sought to describe and comment on the positions that you conveyed, not to rudely presume that I knew what you were thinking.

The first is arguing with someone about what they meant, regardless of how you meant it in your mind.

I'm not arguing with you about what you meant. I'm explaining that if my statements about what you meant were inaccurate, it's because I misunderstood you (not because I tried to read your mind).

You've been arguing with me about what I meant. That's how you've responded to my explanations that you misunderstood what I was trying to say. —David Levy 05:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I committed the gross error of saying "you want..." "you seek..." or similar verbiage. I have therefor not told you what you think in any way whatsoever. I have sought to explain to you how incredibly rude and obnoxious your phrasing is, because you did say "you want..." and "you seek..." and I don't give a good goddam what you based it on, you were, by your choice of verbiage, telling me what I thought. Now, you can argue til the cows come home, but either that's what you meant to do, in which case you're amazingly patronizing, rude, and presumptive, or you did not mean to do that, in which case your verbiage sucks donkey turds. This is pretty basic stuff, here, and you're not getting it. You can keep telling people what they think, want, feel, etc, by using verbiage which cannot possibly mean anything else; or you can choose to stop. If I say "you think yadda" and then I claim "no, I didn't tell you what you think" I'm not being accurate. I'm either lying, or I'm ignorant of the use of the language, or I'm meaning to say "oops, I MEANT to say something else, my bad" - but when I say "You seek..." I'm telling you what you think and/or want, and no amount of protesting in the world will change that is what I said. This is not me telling you what you think; this is me accurately describing what you posted. Killer Chihuahua 17:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it seems as though you might as well be talking to a wall, I assure you that the feeling is mutual. I'm sorry that we were unable to resolve this conflict. —David Levy 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity; it seems to me you wish to resolve this amicably and are trying to do so; yet every reply from you makes it clear to me that I have been unable utterly to convey my point to you. Your replies do not address my posts, in other words. No matter how I have tried to rephrase, you are not understanding me. Thank you for taking the time to try; do try in the future to avoid using declaratives as though they were interchangeable with queries, and remember nothing "goes without saying" because unless you say it, no one knows you are thinking it, however obvious it may be to you. Killer Chihuahua 22:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I feel as though I've been unable to communicate my points to you.

You appear to share my desire to seek resolution, as you've invested a great deal of time as well. For that, I wish to reciprocate your thanks. I hope that we can put this matter behind us and collaborate in the future. —David Levy 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Well, no one can say we didn't try very hard to figure out what the other was saying; I agree that this time we must simply resign ourselves to the clear evidence that this time, we're kindof failing. :-/ and move on to better uses of our time. Please do not think for a moment that this bizarre inability to communicate one concept has in any way left me with any ill will; quite the contrary as you did make a heroic effort here. Do feel free to call on me any time if you require assistance. Who knows, perhaps in the future you'll be at loggerheads with someone else, unable to comprehend and facing a communication difficulty, and I might be just the person to 'translate' and be the middleman. Killer Chihuahua 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject[edit]

WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur at ITN[edit]

I've attempted to raise a discussion at WT:ITN because I think that all versions of the Nyasasaurus hook (including mine) are sub-optimal. I'd appreciate it if you'd participate in the discussion; it's section "Dinosaur". Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premature close at RM[edit]

David, I think it's pretty clear you're involved and shouldn't be closing RM discussions on an article that you're involved in discussing/editing. While your point is well taken, and perhaps it is soon, RM discussions ought to take some time, so that you closed it within hours is disappointing. I may come back to this later... I have other things to attend to today, but I'd hope you maybe consider opening it back up and letting the discussion run. Like we've said back and forth, that name change is inevitable, and while there are a lot of IPs without broader context chiming in on that discussion, an RM makes perfect sense to start now. Shadowjams (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood the situation. I'm not "involved" in the naming issue in a non-administrative context. I don't favor any particular title (including the current one).

An RM does not make perfect sense to start now, as it's too early to know what designation will end up predominating among reliable sources. Unless there's a clear problem with the current title, such discussion is an unneeded and premature distraction, as it will only need to be repeated in the near future.

Yes, it's likely that "massacre" will be part of the event's eventual de facto name, but that's only factor. What should the rest of the title be? As discussed on the talk page, "Newtown school massacre" is another strong possibility. Until enough time has passed, there's no way to know. —David Levy 19:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misunderstanding. I'm disagreeing with your idea that we need to wait an arbitrary amount of time to start the discussion. A RM should probably take a few days, and in that amount of time here will be more than enough to make a valid decision. Shadowjams (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how the RM process works. A nomination is supposed to reflect evidence that a particular title — at the discussion's start — is more suitable than the current one is, not an assumption that we'll know what title to use by the time the discussion concludes.

You keep citing urgency that simply doesn't exist. That the article currently is attracting significant attention as its subject develops is exactly why a stable title (barring an actual problem with the current one) is called for until the situation stabilizes. In the meantime, a move request is an unneeded and nonconstructive distraction from important editing concerns. This isn't my idea; it's the consensus established in past instances of breaking news. —David Levy 21:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook[edit]

The actual name of the school is Sandy Hook School. See the article's talk page for photo proof. It needs to be corrected on Newtown Public Schools, also. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you please point to a conclusive online source? (I personally attended an elementary school whose official name was "_____ Elementary School", with an outdated sign that read "_____ School".) —David Levy 05:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both names appear on the official website. —David Levy 05:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go to the page for any of the other schools on that page, then hover on the Schools tab. You'll see it says Sandy Hook School. For instance, go to http://newtown.hawley.schooldesk.net/ and hover on Schools. The elementary school's webmaster simply used a graphic for the masthead on their page that said Sandy Hook Elementary School. But none of the 4 elementary schools in the district have "Elementary" in their actual names. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also added more proof on the article's talk page. "Sandy Hook School" is all over the school's website. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "Sandy Hook School" Staff Directory. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both names appear on the website. If one reflects an error on the webmaster's part, I see no obvious means of determine which. Meanwhile, many reliable secondary sources refer to "Sandy Hook Elementary School". You might be correct, but we can't take your word for it. (Sorry.) —David Levy 05:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The principal's letter is the best proof. And the Schools tab shows the names of the schools. Almost every reference to the school name on the site is Sandy Hook School. That's the name of the school. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assert that the principal was wrong, but it's possible that both names are considered correct (with "Sandy Hook School" as the short-form variant). That was the case with the elementary school that I attended.

Or maybe you're completely right. But we can't cite your statements as a source. —David Levy 06:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That last part was funny, I have to admit ("or maybe you're completely right"). ;) Anyway, moving on for now... can you make this edit please. Thanks, David. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source.[3] --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing numerals to spelled out numbers at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

Please read the talk page discussion and the MOS:NUM guidelines.

Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. ...The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable."

Your edits also go against consensus here Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_2#20 children and 6 staff, so I would strongly urge you self-revert. - Mr X 20:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on the article's talk page. —David Levy 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

I disagree with the reasoning that the historical name of the Bath School disaster seems on the face of it to have been disregarded in this article, as evidenced by this edit. In all the research I have been doing on the Bath School disaster over the past few days, which mostly has consisted of consulting Monty J. Ellsworth's 1927 book "The Bath School Disaster" (written by an eyewitness who was a Bath resident) and newspapers from May 1927 and various other books published from then till now (to keep out all the WP mirror-sites), none of them refer to this attack as anything other than the "Bath School disaster". (I did say in my edit summary that I was relying on the contemporaneous literature and reporting?...) If a concern was raised about some possible confusion regarding the 'deadliest school attacks' on the talkpage (with one article being a 'shooting' and another being a 'massacre'), and the editorial consensus is that the Bath school mass murder should be referred to as a 'bombing', then I would appreciate a link to that. The sad distinction of being #1 in how many people died belongs to the almost simultaneous Bath school attacks (the school being wired with explosives and Kehoe's pickup truck being wired as a suicide device). If the name of the "Virginia Tech massacre" article was changed by pipe in another WP article to "Virginia Tech killings" or "Virginia Tech mass murders", would that piping be acceptable as well? Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussion didn't focus on the terminology used. It focused on confusion stemming from the two statistics. Some users didn't understand why both were included (i.e. that one related specifically to the deadliest shootings and the other related to the deadliest attacks in general) and wanted to remove the 1927 event's mention entirely. Switching from "disaster" to "bombings" helps to clarify the important distinction that's being drawn (by informing readers that the 1927 event wasn't a shooting).

Regardless of what the attack was called at the time, "Bath School bombings" and the less accurate "Bath School bombing" are common descriptions today. The plural and singular forms combined generate more Google hits than "Bath School disaster" does (even without the Wikipedia mirrors excluded).

If there's a need to mention the Virginia Tech massacre via different terminology, yes, piping (or linking directly to one of the article's 236 redirects) is acceptable. Bath School bombings is a functional redirect too, but piped linking is tidier and provides a "Bath School disaster" title when hovering.

There's nothing inappropriate about using a factual description of an event instead of a particular name assigned to it. We could pipe the link to read "bombings at Bath School", but that wouldn't improve the prose. —David Levy 08:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I like to respect what the contemporaneous usage was/is regarding events, to me it would be like changing what we call a Civil War battle...it just doesn't quite make sense to me if we're pointing the way to further research. If I looked up 'Bath School bombings' in the literature of the day, especially the newspapers and including books, I don't think I'd find much, the survivors seemed to have settled on 'disaster' as a descriptor. But if people today are reading the Sandy Hook article and wondering why there's a link to something that occurred in 1927, and a pipe takes care of that confusion?...that makes sense. (By the way, I googled the terms 'disaster' and 'bombing'/'bombings' and the raw data indicates 8,930,000 hits for 'Bath School disaster' and a combined total of 5,300,000 for 'Bath School bombing'/'Bath School bombings'.) Eh, however it's Wiki-sliced, a sad distinction for Bath...did you know that there was at least one schoolchild who survived and was interviewed as a senior citizen in 2007? That was an interesting read. Hey, thanks for your reply. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I like to respect what the contemporaneous usage was/is regarding events, to me it would be like changing what we call a Civil War battle...

The American Civil War was known by various names. And let's not forget the Great War.

But if people today are reading the Sandy Hook article and wondering why there's a link to something that occurred in 1927, and a pipe takes care of that confusion?...that makes sense.

Thanks for taking this into account. To be clear, the piping doesn't constitute a declaration regarding the 1927 event's name; we're merely providing a description that conveys its basic nature.

By the way, I googled the terms 'disaster' and 'bombing'/'bombings' and the raw data indicates 8,930,000 hits for 'Bath School disaster' and a combined total of 5,300,000 for 'Bath School bombing'/'Bath School bombings'.

You appear to have omitted the quotation marks, so you're seeing the counts of pages in which the individual words appear.

"bath school bombings": about 41,000 results
"bath school bombing": about 40,400 results
"bath school disaster": about 70,800 results

Eh, however it's Wiki-sliced, a sad distinction for Bath...

Indeed. It's very sad all around.

...did you know that there was at least one schoolchild who survived and was interviewed as a senior citizen in 2007? That was an interesting read.

No, I wasn't aware. How might I find the interview?

Hey, thanks for your reply. Cheers

Likewise. —David Levy 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I misremembered the year a bit...it was actually a 2009 NPR report with two of the survivors and a survivor's daughter - Interview transcript, Interview introduction with photographs. I thought I had included the links at the Bath School disaster article, but apparently not. At the very least, I'll add the linkage to the 'External links' section. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the linkage is already there but there are some entire sections on the article that aren't showing up...I'll have to tease out the technical reason why... Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —David Levy 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Np. Got the not-showing-up finally figured out, there were quite a few External links etc that were missing from the reader's view...just some errant code because of the referencing style. Shearonink (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor detail[edit]

Hi David--I'm going to undo this one. Column width is important, but she is more important. Plus, she just got the promotion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It isn't a big deal either way, but I believe that our goal is to describe the staff members' basic roles. I don't doubt that "lead teacher" is a promotion over "teacher", but I don't see how the distinction is relevant to the shooting.

I'd never heard of the title before, and from the information that I was able to find, a lead teacher is simply a teacher with a few additional administrative responsibilities that one would associate with a vice principal anyway. So I don't see how including "lead" enhances readers' understanding of her job functions. Regardless, we mention it in the article's body. —David Levy 02:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She recently got promoted from teacher to lead teacher.[4][5][6] Actually, all four of the elementary schools in the district have a Lead Teacher. It's an administrative role and you're right that they're associated like vice principals, even though they actually are not vice principals. If you hover on the Parents tab for any of the those four schools, you'll see a link to the Lead Teacher page. But I'm sure that however the two of you decide to deal with this in the article will be great. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was asked to look into it and I wouldn't have thought much of it (I'm not in secondary ed) if it weren't for the article (linked above) that points out that she just got the position. Tell you what--I'm going to copy this to the talk page, we can get a quick consensus one way or the other. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Yeah, each of the four elementary schools have a principal and a lead teacher. No vice princpals, even though they're treated like vice principals. I'll stay out of that discussion and allow the two of you to make the call. You're the experts. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no vice principals, why is she described as one? Perhaps that's what should be removed. —David Levy 03:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. Bring it up on the talk page please and see what we can come up with. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that she was promoted, and I'm sure that it was a significant career achievement. I just don't believe that it's relevant to the shooting or that its inclusion enhances readers' understanding of her role at the school. (Because the additional responsibilities are of the same sort that one would associate with a vice principal, we convey little about her job functions that isn't already conveyed by that title's inclusion.) —David Levy 03:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the staff lists for the four elementary schools that shows how there's a principal and lead teacher.[7][8][9][10] Good luck. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is very valid, David. I agree with you that vice principal should simply be removed. The lead teachers at the four schools are the 2nd in command and so are looked at and thought of as vice principals, so there's no doubt that's how it ended up in some sources. But there are actually no VPs. Btw, the Danbury News-Times cite I included above is the local major newspaper for the Sandy Hook/Newtown area, and it's one of the ones that verifies her title of lead teacher and specifies that she was recently promoted.Here it is again. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks for taking it to the article's talk page. I appreciate it. One final request, can you please replace the current cite (CBS) with this Danbury News-Times one. Keeping the CBS one will only cause problems down the road because it happens to be the one source that oddly uses the term vice principal/lead teacher, so some editors will probably question why that isn't used as her title. And the Danbury one is the area's major newspaper. Here are a couple others that verify the lead teacher title if you need them: [11][12] Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the citation on the list of victims. Thanks! —David Levy 04:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. And thank you for all your help on this. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the name of the newspaper is actually The News-Times, not NewsTimes. A lot of people call it the Danbury News-Times (similar to how a lot of people call The Daily News the New York Daily News). Just want to let you know if you want to correct it in the cite. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected both citations of this newspaper. (I'd copied the original one without noticing that the name was incorrect.) Thanks again! —David Levy 05:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David! --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello David! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23[edit]

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast![edit]

float	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you David! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you![edit]

do you brownie Msugarbabe (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including/Bolding the title of the 2011 Tucson shooting article[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You might be interested in weighing in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion at IAR[edit]

Greetings David. I'm not going to bother reverting your reversion of my reversion of another users reversion of another user but I wanted to clarify it wasn't directly related to Rich. Right or wrong Arbcom has stated multiple times that IAR does not apply to their rulings. They said it or Rich, Betacommand and several others in the past. Kumioko (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother reverting your reversion of my reversion of another users reversion of another user but I wanted to clarify it wasn't directly related to Rich.

Wnt's addition clearly was (and cited it specifically).

Some of the discussion's participants viewed Rich's actions as "a technical or ambiguous deviation from arbitration restrictions", but those arguing for sanctions disagreed (and believed that Rich had acted in the very manner that led to the restrictions in the first place).

Whether the latter individuals are right or wrong (I'm not taking either side), they clearly believe that Rich behaved inappropriately. It's inaccurate to claim that they perceived the violation as "technical or ambiguous" and decided to punish him on that basis.

Right or wrong Arbcom has stated multiple times that IAR does not apply to their rulings.

I realize that. For the record, I don't agree with all of their decisions, and I feel that they've overstepped their authority in some instances. All of this warrants discussion, not caustic protests lodged on policy pages. —David Levy 13:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its really not meant to be a protest or a spite or to prove a point. At least for me. Frankly I tend to think that it might be time to delete IAR altogether. Whenever its brought up its just argued to be invalid and ignored anyway. Kumioko (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In various discussions about the IAR policy itself, it's been noted that most valid applications are silent and go largely unnoticed. Conversely, when users attempt to "invoke" the policy, this usually reflects a lack of consensus that the act in question serves to improve or maintain Wikipedia. If a matter needs to be "brought up", it probably falls into the latter category. —David Levy 13:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it stands to reason that should be mentioned there. I also think that there should be some mention that it does not apply to Bots or AWB since both note specifically it doesn't. Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appending such elaboration to the policy proper has been discussed (on and off) for years. The idea has been rejected on the basis that it's impossible to foresee every scenario and equally impossible to document just the foreseeable scenarios (along with exceptions thereto, exceptions to exceptions, etc.) without transforming the page into a self-defeating wall of text.

So instead, we rely on the "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" stipulation. I've yet to encounter an instance in which the policy's application was prevented despite consensus that it would have served to improve or maintain Wikipedia. (There certainly are misguided attempts to enforce rules purely for the sake of following the rules, but the community rightly rejects them.)

WP:WIARM (linked from the policy page) provides additional clarity. —David Levy 13:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Sitenotice[edit]

Thanks for the better wording; I had the hardest time figuring out how to write what I wanted to say and never could work out something that sounded good. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I went through several wordings before settling on that one. For some reason, the message seemed difficult to convey in a clear and concise manner. —David Levy 23:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree; vagueness and awkwardness appeared to be my only two choices. At least your edit didn't prompt the "Egads!!" section of WP:VPT :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today's article for improvement and the main page[edit]

The development for TAFI has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are prepared to launch the new feature on the main page for Feb 9th at 0:00 UTC. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. An example page has been created to show what it would look like. I would like to invite you and several other admins who have recently edited the Main Page to swing by this discussion to help us hammer out the final logistics of integrating the content onto the main page. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help tweaking the main page draft. Since you seem to know about these sorts of things, how will we update the 7 article subpages every week when we switch articles? Does it have to be done manually, and will there be page protection? And where should we prepare the blurbs in advance for the next cycle of 7? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest approach is to use a new set of seven dated subpages each week (which can be created and prepared as far in advance as desired). When the date arrives, the update will occur automatically.

The blurbs can be developed directly on these pages, which needn't be protected until 24 hours before their main page appearance. (For most main page content, this occurs automatically when the pages are transcluded at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, which has cascading protection. In this instance, we can simply set up another cascade-protected page that transcludes all seven TAFI subpages 24 hours in advance.) So it would be important to ensure that the blurbs are ready at least a day ahead of time (though it always would be possible for administrators to make changes as needed).

Such infrastructure will take some time and effort to design, implement and test, so I strongly suggest that TAFI's main page debut be delayed slightly. (February 9 seems a bit too soon.)

I hope that this advice is helpful. —David Levy 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the general concept, but know nothing about the technical steps to implement. Where would I inquire about getting assistance in developing this kind of cascading thingamajigger? As far as the go-live date, clearly nothing can move forward until this is iron clad. I'm trying to get input on the nomination/schedueling process over at the WP:TAFI page as well, so a delay might be beneficial until the kinks all get worked out. You're welcome to join that discussion if you feel inclined. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help out with the coding. I'm familiar with the necessary technical elements, excepting the randomization (with which others are more experienced). Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is a good venue in which to solicit further assistance. —David Levy 23:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uribana prison riot[edit]

God bless on getting rid of the bold title. I was just about to do it myself. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maize[edit]

I noticed you undid my contributions on the talk page and while I am not fully in understanding of why, I will say there was no need for the snark in the comment insinuating that I was attempting o make a personal argument out of it. I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia. I have edited a few pages for accuracy, grammar, and spelling and have contributed on more than a few talk pages. I found no such instructions on that talk page suggesting that no one can add comments or ideas. I did notice that it said we were allowed to edit the summarized points to improve the arguments and to not sign our contributions. However, seeing as how I have always simply used my IP to sign with, it autosigns for me.

My issue? The oppositions to the arguments were based in an incorrect understanding of the arguments and I was attempting to clarify each individual point. If you could perhaps show me the specific instructions that outline my wrongdoing, I can avoid such things in the future. And if the talk of this subject is not being held on the talk page, then perhaps you could show me where my comments might be better placed.184.156.23.123 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you undid my contributions on the talk page and while I am not fully in understanding of why, I will say there was no need for the snark in the comment insinuating that I was attempting o make a personal argument out of it.

You've misunderstood my edit summary. (My apologies for being unclear.) By "treating it as a personal debate", I wasn't referring to a personal attack; I meant that you formatted your messages as replies to a person (a nonexistent one). The section's purpose is to summarize various arguments that have been made, not to actively debate the points via conversation.

I did notice that it said we were allowed to edit the summarized points to improve the arguments and to not sign our contributions. However, seeing as how I have always simply used my IP to sign with, it autosigns for me.

Those signatures can be removed. But that wasn't the main problem.

The oppositions to the arguments were based in an incorrect understanding of the arguments and I was attempting to clarify each individual point.

I believe that each of your responses refutes a point not actually being made and/or introduces a different argument that perhaps could be included separately. Of course, my assessment carries no more weight than yours does. But if you believe that the summary misrepresents the various positions, the correct course of action is to propose changes to the existing text, not to append new text asserting that it's wrong.

If you could perhaps show me the specific instructions that outline my wrongdoing, I can avoid such things in the future.

"Wrongdoing" is a needlessly harsh word, but the text at the top of the section indicates that it's "for a clear and concise statement of the reasons for each position, not for back-and-forth arguing or conversation."

And if the talk of this subject is not being held on the talk page, then perhaps you could show me where my comments might be better placed.

You have the right page. But please seek consensus by expressing your concerns in a separate section or sub-section. —David Levy 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent Events"?[edit]

Hi David. Will ITN get this new title? Sca (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! "Recent events" seems like our best bet, but further discussion is needed. —David Levy 01:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there or will there be a venue for that? The 'ITN' label has bothered me for years (along with the non-moving photo). Sca (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to initiate an RfC soon (depending on where the current discussion leads).

We had a major discussion about the image issue in November, which resulted the significant change described therein. —David Levy 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly did. How did I miss that? I'd given up on the photo issue and wasn't paying attention. Thanks. Sca (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article count in Main Page's header[edit]

Hi David. I'm not sure if you still have any interest in this subject, but I was trying to figure out, from reading past discussions, why the article count is still in Main Page's header. It seems like it was nearly removed a few times, with various alternatives proposed (using good or featured article count, including a link to Special:Statistics, etc.). I can't really see how the discussion ended with the article count staying up there. It seems silly for it to still be there for many reasons, including the fact that the number has never been accurate. Any help or pointers on this would be appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia. Once something is on the main page, it's exceedingly difficult to remove.

For years, there has been no consensus to continue displaying the article count at the top of the main page. But there also has been no consensus to remove it (or implement an alternative).

I believe that the onus should be on those who wish to include content to demonstrate sufficient support, but in this instance, the status quo has been treated as the default. —David Levy 11:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious solution isn't quite so obvious to me right now. I agree that it should be removed, but I'm having difficulty articulating what to do instead. Remove the line altogether? Link to Special:Statistics? Just say "Over 4 million articles"? (Though this feels a little McDonald's-y.) Something else? If we can figure that out, it should be fairly easy to reach a consensus to implement the change at Talk:Main Page. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During the most recent main page redesign, the layout originally included the article count only in the Wikipedia languages section. The instance at the top was hastily tacked on at the last minute, when complaints about its absence muddied (and threatened to derail) the discussion.

So yes, I believe that the line should be removed altogether. That's how the heading was deigned in the first place, and it's much more aesthetically pleasing that way. To see for yourself, add the following line to your custom CSS code:

#articlecount {display: none}

I wish that I shared your optimism regarding the ease of reaching a consensus. —David Levy 11:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I formally proposed the change here. I'll advertise this discussion at Talk:Main Page. No idea where else this kind of thing should be advertised (if anywhere). --MZMcBride (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grahhhhhh. It's exceedingly difficult to make any change to the main page, big or small. Bah. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how these discussions go. There's no consensus either way, which defaults to no change. For seven years, there hasn't been consensus to continue displaying the article count at the top of the main page, but there it remains. —David Levy 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main page redesign draft RFC[edit]

Hi David,

I've made a draft RFC at Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal/Draft RFC. You're input would be appreciated so that we can avoid mistakes of previous attempts. Thanks, Evad37 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Functional randomization on the Main Page Sandbox[edit]

It took a while, but I got the code to work. I have posted details over at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_article_for_improvement#Functional_randomization_on_the_Main_Page_Sandbox. Your scrutiny would be appreciated, the code could use a look over. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superbowl[edit]

Hi David, I'd like to put the Superbowl back. Can you take a look at WP:MINREF and see if you agree with me that inline citations are not strictly necessary when material isn't challenged or likely to be challenged? The game summary is sort of "sky is blue". Practically every one of the inline sources listed already has a game summary, so the reader certainly can look at those references and verify the game summary. Look at past Superbowl articles and you'll see that many don't have inline citations for the game summary section. We have a lot of eyes on the Superbowl articles; if something is wrong, somebody will raise the issue on the talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MINREF, the use of "{{citation needed}} or any similar tag" is a challenge. Unless this is done in bad faith or is patently ridiculous, I see no valid basis for the tag's removal.

You state that "the game summary is sort of 'sky is blue'", but its accuracy isn't as obvious to readers less familiar with the subject. (The same is true of any other topic.)

You note that "practically every one of the inline sources listed already has a game summary, so the reader certainly can look at those references and verify the game summary." By that logic, citations would never need to be inline, provided that they were available somewhere in the article. —David Levy 14:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am suggesting that you are violating WP:POINT, engaging in an abuse of your administrative powers to stonewall consensus and impose your personal point of view by force. You admit not knowing whether the game summary is correct or not. Please familiarize yourself with the facts of the game by reading some of the many sources listed at the bottom of the article. Once you've taken that step, you can feel free to point out any facts that are dubious. You may not say "I challenge everything, I want an inline reference for every sentence." That is obstructive and rude to your fellow editor. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy to continue discussing the matter when you retract the above accusation of bad-faith conduct. —David Levy 15:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to retract the accusation when you stop acting badly. I've asked you half a dozen times to point out the specific statements in the article that you are challenging. I can't fix them if you won't tell me what they are. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this repeatedly (on two other pages). I'm sorry that you believe that I'm acting in bad faith. —David Levy 17:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Superbowl article was re-posted to the home page. A few minor deficiencies were cleaned up, and the number 72, for reference 72 (ESPN play by play), was inserted repeatedly after every sentence and paragraph. Has that added so much value as to be worth all the trouble and delay. Too bad you didn't simply talk with me as a human being at the start. "I'm sorry that you believe that I'm acting in bad faith" is a classic non-apology apology. When acting as an admin, it is best to avoid patronizing doubletalk. Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an apology at all, nor was it patronizing. It was a sincere expression of discomfort and disappointment. From the very beginning, I did my best to communicate my concerns, human being to human being. I'm genuinely sorry that you believe otherwise (as I seek to maintain collegiality in my interactions with fellow editors), but I won't apologize for bad-faith acts that I didn't commit. —David Levy 18:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want an apology. What I want is an understanding. Taking the article off the home page was a hostile action, and a poor way to treat a fellow administrator. Editors wanted that article up on the home page because it was important to them. The lack of inline citations was very minor and should not have held up the process so long. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the article off the home page was a hostile action, and a poor way to treat a fellow administrator.

On what do you base the assertion that the removal was "hostile"? You keep alleging bad faith, and I remain baffled as to why you believe that such a motive existed. If you wanted to accuse Tariqabjotu and me of accidentally messing up, that would be one thing. But you've insisted that we acted out of malice/spite. Why do you believe this? Why would Tariqabjotu and I suddenly conspire to commit sabotage?

Why do you interpret our intervention as an attack? Do you feel that "a fellow administrator" is entitled to special treatment (including no reversions of their edits, even when it's believed that a mistake was made)?

Editors wanted that article up on the home page because it was important to them.

And it was important enough to Ryan to fix the problems that stood in the way of achieving this goal.

Meanwhile, it was important to others that said issues be addressed.

I have no doubt that improving Wikipedia is important to all of us, even when we disagree on how to best accomplish this. I don't interpret differences of opinion as evidence that you're engaging in malicious/spiteful obstruction. —David Levy 21:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had somebody said, "Do A, B, and C" and then we can post this, everybody would have jumped up and done it. What happened was somebody (Tariq) said "Do A". People took care of that and somebody posted that article on the home page. Then Tariq said, "But wait, we need B and C also, and I'm taking the article down." That provoked a lot of arguing. It was bad practice to manage the situation that way. Instead, he should have say, "Omigosh, I forgot to tell you we needed B and C, please fix this as soon as you can or else we will have to take down the article." The matter would have resolved faster, with fewer hurt feelings. THere might have been a discussion about whether B and C were truly necessary, which would have been a good thing to have happened before taking down the article. Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with parts of the above summary and the conclusions stemming therefrom, but I respect your opinion that the situation should have been handled differently. I just don't understand where the accusations of bad faith come in. —David Levy 22:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, if you ever feel inclined to add my name to a grievance of yours, please do so in a venue where it would be more reasonable that I would respond in my defense (should I choose to, of course). That includes my talk page or, more preferably in this case, ANI, where I would be delighted to highlight your baseless accusations, which, for your convenience, include:

"doing a policy endrun"
"being tendentious"
"[being] upset that a non-regular deigned to post the article"
"not [allowing] [the article] up again until everybody bows and kisses [our] feet"
"stonewalling" (which you found insulting, oh dear!)
"playing a game of disputing things, but refusing to provide any particulars"
"a horrible case of WP:BITE and WP:OWN"
"[taking] a hostile path, reversion, because [I] claimed to know better than them"
"violating WP:POINT, engaging in an abuse of your administrative powers to stonewall consensus and impose your personal point of view by force"
being "obstructive and rude to your fellow editor"

That's not disagreement, which is fine; that's attack. That you, and a handful of other editors, found it appropriate to elevate our disagreement to malintent is what's truly -- borrowing your words for our actions -- "appalling" and what actually turned up the temperature. Luckily, I've been involved in ITN for quite some time now, and while some admins are more willing to cave to insults, I am fairly impervious to such efforts and you can be sure that your harassment will have zero effect on how I operate in regards to this section. If you have a problem with that, again, I request you take your complaints to a more appropriate venue. -- tariqabjotu 02:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, my dear, I was trying to explain my actions to David, and just mentioned you in passing.
David, I see now that your actions were really not so bad, and that I've misatributed bad motives to you that I should not have done. Your involvement was mostly helpful, in fact. So sorry for what I said.
Tariq, I have nothing further to say. Let's agree to disagree, move on, and hopefully avoid each other. Good evening. Jehochman ^Talk 03:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For all the complaints we get of being unfair to US topics on ITN, I would note this incident calls that into question as from my experience the chance the item would have been posted with a flawed article like here, and the chance the removal of a flawed article would have been contested this vigirously is rather slim if it wasn't the Superbowl or something wordlwide of greater significance like the world cup or the olympics. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article was flawed. Every article, every one of them, can be improved further. For instance, today I was casually reading Ronald Reagan which is currently appears on the home page, and found a factual error, and fixed it. [13] This is a featured article, yet it still had an obvious factual error. We should focus our efforts on improving articles, not removing them from view or arguing about them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that an article must be perfect before it can be bold-linked from the main page.

Do you agree that we should require some minimum level of quality? If so, we only disagree on where to draw the line. —David Levy 21:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we even disagree about that. My belief is that each admin tries to draw the line where they think the community wants it. Different admins will draw different lines. We should respect each other's decisions, except for clear, unequivocal errors. Short of that, any disagreements are resolved by discussion, not by reverting admin actions. I hope this clarifies my position. You are naturally free to have a different position. I don't mind. Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my position differs. I don't believe that administrators are entitled to special deference. If one errs, as I believe Metropolitan90 (who appeared to misunderstand ITN's purpose and practices) did in this instance, the edit should be reverted.

This includes my mistakes (even relatively minor ones) — especially those appearing on the main page. I'd hate for one to persist, possibly for hours, because another admin was worried about seeming impolite. Wikipedia is not about us. —David Levy 02:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ITN note[edit]

Hi David,

The reason I set Template:ITN note to be a subst template was because I was concerned that the {{date}} bit wouldn't stay fixed to the date of posting otherwise. I'm not really that great at template design or policy so I won't try any more modifications. I just thought I should let you know this thing!

Cheers, --LukeSurl^{t c} 23:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I've modified the code to address this issue. —David Levy 00:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix! Another thing, do you think this template should go in level 2 sections, or at the top of the talk pages? I was pondering this as Template:ITN_talk is a top-of-page notice. --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There might be occasional exceptions, but I think that the template generally should be placed at the top of the talk page. —David Levy 21:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Testing the template out, I've placed it on Talk:Liberty Leading the People and Talk:Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ITN images[edit]

Thanks for letting me know! I will keep that in mind in the future. Best, Spencer^T♦C 23:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing white spaces[edit]

Hello,

I saw that you removed quite a few white spaces that I had been inserting. May I ask why? The reason I kept adding them was because I thought that since they are two different thread topics, they ought to be dilineated to remove confusion. (I do that often btw) Is there any guideline against what I did?

Also, what does "updated since my last visit" mean?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC) [TB please][reply]

It isn't a matter of policies or guidelines. It's purely a technical issue. The added white space confused the software, thereby breaking the discussion's formatting (by adding detached bullets to messages).

The "updated since my last visit" notation appears alongside revisions that occurred after your most recent visit to the page. —David Levy 07:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do I achieve what I want without breaking the formatting? Since there are two different discussions, I would want to keep separate.

Is that edit summary automatic? If so, how? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution probably is to omit the asterisk (*). When messages are indented only with a repeated colon (:), white space doesn't cause the problem that I described.

The "updated since my last visit" notation isn't part of the edit summary. The software displays it (and removes it) automatically. —David Levy 08:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

So that message appears to the one reading it, and isnt written by the one writing it?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC) (Dont tb, I just watchlisted your talk)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. The software detects which revisions occurred after your last visit to the page and displays that notation alongside them. —David Levy 08:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One last question - What do you think of me as a Wikipedian? (Dont tb - I watchlisted) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on our limited interaction (the TAFI discussion and image discussion, to the best of my recollection), my impression is that you're passionate about improving Wikipedia, which is laudable. My constructive criticism is that you sometimes allow this passion to cloud your perceptions of others' behavior. (In both discussions, you failed to assume good faith on the part of those with whom you disagreed.) —David Levy 08:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I hope to put your criticism to good use. But i think I was assuming good faith in the TAFI discussion. The inherent Western and anti-Western biases in the second discussion probably clouded the good faith in the second discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.

In the TAFI discussion, you responded to my inability to identify the source of your confusion and clarify my comments by accusing me of evasion and speculating that I might have been bullying you. I understand that you were frustrated, but I sincerely communicated my concerns (and attempted to address yours) to the best of my ability. —David Levy 09:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did try my best not to do any accusations or anything, but it was really frustuating to find no rephrasal after half a dozen responses, even after I directly asked it twice. To me (even now), it would have been something that would have been done by someone bullying me around. Any ideas on what would have been assuming good faith on my behalf? (Note- There was only one comment from you which tackled my original question, and I still cant figure out how the two are connected) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas on what would have been assuming good faith on my behalf?

I informed you that I was wanted to alleviate the confusion but didn't recognize its source or know how to rephrase my comments to make them clearer. Assuming good faith = assuming that I was being honest (not intentionally withholding information or bullying you). —David Levy 10:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad phrasing - Any ideas how you would have been assuming good faith had you been me? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've misunderstood, you're asking how I would have acted if our positions had been reversed. Is that correct? —David Levy 10:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done what I described as "assuming good faith" above (assumed that you were being honest, not intentionally withholding information or bullying me). —David Levy 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I see no way you can actually understand my inability to understand you without you actually seeing it firsthand. Nevermind, and I still think i assumed good faith for as long as it was possible (and tried to compose myself even when I couldnt). Good day to you, and cheers. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horse and pork meat[edit]

Thanks for getting the pork meat info in there when you posted the blurb Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK prison pork was it's own mini Halal-scandal that actually broke all of 12 days ago: [14]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also shouldn't forget that this is an IP apparently posing as Ryan. Zappa O Mati 00:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 'bout that. I geolocate to UPenn. I used a script enforced WikiBreak (see User:Ryan Vesey/common.js) to get some reading done but I had to pipe up for the horse thing.165.123.233.168 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Overrated[edit]

I hope you don't mind but I have moved our discussion to my talk page out of courtesy for the admin in question however if anyone disagrees they are free to revert Till 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 04:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

No response from Howcheng[edit]

I left a message at his talk page to comment on the Talk:Main Page discussion about TAFI, but there's been no response. I feel the move forward hinges on him giving a yea or nay, maybe you could message him as well? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 07:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that he perceived the invitation as optional and doesn't realize that you're waiting on a reply from him. I think that the best course of action is for you to post a follow-up message explaining this. —David Levy 08:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on the main page[edit]

I just wanted to let you know there is a typo on the main page. I think it should be 1908—injured instead of 1908—injure under the News byte for the Meteor. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The In the news section is written in the present tense. —David Levy 01:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Main Page[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Talk:Main Page#Proposal to implement.
Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Talk:Main Page.
Message added 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ITN edit[edit]

Feel free to revert; I suppose the status of the 37b page should be sorted out first. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 02:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of which article should be linked, so I don't intend to revert in either direction. I just wanted to bring the matter to your attention. :) —David Levy 02:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It made more sense to me to link directly to the planet's article. Being bold, I guess. However it shakes out I won't be bothered. Cheers. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 03:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalization[edit]

Hi David, I just wanted to stop by to inform you that a User made a heavy revert on the article Culture of Italy that lacks consensus and also contains invalid information and just want to be on the safe side that the user is not vandalizing the page. Thank You. (Slurpy121 (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I see no evidence of vandalism. Please assume good faith.

On what do you base the determination that the reversion "lacks consensus"? —David Levy 05:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for responding. My statement was that user Johnbod made arbitrary edits out of nowhere that included errors in facts and spelling, for example the edits that Johnbod made, stated that India was part of the Roman Empire and the correct word "colonization" was changed to "colonisation" which does not appear to be constructive, and that word didn't even show up in my word dictionary, and that recent edit was made by User Bishonen. (Slurpy121 (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

User:Johnbod certainly isn't vandalising, but apparently he reverted my copyedit accidentally. You did right to revert back, Slurpy, but there is no problem. Please see recent edits on Talk:Culture of Italy. Bishonen | talk 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar.[edit]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		That personal attack was disgusting but you handled it sensibly and maturely. Impressive and deserving of recognition. Keep up the good work mate. Stalwart111 00:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I sincerely appreciate it. :) —David Levy 01:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF[edit]

Re: [15]

I started to write a rationale, but then I realized that my logic was wrong. So I am going to revert myself. My reasoning was that in page histories someone have already used these shortcuts. So for readability of history we must have these shortcuts available. But this logic applies to redirects, not to the "shortcut box". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Awards[edit]

The ceremony concluded at approximately 9:05pm on the 24th. I see that you mentioned UTC on the candidates page, but we usually go by the local time unless that isn't possible (e.g. when an event occurs in space or pertains to multiple time zones). —David Levy 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I thought. ITN/C says "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Medeis[edit]

Hi David. I'm getting a little concerned about the editing and behavior of User:Medeis at C. Everett Koop, who died yesterday. I'm sensing he's getting pretty aggressive and not actually even looking at the article or reading the edit summaries before making his changes to the article. He's also added clearly non-encylopedic content such as these unnecessary quotes and content which says what we don't know ("No official determination of death has yet been announced":[16][17] He also put a third-level warning on my talk page after I had posted comments on the article's talk page and his own talk page about agreeing with him about the removal of some content. Haha. As you'll see from my edit history, I've been working hard on the article with other editors to add some great sources and relocate existing content into it's proper place. I created a single Career section with applicable subsections because all of that content had previously been in numerous, separate sections that were scattered all over the page. We've now gotten the article to a nice, easy-to-understand layout for readers. Unless Medies removes it all again. :P I also asked him to please read WP:NLS regarding his non-English signature (μηδείς). In any case, I was hoping maybe you could keep an eye on the Koop article. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I'm currently too busy to delve into this matter. Please continue to seek resolution on the article's talk page. —David Levy 01:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take this elsewhere because you are busy, but just so you know what is going on:

On 22:59, 8 October 2012 you unblocked User:Medeis [18][19] in response to the comment "Please unblock me, you won't see me editing people's comments".

On 02:25, 2 March 2013 Medeis edited another person's comment -- again. [20]

I warned Medeis, but she insists that editing people's comments is allowed.[21][22][23][24]

BTW, I was told (second hand) that the proper form of address is "she" --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP matter and I reported it to the ref desk talk page and have not disputed whatever action they have taken. You'll see also my deleteion has not been reversed by any other editor. If necessary it can go to revdel but their usual policy is to tell editors to take care of it themselves. I'll also note Macon has been hostile to me for quite some while (I have no idea why) and has been shopping admins to get me blocked, see, for example, here. David, if you have any concerns please ask me. Guy, please refrain from further comments on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while we're at it, would you mind just closing or deleting or revdelling this thread, David? We don't have an article so far as I can find on the private individual who is mentioned. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained to you several times, the many warnings you receive from multiple editors about your behavior belong on your talk page, and are off-topic on article talk pages.

I have no hostility towards you. you are being treated exactly like anyone else who says "you won't see me editing people's comments" and then continues editing people's comments. Yes, I do think you should be blocked, and I think you should be blocked for longer and longer periods until you get the point and stop editing people's comments. This is nothing against you personally; any disruptive editor would be treated the same way. I would much prefer that you simply stop editing people's comments and thus give us no reason to block you.

This is not a BLP matter. As has been explained to you multiple times,[25][26][27][28][29] you may delete a comment that violates our BLP policy but you must not edit it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expecting overnight guests soon, so I currently have no time to deal with any of this. I ask that both of you please pursue resolution via the normal channels.

My unblock of Medeis in October doesn't give me special standing, so any administrator should feel free to address the situation via whatever measures are deemed appropriate. —David Levy 01:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN RD section[edit]

Hey David. When you have a moment, would you mind having a look at the recent deaths section of Template:ITN and see if I screwed up any of the non-breaking spaces? I removed a stale entry by copying the whole chunk of code from the last time it was unused ([30]), and one nbsp was removed while two more re-appeared. I didn't want to mess with it further because I didn't think it was anything particularly vital, but I don't want it to cause any problems the next time we need to use the section. Please, and thanks! --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the note! You didn't break anything. I'd made some minor tweaks, which I've now restored. :) —David Levy 00:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry if I made you do double work. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was no trouble at all, and my attention was drawn to a couple of additional code segments that I tweaked at the same time. (: —David Levy 00:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this[edit]

Is this worth linking on the Main Page? I see redlinks, masses of indiscriminate information, but little of any real encyclopedic merit. I'd like to see a proper discussion before including this here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to such articles (when they exist) is standard procedure at ITN. If you believe that the article is seriously flawed, please edit it accordingly and/or outline your concerns on its talk page (but please see Wikipedia:Red link first). If you disagree with the link's inclusion in the ITN blurb, you're welcome to initiate a discussion in one of the relevant fora. —David Levy 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However poor the quality? --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I disagree with your assessment of the article. You complained about the presence of red links (a normal element that editors are encouraged to include), so your expectations might differ from that of the community. You haven't raised your concerns on the article's talk page, so it's difficult to say. —David Levy 15:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's reassuring that you at least looked at the article before including it. If you properly read the talk page, you will see that editors have complained about the view of a redlinked journal being given a prominent mention in the article. There is a body of opinion there that too many trivial and mundane quotations are used in the article. What is your opinion on this? There's no need to send me a talkback template by the way, I have this page watchlisted. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's reassuring that you at least looked at the article before including it.

I always do. To be bold-linked from ITN, an article must be centrally relevant to an approved item, must meet the section's update criteria, and must not contain any known fundamental flaws (such as missing references, incorrect claims or copyright violations).

If you properly read the talk page, you will see that editors have complained about the view of a redlinked journal being given a prominent mention in the article. There is a body of opinion there that too many trivial and mundane quotations are used in the article.

You're describing the type of discussion that routinely occurs on articles' talk pages. (To quote Lihaas, "this perenially comes up with reactions section[s]".) A disagreement among editors about whether certain information is noteworthy is not grounds for the ITN link's removal. (If it were, the section probably would have to be discontinued.) Whether some of the material is superfluous and should be removed is a matter to be determined via consensus there (and you're welcome to participate). —David Levy 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, to clarify, the decision to add this to ITN and therefore to the Main Page, rests solely with you, and no peer-review process whatsoever takes place? --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link upon a user's request at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Any administrator who disagrees with the change can undo it, and any editor in good standing can initiate a discussion in one of the relevant fora to request this and invite others' opinions (as I noted in my first reply, written five days ago). Thus far, no one (including you) has done so. —David Levy 17:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been of more use to me if you had noted in your reply five days ago what the "relevant fora" actually are. I'm sure you aren't intending to come across as unhelpful but that's the definite impression I am getting. Any assistance short of actual help, eh? No worries, I will look into it myself. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're savvy enough to find the ITN template, examine its edit history and link to a diff on my talk page, so it didn't occur to me that its talk page (or Talk:Main Page) would elude you. However, I'd have gladly provided these links upon request. I'm doing my best to be helpful, but I can't read minds. —David Levy 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo consensus discussion[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on Featured Pictures. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello David Levy, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ has given you a shinning smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shinning Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

TAFI implementation[edit]

Hello,

Do you know what implementation status is on putting TAFI on the main page? I just saw that the bot that we were waiting for has been approved. Is there anything else, or is TAFI now finally ready to put on the main page?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [Talkback plz][reply]

I'd prefer to see the JavaScript method explored, but I don't see anything explicitly preventing TAFI's main page introduction on a trial basis (with the understanding that it might need to be pulled and reassessed if something goes wrong).

We need to make sure that everything is ready (including the bot, which must be restarted), so I suggest a target launch date of 18 March. Let's try to find an uninvolved administrator to flip the switch. —David Levy 17:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. I suggest we (once again) also post about this date on the Main Page talk and the TAFI pages. The Main Page talk shall certainly need a synopsis of the approval process for putting TAFI there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images on the main page[edit]

This is just a reminder to upload Commons images locally (unless they're protected at Commons) before transcluding them on the main page. (File:Krakow Ghetto 06694.jpg was unprotected for about 16 minutes, which is less time than the bot often takes.) Thanks! —David Levy 05:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Thanks. Although I'm not sure why you used a form notice... it's not like I don't know you're supposed to upload images locally. I obviously just forgot. -- tariqabjotu 06:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use a form notice. I'm realize that you're aware of the need, so I typed the above note manually. (I don't know of a template for this purpose, but when I inform administrators inexperienced with such edits, I include an explanation that our cascading protection doesn't extend to Commons, thereby leaving the images vulnerable to vandalism.) I'm sorry if my tone seemed more formal than intended. —David Levy 06:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Main Page deployment, or not?.
Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A little help?[edit]

As you can see on the Teahouse Host Lounge, I had asked someone to edit the teahouse talkback template to add that one particular line about archival. But it seems there were no admins which looked into it. Do you mind making this particular change? You can add a link to this discussion in your edit summary.

Thanks and Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've updated the template. —David Levy 21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at TAFI talk[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Main Page deployment.
Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TB[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Talk:Third_Battle_of_Kharkov#Kharkov_.2F_Kharkiv.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN BLP stuff[edit]

I think you've slightly missed the problem with your comments. The problem is when the top item is for a murderer or something and the picture refers to another person for an item that isn't in the top 1-2 items in the list.

Given the BLP policy is supposed to be very cautious I don't think you should need to persuade a lot of people, but obviously you need to persuade more than ~5% of the readers.

It is clear that the solution that was presented to me in the autumn has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and is too restrictive, but I'd have thought that it was worth the effort to try and come up with a more complex but tighter solution.

Cheers

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "missed the problem". I disagree with your opinion that it exists (and your resultant supervote). I explained why in the discussion. —David Levy 21:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought my close was a supervote why did you argue (even initially) against returning ITN to its position before November? That literally makes no sense...

And with regards to a "supervote" to anyone who has even a basic understanding of legal contracts there was no other possible way to close it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought my close was a supervote why did you argue (even initially) against returning ITN to its position before November? That literally makes no sense...

Stephen's wording notwithstanding, the discussion wasn't structured as an evaluation of your closure (with an objective of determining whether to uphold or overturn it). Its purpose was to seek consensus regarding the best course of action.

And with regards to a "supervote" to anyone who has even a basic understanding of legal contracts there was no other possible way to close it.

Please elaborate. —David Levy 22:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at JCRules's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14[edit]

Hi David Levy! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images 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?) 10:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Ferry Piers[edit]

Talk:Central Ferry Piers, Hong Kong#Move? is a week old tomorrow. Just wondering if you might want to leave a categorical 'Support' vote? 188.28.132.145 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of hatting[edit]

Hello,

My original intention was to remove anything that could lead our current conversation go haywire. Coin's original proposal just wanted to upgrade from a boring way of linking 3 article (I do consider it boring and bland) to a more catchy one, and it should be seen only in that respect. Answering back is not going to help anyone, and since we already have a proposal trying to implement the same idea in a different way, the main idea must not be side-tracked.

I considered all the threads, and hatted everything that I thought was not helping the conversation. Even though parts of the original thread could have been hatted, hatting them would remove actually useful parts of other comments, which was not conducive. Because of which I hatted at the next most feasible place.

Please note that you don't have to reply to every comment asking for an extra line as there are others who voiced the same concern, thereby making it almost a certainity that this proposal would not have passed. In this light, I found your replies slightly pointy, and might have resulted in a reply back, because of which I thought prudent to hat them.

I request you to re-hat those statements to make things easier for everyone. [And I think its not the end of the world if your reply is the first one to be hatted. The drama that happens upon your reversion is much more than the slight inconvenience on the apparent illusion that you have not replied]

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [Please dont bother with a point-by-point reply. I dont want it, and probably wont even see it.][reply]

Coin945 initiated the discussion by stating that the layout "looks really lame" and that "we can all agree that in its current state, it is extremely unappealing, and rather bland." I expressed disagreement (based, in part, upon my belief that Coin945 doesn't fully understand the constraints under which the layout was designed).

You hatted my disagreement while leaving Coin945's opinions (and the assumption that "we can all agree" with them) visible. Now you've informed me that you do agree with Coin945's statements and regard my disagreement as "slightly pointy". (Do you mean that I'm disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point?) In other words, you hatted an opinion with which you disagree and left those to which it responded (and with which you agree) untouched. I'm taken aback. —David Levy 02:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is not possible to hat portions of comments. If it is part of standard Wikipedia procedure, correct me.

Secondly, you've repeated this sentence umpteen times [What you see is not what everyone sees]. I suggest that instead of going directly for the assumption that Coin or me, or others who may have expressed this question, you try and see if there is something we want to say that you've been missing. Even if there isnt, I am preetty sure there might be others with similar concerns as you, who would point them out even if you didnt. Please allow them to voice that concern on your behalf.

And no. i did not mean pointy in that way. [Note that I have not linked the policy in concern]. I just meant its very irritating the way it is - We're trying to find a compromise to remove this "lame" and "bland" format that (almost) nobody likes, and every time we do try so, we meet the same statement over and over again. No such proposal will ever pass without meeting that one requirement you stated. But your pointing of that fact throughout the conversation [The last time you did to me, it was without even understanding what I meant] stalls the conversation to nowhere.

I hope you got what i was trying to convey. It came out a lot more rudely than I intended; so please take it with a pinchful of salt, and try and only go for the meaning behind the words.

Thank you,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Talkback please]

You appear to have misunderstood the reason behind my objection. My concern wasn't that you hatted the explanation that "what you see is not what everyone sees". As you noted, I've stated this several times.*

My concern was that you hatted my disagreement with Coin945's assessment of the current format (while leaving said assessment visible, along with the assumption that "we can all agree" with it).

Coin945 and you (and anyone else) are entitled to opine that the layout is "lame", "unappealing", "bland", and whatever else you think of it. I'm entitled to express disagreement and not have it hidden.

* I don't enjoy repeating myself (and I find it as frustrating as you do), but editors keep writing things to the effect of "the balance is x" and "there's empty space that we can use". I'm not denigrating their/your input. I'm trying (and evidently failing) to explain that under different display settings, these elements vary or don't exist. If I've misinterpreted something that you wrote, please correct me. I want very much to understand everyone's input.

—David Levy 17:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have. I want to explore whether we can have two identical tables (sharing the header and footer) on two halves [Both with two different TAFI and pictures.] I dont think this will display differently for everyone TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that "formats 1 and 2, as they currently are, have much of their spaces as avoidable whitespace, which we should try to avoid." I'm attempting to explain that said whitespace doesn't exist for everyone. The main page contains a great deal of whitespace at higher resolutions, which prevents problems from arising at lower resolutions. This is an intentional tradeoff. —David Levy 15:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the amount of whitespace in the various sections of the main Page. None of the sections have as much whitespace as the proposed formats 1 and 2. We are making it too big a box, IMO. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are rough examples with placeholder text. The specifics (such as the blurbs' length) are loosely defined and highly subject to change.

You see more whitespace in formats 1 and 2 than you do in the featured picture section? —David Levy 18:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I highly prefer a catchy short blurb than a boring and longer one. Which means that formats 1 and 2 have either too much space, or wil have too long blurbs.

But the FP section has the picture as the most important part of the section. The whitespace is there to ensure the focus of the box is the picture. In TAFI, that is not the case. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

That's surprising. I'd appreciate screen captures.

And I highly prefer a catchy short blurb than a boring and longer one. Which means that formats 1 and 2 have either too much space, or wil have too long blurbs.

"Too much space" = your assessment of what appears on your screen.

But the FP section has the picture as the most important part of the section. The whitespace is there to ensure the focus of the box is the picture.

No. It's there under your configuration (and mine) to prevent worse issues from arising under other settings. I know this because I designed that section's layout. —David Levy 22:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. The new format appears to be better than both formats 1 and 2, and with a little tweaking and support from everyone, I guess it should be good to go. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Null Bot 3[edit]

The logs claim the purge happened about 12 minutes ago, let me know if you see (or don't see) anything unexpected. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Everything is exactly as intended. The page was updated and all of the relevant protections took effect.

Last week, this didn't occur until I manually purged the cache (fairly late in the day), so it's highly probable that your bot made the difference. Thanks again for setting this up! (: —David Levy 01:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, it really was no more than a minute or two to set up, as it's so much like task 2. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question[edit]

Hello,

I started this proposal on the Village Pump for a review into all old rangeblocks, and it appears that the proposal has got way too less discussion than should be required [Although it did get a good amount of support within for those votes]. Since the proposal does not seem to be garnering any further discussion, can it be passes the way it is? Or will it require more discussion on the same?

Also, have I followed all procedure for this one? Or have I missed something [I did an RfC and a CENT listing]

Thanks! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have followed the correct procedure. While the turnout has been modest, the discussion currently leans strongly toward support. This falls a bit outside my area of expertise, so I suggest that you ask an uninvolved village pump regular to evaluate the situation. —David Levy 04:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll ask around.

Also, some editor is busy removing the TAFI tags from the articles. You may want to see the TAFI talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly advice seeing the DYK argument at the main page talk - Please dont tear down every single line the person against/infront of you says. When you do that, it looks like you're going after their heads, which you arent. I think it will be a lot better if you could just try and minimize the use of that template. Even if you cant do that, you should only look out for the key points of a person's argument and reply only to the meaning of those words, and not the words themselves. We come here to edit, and not fight a lawsuit. So there is more than a fair chance we end up writing something that can be taken from more than one angle. Please dont argue against the points we didnt mean, but rather on what we did. Otherwise it looks hostile.

Thanks, and cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your friendly advice, but I simply seek to communicate in the clearest and most efficient manner possible. I don't include such quotations unless I believe that not doing so would obfuscate the knowledge of which comments and questions I'm addressing.

Over the years, I've received some criticisms regarding the posting style, but I've also received a similar amount of praise; editors have gone out of their way to tell me that they greatly appreciate the quotation method, with some even adopting it for their own replies. —David Levy 05:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and nevermind. I do hope that you do keep the "other" thing I said in mind. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the humanity![edit]

I rather liked that Easter egg. —howcheng {chat} 23:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended (which is why I didn't raise the matter on your talk page), but it struck me as inappropriate. We don't normally include such content, and a deadly accident (however long ago it occurred) seems like the type of event for which an exception is least warranted.

There's nothing wrong with quoting Herbert Morrison's recording, of course, but presenting his words out of context comes across as an attempt to make light of the tragedy (which I assume wasn't your intention). —David Levy 02:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

That's weird, I don't know how that happened. Feedback ^☎ 15:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to investigate what keeps causing this. —David Levy 00:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I copy/paste using wikED, the spaces seem to be off. I don't know why that happens, but it definitely has to do with the wikED script. Feedback ^☎ 03:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

For following up my edit to RSA Security with a proper rename and redirect. Pjhansen (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited May 2013 Iraq attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madain (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) 23:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main page TAFI[edit]

Hello David: I've updated TAFI entries (see Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21). Therefore, TAFI can be re-added to Main page at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at TAFI talk[edit]

A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia interwikis[edit]

I'll let the current RfC run its course, but I'm thinking ahead... Maybe Hindi shouldn't be listed, maybe it should. Its difficult to say, but I doubt our current list is perfect regardless. If there is one thing that is clear (to me anyway) from the current discussion, it is that a manual test is too tedious to get very meaningful results from. Let's say a formula (that a bot could calculate from a much larger sample) could be devised that took many things into account. Some individual factors could be made impossible to fake, and the overall results very hard to fake. Is using the results as a major factor in our decisions to list/not list a Wikipedia something you could, in principle, get behind? That is, after the factors were carefully thought out and tested and shown to meet our ranking expectations for bigger Wikipedias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement.
Message added 00:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:2 Broke Girls logo.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:2 Broke Girls logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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. Snap Snap 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement.
Message added 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLDTITLE[edit]

Hi. You participated in a previous discussion that led to changes in this policy. There is a current discussion at WT:LEAD#MOS:BOLDTITLE and its application to specific situations further concerning that policy and its application, including the changes made. You may be interested in the new discussion, as the previous changes have been brought up there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN item growing stale, needs action[edit]

Since I've commented, I can't act on it. Could you review the discussion Here and make a decision to post or close based on the discussion? It's pretty well petered out, and there's not a lot of new blood in the discussion. Neither the article nor the discussion has changed much, and it's going to go stale soon. Thanks! --Jayron32 01:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grassy ass. --Jayron32 02:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janez Janša on the Main Page[edit]

Hi, I've seen you've readded this item after I was bold and removed it. I think that the appearance of Janša's conviction on the Main Page is completely out of proportions and a huge embarrassment. See sl:Pogovor:5. junij, where people are mocking the English Wikipedia for this. The decision is not valid yet at all and will surely be changed or even completely overturned by the higher courts. Well, I won't waste time on this anymore - do as you wish. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD doesn't advise us to disregard consensus and do as we please, nor does it involve ignoring the bright yellow notice that appears when editing Template:In the news. (You don't seem to have familiarized yourself with the rules and procedures described at Wikipedia:In the news and Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions. And you certainly didn't upload a local copy of the map file — which you displayed at twice the standard size for that section — so a vandal could have easily replaced it with any arbitrary image.)

If you "think that the appearance of Janša's conviction on the Main Page is completely out of proportions and a huge embarrassment", you're welcome to initiate a discussion on the matter. You aren't welcome to disrespect your fellow editors by unilaterally overruling them. —David Levy 08:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." This means that the conviction must become legally valid. Then tell me, which is worse: to ignore the consensus and not follow the image guidelines or to post an information about someone being a convicted criminal at the Main Page of the English Wikipedia despite the case not concluded yet? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janša has been convicted by a court of law. Nothing stated in the ITN blurb is factually inaccurate.

I'm not familiar with the Slovenian legal system in particular, but you seem to be referring to a future appeal. If you feel that the conviction and sentencing are insufficiently noteworthy until this process has been completed (because the conviction might be modified or overturned), please feel free to cite this as the rationale in your proposal to remove the item from the main page. (Note, however, that such a delay is inconsistent with our normal practices.)

I'd appreciate an explanation of why you ignored the template's edit notice. Do you honestly believe that it's prudent to edit the main page (of any wiki) despite unfamiliarity with its rules and procedures? Do you understand that a vandal could have replaced the unprotected SVG file with one containing any sort of message (including one infinitely more defamatory than you evidently regard the Janša item to be)? —David Levy 08:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to a future appeal but to the following comment: [31]. The conviction is not yet legally binding, therefore the man is still considered innocent and we should not report it as if he is guilty. We should also not make an impression that he is guilty because this is defamatory. Mind that there was also no information about this in the corresponding article until now. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dismissing your concern. I'm asking you to express it to the community and seek consensus for the item's removal. I might even be persuaded to support such a proposal. (And please note that I had no involvement in the decision to post the blurb.) —David Levy 09:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would posting it at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates be appropriate or should I post it somewhere else? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you raise the issue in the relevant section and post notifications at Talk:Main Page and Wikipedia talk:In the news. —David Levy 09:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you for discussing the matter. —David Levy 09:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the proposal in the relevant section, as you have proposed. Welcome to comment. Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, my sincere apologies for having edited recklessly. I presumed the Main Page has a cascading protection, although now I realise it doesn't apply for the files from Commons. I'm in general staying away from the Main Page and will continue to do so. Although it would be prudent to extend the protection to the files that are transcluded from Commons. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up and addressing this concern. I sincerely appreciate it.

No method of extending Wikipedia's cascading protection to Commons images currently exists. I agree that this is a good idea, but I don't know whether its implementation is feasible. —David Levy 09:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI's admin-in-chief[edit]

Hey David, I was hoping to get your input over at TAFI. I feel like we are at a make-or-break point right now as far as the future of the project goes. I understand your perspective on the matter, but we need to come to some sort of resolution to reinstate the project on the main page, or it will simply fail.

Can you outline the exact reasons for it's removal, so we can assess if the current changes have resolved those issues? If there's more to be done, then we need to know exactly what that is to move forward. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is attempting to block me for posting on their talk page after being asked by them to[edit]

Is this against the rules? --24.109.65.154 (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your messages appear nonconstructive. —David Levy 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD[edit]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe consensus was that recent deaths are to be removed when they are older than the oldest blurb or when they reach seven days old, whichever happens first. The section is called recent deaths, after all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, in which case the instructions should be corrected. Can you point me to the relevant discussion? —David Levy 07:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most substantive discussion about this that I could find is here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears that editors were arguing for various fixed durations at the beginning and for parity with blurbs at the end (the latter of which somehow made it into the instructions). Unless another discussion resulted in clearer consensus, perhaps the matter should be revisited. —David Levy 23:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a quick clarification at WT:ITN in a related RD thread. (You probably would have noticed anyway, but just in case.) --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22[edit]

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

Draughts World Championship[edit]

Thanks for hopping on it....I was actually in IRC kinda leading the guy through the 'cleanup' stuff, and he just had to run, so... :) Revent (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. (: —David Levy 22:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateData is here[edit]

Hey David Levy

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on Today's Articles For Improvement for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Fake Wikipedian[edit]

Hi David,

I'd like to call to your attention User:Glossika. This user seems to be able to speak an absurdly high number of languages, as well as being able to play some ridiculously difficult piano pieces. His/her page promotes a Chinese language-learning website, which claims to more "effectively stimulate the hippocampus" than other programs... Additionally, most of his/her edits (that are not to the user page) seem to be promoting his/her website in given sources on various pages of Chinese languages and dialects.

Just thought it'd be worth checking out.

--MosheA (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7[edit]

Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013!
Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of—
photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks.
--EdwardsBot (talk)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5[edit]

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013!
Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA.
--Pharos (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

main page interwikis[edit]

I noticed that you have done a fair amount of maintenance on the wikipedia languages template in the past and I was wondering if you would like to comment on this: Template_talk:Wikipedia_languages#Proposed_update_of_lowest_category_to_100k. Cheers. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 14:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ferfried, Prince of Hohenzollern[edit]

The article Prince Ferfried of Hohenzollern should be renamed. Ferfried, Prince of Hohenzollern makes sense. Please look at Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia for a comparison. A redirection with the previous incorrect name is also needed. Thank you.--84.138.86.175 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)--188.195.39.49 (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, David Levy. You have new messages at Template talk:Wikipedia languages.
Message added --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2[edit]

Please join Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013!
Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community.
--Pharos (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing comments at TAFI[edit]

Hello,

With a view of keeping discussion on-topic and focused solely towards future courses of action, I have BOLDLY collapsed a discussion involving you at TAFI. In case you think there are valid points with respect to what can be done now that are also collapsed, I request you to re-state only those points outside the collapsed box.

Thanks and regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Levy. 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.

Inertia[edit]

David, I've taken your name in vain, but only on my talk page. [32] 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. —David Levy 22:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... overcoming the inertia's inertia. — A fascinating concept. In the famed words of someone-or-other, I would say it is not unmeaningless. Sca (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, perhaps inertia's inertia could be expressed as negative momentum? Sca (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Level-three headings[edit]

First off, are you sure you didn't remove anything inadvertently per your recent comment over at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote? (Just a friendly heads up!)

And this brings me to my real subject. I find that the section "The NAMB rule and example" that I started has become quite the mess. Specifically, by reverting my attempts at "keeping it clean" I feel two problems have been magnified: 1) it is hard to find the current state of the discussion when you can't simply go to the bottom of the section, and 2) it is unnecessarily difficult to edit the section, since the level three headings come along. You're forced to search for the proper place to add your thoughts! You have to make edits into the middle of an edit box, rather than simply and straight-forwardly at the bottom.

I would ask you to reconsider your position; allowing the two (three?) sub-discussions to be spun off to proper sections, level 2(?) sections that mean they don't clutter up the mainline discussion's edit window. The problem of context can still be solved quite cleanly in my opinion, by simply providing a reference "This stuff continues here" and "This stuff is continued from here" respectively. Unless I'm mistaken, the "context" for all sub-discussions is simply my original starting edit anyway.

I ask you this partly because it is now non-trivial to edit the section, as Diego Moya's actions (and possibly your own edit?) show. But mostly because it detracts from the "mainline" discussion - my (our!) discussion which started "The NAMB rule and example". Quite simply, I dislike how hard it has become to add new opinions to the discussion thread I'm interested in among all the chatter.

I'm sure many editors manage just fine. I just don't see a good reason to keep it any more complicated than it has to be.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this needn't be complicated. Subsections exist to make reading and editing easier, not harder. They just have to be used efficiently.

The solution to the problem that you've described is not to replace a level-three heading with a level-two heading, thereby converting a subsection to a standalone section. It's to add a level-three heading above the text that you wish to edit, thereby creating a new subsection.

I just inserted the level-three heading "Understanding WP:NAMB" at the top of the discussion. (Feel free to rename it.) If you click on its "edit" link, the edit window will contain only that subsection's messages — stopping at exactly the same point that it would under the setup to which you switched previously. Meanwhile, the full discussion remains intact (with nothing confusingly disconnected), and if another user wishes to edit multiple subsections simultaneously (but not the entire page), he/she can still click on the level-two heading's "edit" link.

To jump to the bottom of the new subsection without editing it, simply click on the following subsection's name ("Improving the guideline") in the table of contents and scroll up slightly. (Actually, this would have worked even without creating a new subsection.)

In response to your question, I'm fairly sure that I didn't remove anything inadvertently. I intentionally removed a duplicated message (along with text explaining its relocation, which no longer is applicable). Diego Moya's apparent oversight wasn't related to difficulty editing the section; he simply didn't realize that his message was shifted down (not removed outright).

I hope that this is helpful. —David Levy 14:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6[edit]

Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013!
Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach
for borough articles on the history and the communities.
Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

Some flowers for you[edit]

	Appreciation
	Some flowers for you in appreciation of your efforts at WP:TAFI. I went there to revisit the discussion I'd been involved with about putting TAFI on the main page. I saw the (collapsed) discussion and the abuse you were receiving from editors there, which nobody should have to take. Thank you, you made the right decision. First Light (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 South Sudanese political crisis[edit]

Wow, amazing. That's exactly what ive been worried about but had conflicts with others over bolding something. Good to see someone e;se has common sense vs. using bold for the sake of it ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you experience such difficulty in the future, WP:BOLDTITLE is a helpful link. :) —David Levy 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ii do, but ill keep in you mind next time it arises.

Although the election articles have this issue but I cant deal with arguing this shit(Lihaas (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Merry Christmas! :-)[edit]

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi David, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary cropped protected MP images[edit]

Hi David, Happy New Year. At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3#Unused_XNRs there is a discussion which led me to look at Category:Temporary cropped main page images, which appears to be primarily 'your' area. I notice the instructions on the top of each file say "Please delete file after it is removed from the Main Page", but many of these should have been deleted long ago. Deleting them seems unnecessarily destructive as a) you are putting time into reducing the size of these images for a good reason, which others may benefit from, and b) deleting them would also break the historical version of the mainpages if I am not mistaken (i.e. Wikipedia:Main Page history/2012 December 8 depends on File:Dave Brubeck 2009 cropped.jpg). If they really should be deleted, we could change that template to automatically drop them into the deletion categories after a month. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Happy New Year to you too.

Personally, I've never seen a need to delete such images. I don't know who decided that we should (which I believe occurred before I arrived at Wikipedia), but it appears that no one is bothering to do it nowadays. (In the past, various administrators periodically emptied that category.)

Regarding broken transclusions, the recommended procedure was to replace the cropped image with the uncropped image from which it was derived. But I see no harm in simply retaining the thumbnails. Once upon a time, I suppose that deleting them saved a tiny amount of space on the servers, but that hasn't been true in years. —David Levy 09:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Then I suggest we change {{m-cropped}}, and drop the 'temporary' from the category names. The talk page of that template doesnt look like an active discussion location. Where would you suggest we seek further opinions? Talk:Main Page? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Talk:Main Page probably is the most appropriate venue. —David Levy 20:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship[edit]

Hey,

Was wondering if you care to be a mentor? I don't really edit articles as of now, but I generally go straight to the talk page even before potential disputes. Was wondering if I can reach out to you to preempt potential disputes for advice. Also contacted Tone, btw(Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

I'm happy to provide whatever advice I can offer. —David Levy 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Ill Approach you in future. Do you have an email contact on WP too?(Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Yes, feel free to contact me via email. —David Levy 03:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I access your email from WP? your main page redirects here(Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

You should see an "Email this user" link in the sidebar. If you use Vector (the default skin), you might need to first click on "Tools" to expand the relevant cluster.

Alternatively, you can use the link that I just added to the top of the page (and optionally bookmark the page to which it leads). —David Levy 15:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ill send you that email in a few days.

But there was another issue...

I don't know (or care) how WP personality politics works, but I want to bring to your notice here that I am preserving articles for sourced edits, instead of "made up" additions. At Catherine Samba-Panza there is repeated insertion of unsourced edits (which I mentioned on the talk page), that I [naturally] have to remove (exempt forom 3RR). Her birthplace is repeatedly added without sources...ive now left a note there too. What is the next procedure? Ive mentioned on the talk page and no one is seeing/discussing it...ive now left a note on the page where it is added...ive also left notes on 2 editors' pages.Lihaas (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now said user insists on refactoring my comment. That's been grounds for a block before..

He has refactored my comments that I wrote many times now: [33][34][35]. I cant warn him about refactoring again as he doesn't want to discuss and doesn't me on his page. However, contrary to his belief that he doesn't want me put notice of his comment, it is still my right alone to refactor my comment (unless it is out of roder and then an admin can, but this is not out of order)Lihaas (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cant event fathom this. Hes accusing me of violating policy when all I did was restore MY edit but he doesn't "want" it so he removed it and says im in violation.

He has now removed it for the FOURTH time in clear violation of refactoring and warning. Please explain to him (or blicks even for repeated refactoring) and restore my comment?Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really worth edit-warring over? You must have realized that inserting those diffs would only escalate the conflict. Now you're mentioning possible blocks. Do you honestly think that such intervention would be helpful in the long run?

My advice is to approach these situations with greater patience and pragmatism. When a disagreement arises, instead of rushing into battle against perceived wrongs, pause and ponder possible ways to resolve the dispute. Ask yourself whether the action you intend to take is more likely to end the conflict or extend it. Think about alternative options that might be acceptable to both/all of the parties involved. And maybe consider just dropping the matter and moving on. Pick your battles.

In this instance, Candleabracadabra stated that "if you want to note in YOUR comment that you are responding to a comment that I made, but that was removed before you were able to respond, that's fine". Why not simply do this? You appear so caught up in proving that you're right an Candleabracadabra is wrong that you're ignoring an actual solution to the problem. —David Levy 12:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the editor is constructive we did come to resolution. And we did so in 20 mins to resolve everything. Th e point being how does he have a right to refactor my comment? When I first came to WP, I was blocked for that.Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still misdirecting your focus. Maybe Candleabracadabra shouldn't have performed the edit. But that doesn't mean that the best course of action was to revert and report an infraction. Simply tweaking your message to convey the same information in a manner to which Candleabracadabra didn't object would have rendered the matter moot.

If a similar conflict arises in the future, seeking a practical solution (instead of seeking justice) will stand to benefit all involved. —David Levy 18:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hopeful indicator that Lihaas is seeking out mentorship. His editing approach is a cause of some frustration and he is very confrontational and accusatory. I am certainly not the most patient editor, but if someone he trusts can perhaps suggest a more careful and considerate approach to his editing I think that would be wonderful. I see that antoher editor doing very good work on this article is also facing some very trying encounters. Take care and good luck to all. Good night. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am accusatory? Youre not willing to discuss and refactoring multiple times while accusing me. Fourth time refactoring despite warnings (and a claim that I can mention it on my own yet THEN removing MY comment) is certainly grounds for a block..

btw- as for "trying encounters"...discussion Talk:Catherine_Samba-Panza#Infobox resolved in 20 mins and to boot both of us at least had the willingness to apologise to each other for our temerity (See both our talk pages)Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A thanks for a thankless job[edit]

I just want to thank you for being the always-courteous, helpful critic over at WP:SAD. If you look at it, we've shared a lot of the same views. I don't think it's within the authority of the main page people to deviate from status quo in this way without permission from a site-wide consensus. I don't want to just "slip it in" to the normal main page processes-- this is special, and it should require a special consensus.

Secondly, I just want to reiterate that my own brainstorming didn't have my own support. I've always believed "There's no judgements in brainstorming" but it turns out, if people aren't 100% clear that you're just brainstorming, they get scared your brainstorms are actual proposals. I wrote a lot of "pointed", editorialized content during that brainstorm phase, but I never supported it as written; I was just brainstorming, reading through the encyclopedia and jotting down whatever came to mind. For example, I can point to occasions where I wrote something and in the same edit commented that it didn't have my support.

I never "advertised" the proposal as a completed proposal-- it was only a draft, and I can imagine the dismay of the people who misinterpreted my sandbox efforts as an actual proposal.

Lastly, I would ask you to consider the following. I can tell you are acting in good faith, trying to defend the project from a minority using it for a political agenda. In this we are alike-- our dedication is to the community's will, not to any particular position.

If the community decides to do nothing, my work is done. :) My question to you is--- if it should turn out that the community does indeed want us to do something "special" for Feb 11, what would you recommend? On very rare occasions, the community does decide to "advocate", either by an overt call for a specific action (SOPA) or by a call to promote NPOV knowledge of a specific topic.

If the RFC comes down, overwhelming consensus for us to do something special, speedily decided-- what do you think we should do?

It's important to get a wide spectrum of ideas for what we could do. As the opponent who's still taken the time to stay current with the topic, you're uniquely situated to give us a proposal of what we should do to promote knowledge of the topic WITHOUT endorsing the protest, if that's what a site-wide consensus should determine. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Likewise, I'm confident that you're acting in good faith.

As you know, I don't support the idea of doing something "special" on February 11. But if we do, it's my belief that it's most important to avoid involving the actual encyclopedia. Ideally, this would mean that the main page would be unaffected. Failing that, even replacing its normal content with a message describing the protest (perhaps accompanied by a link to February 10's main page) would be preferable to manipulating it via the deliberate insertion of encyclopedic content on relevant subjects.

If we must do something "special", let's leave the encyclopedia out of it. —David Levy 17:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, I also came to thank you for your level-headness. :-) Don't let all the praise swell your noggin... it won't stay level thataway, don't you know! <grin> I have never been interested in the mainpage via my edits so far, and I don't visit it directly myself. When the SOPA protests happened, I thought it was concerning, but later decided it was probably okay. Since you have spent more time in thought about how the mainpage should work, and how mainspace should work, I have a couple open-ended questios for you. These are not specific to the fine work that HectorMoffet is doing, but are intended to be longer-term food for thought answers, if you know what I mean.

*ought* we be trying to 'educate' the readership beyond what the WP:RS actually say? *how* do we classify/organize/present 'selected' topics?

The mainpage is supposed to be for the readership. The articles in mainspace are supposed to be for the readership. (The rest... talkpages & userpages & noticeboard & wikiprojects & wp:pg & pillars & dahCommuhnity... are intended to keep the encyclopedia improving... no more & no less.)

However, these for-the-readership-claims can become tautological, and lead directly to a conflict with WP:NOTPROMOTION. There are plenty of folks (with WP:COI) who would argue that wikipedia should contain a list of all pizza-restaurants (etc), with hours, phone numbers, and prices... "for the readership" as consumers. Similarly, there are quite a few people (with WP:PUSH) I've seen that would argue wikipedia should debunk religions, or should debunk questionable science, or such things, "for the readership" as too unintelligent and/or easily duped. The point of the pro-Aaron anti-NSA effort is also something that begins to cross a line, into wikipedia taking a political stance, and therefore needs to be treated with utmost care... and almost certainly, deferred until 2015-02-11 rather than 2014-02-11 which is just a couple weeks away. (As Jimbo says... at the moment it is a protest without specific goals it is attempting to accomplish... beyond WP:IDLI... and the chances that the protest will shut down the NSA are zero... it is just trying to "raise awareness" amongst citizens and congress.) But really, I'm more concerned that down the line, pretty soon wikipedia could become like the Economist, and publish our editorial picks, for who the next prime minister and the next president should be, and such things. Plus, have an official "permitted topics" committee, that deletes what they don't want the foolish public to know about from the encyclopedia, "for their own good" according to the committee. Yikes!

So, the intertwined questions are... #1) Wikipedia is "de jure" supposed to give the summation of WP:RS current and historical information on any given topic X in an article X... providing refs && further reading... but are we supposed to educate the readership beyond what the sources say, using things like categories, see-also, infoboxen, wikiversity, and so on? #2) Wikipedia also has a secondary "de facto" presentational && organizational function, where we lead the reader to specific topics X/Y/Z, via the mainpage/contents/current (and to some extent the "random article" button), plus via our own internal search-engine, and most especially via our assessment system for "Featured content" (FA/GA/B/C/start/stub/unk) which loops us back to the mainpage and DYK/ITN/etc ... what *is* the proper organizational-criteria? The criteria driving the contents of the article about X are (ideally!) what reliable sources say, but the criteria for organizational-things like the mainpage seem to be mere consensus, and often WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at that. We don't use the Dewey/USA classification, nor the Bliss/UK, nor the UDC/EU. (Maybe we'll start now that WikiData is functional?)

Right now, we are somewhere between search engine and manual category&redirect classifications; other sites use auto-tag-clouds (or manual). Is this optimal? Because if the answer to q#1 is yes, then how we do q#2 is important. Sorry about the wall-o-text. Feel free to reply partially, or in-depth, or not at all... I won't be sad, if this meta-discussion is not really where your interests lay. :-) In any case, thanks again for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current[edit]

In regards to our recent discussion on the use of Template:current on 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, wouldn't it be better to make a template like that visible to editors only? As it is, it sounds like it's just warning readers that the article could change rapidly as the event progresses. Esszet (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're absolutely right. This misconception is so widespread that the template probably is misused more often than it's used correctly.

The template was created before the introduction of the editnotice feature. I know that switching over to such a setup has been suggested in the past, but nothing ever came of the idea. I think that it should be discussed again. —David Levy 16:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion at Template talk:Current#Reworking this template. —David Levy 17:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems to have stalled. Can you look at it and tell me what you think we should do? Esszet (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Esszet: Sorry; I'm a bit busy at the moment. I'll try to catch up with the discussion soon. —David Levy 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still busy? Esszet (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Esszet: My apologies; this matter slipped my mind. I am busy (for different reasons), but I'm making a note to visit that talk page when I have the time. —David Levy 19:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon[edit]

Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014,
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley.
--Pharos (talk)

A, B, C...[edit]

Hello David, forgive me for asking, but a while ago you noted that I needed to upload a file if it appeared on ITN, using the "Uploaded from Commons" template. The instructions aren't clear and the wizard is far from wizardly, could you help explain in baby steps what is required? It would be helpful to have that written down so we can get it right every time. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The file upload wizard shouldn't be used for this, as it would only complicate matters.

1) Save the Commons image at its full resolution.

2) Copy its description from the edit window. Ideally, the categories should be removed (as they belong at Commons, not Wikipedia) but nothing catastrophic will occur if they aren't.

3) Use the "plain" file upload form (Special:Upload), with the aforementioned Commons description pasted into the "Summary" field.

4) Append {{Uploaded from Commons}} to the top of the description.

5) Click the "Upload file" button.

6) To be on the safe side, manually protect the image. (This step sometimes is skipped when the admin intends to use the image on the main page immediately, as the cascading protection should take effect as soon as it's transcluded. But that isn't 100% reliable, especially if some time elapses in the interim.)

Feel free to request further clarification. Or if you'd like to give it a try, I'd be happy to check and make sure that you got it right. :-) —David Levy 22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's just not quite clear from the BIG RED ALERT that this step-by-step guide is what is required. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After replying, I noticed that you replaced ITN's image four minutes before posting here. I appreciate that you inquired as to the proper steps, but why did you do so after seeing the "BIG RED ALERT" and knowingly transcluding an unprotected image (which remained so for more than an hour)? At the very least, you could have mentioned that you did that. (Had I known, I'd have protected the image at Commons before taking the time to type out the steps.) —David Levy 23:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that both times I was "aware" of a BIG RED ALERT, but both times the instructions were inaccessible/hidden/not as easy as your 6-step approach. I apologise for doing things out of order, if the world ends because of it, feel free to tag my name as the originator. Otherwise, feel free to help others with a more instructive BIG RED ALERT. Commons uploads are now so wizardly and obfuscated from reality, that this is clearly an issue. But thanks for your patience. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the instructions at Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions#Images (a page to which the "BIG RED ALERT" links) are fairly clear to most admins, but feel free to revise them.

Regardless, I'm not criticising your confusion as to how to protect the image. I'm taking issue with the fact that you proceeded with the transclusion despite knowing that an important, non-optional step had been skipped (and didn't even bring this to my or anyone else's attention). I realize that you didn't know exactly what to do, but you did know that it hadn't been done.

I don't mean to belabor the point (and I accept your apology), but I want to make sure that you understand the potential consequences. No, the world won't end, but vandals had more than an hour to replace Philip Seymour Hoffman's photograph with any arbitrary image.

This isn't about bureaucracy or laying blame; it's about preventing an embarrassing situation that's arisen on multiple occasions. I hope that you can appreciate that. —David Levy 23:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much[edit]

Thank you for your kind efforts on my behalf with regards to WP:NPA, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Thanks very much for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. —David Levy 23:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. It's so nice to experience others defending my quality improvement projects! I gotta admit it's a rare experience for me, but most pleasant! — Cirt (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Hi David - I just want to make sure you know I am not trying to be argumentative, angry, etc. over at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Conversations like this often become uncivil and angry (I've been guilty of it in the past!), so I want to make sure I'm not coming across that way now. -- Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You haven't come across as angry or uncivil on my end. Hopefully, I haven't come across as angry or uncivil on yours. :-) —David Levy 21:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"New"[edit]

Thanks for the note, but I think there's a major difference: even when natural elements were still being discovered, we could presume that nobody had previously known about a "new" element (the ancients weren't going around synthesising europium, for example), and we often have no clue whether humans have ever seen a specific "new" comet. In contrast, the poems quite obviously were known and had simply been lost; it's like saying that Halley's Comet was "new" in 1758, the first time it was recognised for what it was, the first time someone saw it and knew that it had been seen before. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, my distinctions demonstrate how it's different from the definitions. It's not now being discovered for the first time, unlike a new chemical element or (presumably) a comet. "Previously unknown" doesn't say when the unknown status happened and doesn't mean "never before known": since the poems weren't known ten years ago, they're previously unknown. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was talking about. "Just found, discovered, or learned" — not "just re-found, re-discovered, or re-learned". "having but lately become known" — not "known 2000+ years ago, forgotten, and re-discovered". And I'm sorry if I'm coming across as hostile/complaining/unhappy/etc. I'm not at all any of those things; it's just that I'm not quite sure how to say this in a way that conveys the casual/friendly/not-a-big-deal perspective that's in my mind right now. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't normally behave like this[edit]

Hey David,

Let's take a time out and let me thank you for a really valid observation-- I don't normally behave like this.

This is very true. If you look over my multiyear history, you'll see I tend towards non-controversial edits, avoiding the limelight of main page.

But then, a proposal by people I have infinite respect for got me to working, doing something a little different than usual. And, let's be honest, my first week on the job, I mostly fouled it up, but that's okay-- I did my best, and I learned from my mistakes.

I just want to tell you that I understand why you oppose this proposal. "opposing" should be the default 'agnostic' state. The burden of proof is on people like Jimbo and others to demonstrate that this is worth scheduling. Unless we find a consensus to support special scheduling, Feb 11 should pass unnoticed.

That say-- please ease up on me, man-- this ISN'T how I normally act-- I'm trying to help give the community a special option in the event that the community wants the option. I don't need you chiming in every five minutes reminding me the community may not want to use my options-- I know that already. And I definitely don't need people taking my good faith nominations for Feb 11 and trying to rush them into mainpage so they'll be re-runs by Feb 11. That's a blatant corruption of my good-faith attempt to submit Feb 11 content to the DYKN community..

Bottom line-- it's okay to oppose the idea of The Day We Fight Back-- but it's not okay to OBSTRUCT the idea. Just step back, and when we ask for nays, raise your hand and say your peace. Just don't pretend that five people have veto power over this or sabotage power over this- you don't. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hector, when are you going to ask for nays? Today? Tomorrow? 10th Feb? It's been at least 3 weeks since this idea was first raised and you and your fellow "Day We Fight Back" supporters have still completely failed to bring any proposal to the community, either a general proposal that something should be done or a specific proposal that XYZ should be done. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about my opposition to the proposal. It's about outright abuses of process on your part.

Neither you nor anyone else is entitled to suspend DYK items until a certain date (unless the community has designated it a special occasion). Nonetheless, I can understand (despite disagreeing with) your removal of the DYK hook.

But you know perfectly well that moving the article (which you don't own) back to the draft namespace and inserting a bogus tag (which you openly acknowledged in your edit summary!) were wildly inappropriate actions. I deliberately avoided writing this on Jimbo's talk page, but such behavior crosses into bad-faith territory.

I don't know why you keep referring to "five people", as a lengthy discussion occurred at WT:DYK. And we had an RfC too, but you removed it. And you're accusing me of obstruction. —David Levy 08:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI heads up[edit]

Please see diff.

I made a good faith effort here to get through to this user.

I tried! :)

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's back off, yes[edit]

As i look at your history, I see you have spent more time opposing me and not so much time actually improving any articles. I've ended the proposal, I'm ending my participation, so let's stop the wikistalking, eh?

I'm not making many edits, but the way you're showing up to criticize or edit war with me in venue after venue is unwelcome. I'd like to see a different face showing up to revert me please. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To what "wikistalking" are you referring? My comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales, which has been on my watchlist for years? My reversions of your two unexplained edits (redirection and removal of the standard category, mislabeled "minor") at Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day, which has been on my watchlist since I first posted on its talk page?

Did you notice that I didn't revert your removal of the DYK hook, move of the article back to the draft namespace and insertion of a bogus tag? I purposely allowed "different faces" to handle the matter.

Did you notice that I didn't reply to your most recent messages regarding your dispute with Orlady? You seemed highly frustrated and indicated that you intended to withdraw from the situation, so I "backed off" as a courtesy to you. And now you've shown up to complain anyway.

Regarding this reversion, please explain your objections to the wording/formatting. I sought to communicate the background (including the endeavor's relationship to The Day We Fight Back, which isn't even mentioned now) as clearly and impartially as possible. I also went to some trouble to determine the proper coding for a messagebox with automatic width (thereby accommodating both icons without the right-hand one being separated from the text).

Was it really necessary to undo everything? Did you consider revising my wording (as I did with Wnt's instead of simply reverting to mine) or at least explaining what was wrong with the changes?

You stated that they were "without consensus". On what do you base this claim? Wnt's changes haven't been discussed either (though I'll again point out that I attempted to collaborate by building upon them instead of reverting). —David Levy 03:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. Using the red X, saying that "efforts to organize ... did not reach consensus" is just not accurate. The truth is, some people interested in the day came together, mooted around a bunch of ideas, and finally organized under the aegis of the mass surveillance wikiproject. The version I had up was already a compromise with the changes you'd made before, avoiding the simple redirect I think most participants of the conversation and wikiproject would prefer, to maintain access to a page that is only viewed as history edits by a nearly entirely hypothetical audience. I even held my nose over the "failed proposal" categorization, though since it led to the birth of a WikiProject I don't consider it any such thing. Wnt (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the red X,

The red X merely indicates that a proposal is no longer active (not that it's bad). It appears in the {{failed}} template, with which HectorMoffet tagged the page (and which remained in place until you removed it).

To be clear, we're in agreement that better solutions than the {{failed}} tag are possible. But I see no reason to omit our standard icon (though I went to some trouble to include the information icon as well).

saying that "efforts to organize ... did not reach consensus" is just not accurate.

My most recent wording was "Efforts to organize 'surveillance awareness day' at Wikipedia (as part of The Day We Fight Back, a protest to be held on February 11, 2014) did not generate consensus." My intent was simply to state that consensus to make February 11 "surveillance awareness day" at Wikipedia wasn't reached, not that nothing worthwhile came of the discussion. I thought that the following sentence (which I retained from your version) made this clear, but I'd be happy to work with you (along with HectorMoffet and anyone else) on coming up with mutually acceptable wording.

The truth is, some people interested in the day came together, mooted around a bunch of ideas, and finally organized under the aegis of the mass surveillance wikiproject.

Indeed. So the proposed "surveillance awareness day" won't come to pass.

In no way is this statement intended to denigrate; I'm sure that a great deal of improvement to the encyclopedia is occurring (and will continue to occur) as a result of the WikiProject's creation. Only the "surveillance awareness day" proposal has been shelved, and that's what I'm trying to convey.

The version I had up was already a compromise with the changes you'd made before,

I appreciate that. Likewise, my original message was a compromise between your redirect and the standard {{failed}} tag that appears on virtually every page of this nature. Rather than reverting, each of us sought to build upon the other's contributions.

avoiding the simple redirect I think most participants of the conversation and wikiproject would prefer, to maintain access to a page that is only viewed as history edits by a nearly entirely hypothetical audience.

If someone does arrive at Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day, redirecting him/her to the WikiProject is potentially confusing. The hypothetical person wouldn't know what happened with the idea and might even mistakenly believe that the WikiProject exists for the purpose of organizing "surveillance awareness day".

Of course, it makes perfect sense to bring the WikiProject to such an individual's attention. But in doing so, it's important to explain the situation.

The current wording doesn't communicate what "surveillance awareness day" was envisioned to be (or even mention The Day We Fight Back, to which I linked).

I even held my nose over the "failed proposal" categorization, though since it led to the birth of a WikiProject I don't consider it any such thing.

That isn't derogatory. All sorts of good ideas can be found in that category. Proposals in which I participated passionately are there. Proposals that didn't succeed but led to bigger and better things are there. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the category exists; it's a handy place to look for ideas that might be worth reconsidering or might otherwise inspire positive change.

I opposed the "surveillance awareness day" proposal, but I'm not your opponent. Can we please work together on this? (That goes for you too, Hector.) —David Levy 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance Awareness Day is certainly not abandoned. There are various editors interested in it. The power of DYK regulars to repurpose a different vote to avoid running the hooks remains uncertain. But most importantly, there's no reason why editors can't still do things to make the day special. Even if the only thing advocates do for February 11 is to get folks to join Wikipedia, sign up for the WikiProject, and work on or start new articles in commemoration of the effort ... well, all that is the most important and effective thing they could do on Wikipedia at this time, so it is not at all doing nothing.

Now if you have any doubt why avoiding unjustified claims that a proposal was rejected is important, I need only point to that DYK vote, in which regulars rejected a plan to run DYKs from years back on February 11. That was a bad idea; even I think so. But several people keep insisting at DYK that that vote was a "consensus" not to run any normally submitted hooks on February 11. It is not difficult to see why I would be more than a little concerned about improperly calling the Surveillance Awareness Day a failed proposal. Even though we never decided on something to put for an RFC, even though we never had a big vote, I'm pretty much expecting to hear people claim that the "failure" of the proposal is proof that Wikipedia has a permanent and eternal no-consensus about ever ever having an event against surveillance, even when the next SOPA moment comes around and a vote on something terrible is imminent. And so it's worth heading off that misperception. The truth is that a long list of proposals was put together; among these were my proposals for starting or reviving a WikiProject; some of those (like reviving WikiProject Intelligence Agency) failed; but what matters is that a few ideas succeeded, and that's where people need to be sent, understanding that it is not a mention of some unrelated thing, but the natural continuation of the process started on that page. Anyway, as I said, I think I've compromised enough; I feel like you expect to keep throwing green walls of text at us expecting us to compromise on every detail until it's all exactly the way you want, even though it's the page we had an interest in. Wnt (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you still view me as an adversary. I'm sincerely trying to work with you on this. I invited you to provide input so I could gain an understanding of your concerns, which I respect and want very much to address.

It isn't compromise that I seek. It's my hope that we can come up with wording with which all of us (again including Hector) are fully satisfied.

I realize that related work is ongoing, but I wasn't aware of any dispute that the "surveillance awareness day" idea was scrapped. (Hector tagged the page as both "failed" and "historical", so I was under the impression that there was agreement on this front.) If I was mistaken, I apologize. I assure you that it wasn't my intention to belittle your efforts or mislead the page's visitors in any way. —David Levy 07:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to mediate[edit]

This is regarding the dispute between you and HectorMoffet over Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day. As someone who is largely uninvolved in the discussions, I am not sure what the dispute is about, but I do think both of you need to take a break, because such discussions are leading to nowhere. I also recommend staying away from each other's talk page as far as possible. If there is a particular edit by the other user that you strongly object to, please contact me first, so that I can start a discussion on the talk page and ensure that the discussion remains constructive. Thank you for your contributions, and have a nice day. -A1candidate (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tick/check mark[edit]

I've replied to your comment. I think we can reach an agreement if you can show that the first non-stub page was called Check or Check mark. Ben Arnold (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon[edit]

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies
Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward)

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

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

Shirley Temple and Stuart Hall[edit]

Hello, David. Shirley Temple and Stuart Hall died on the same day and were posted to RD the next day, February 11. On February 16, you removed Shirley Temple and left Stuart Hall there, and he's still there on February 20. What's up with that? (Aren't enough famous people dying?) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, old man. I was beginning to wonder if you had something against little girls (lol). --71.178.50.222 (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "recent deaths" line contains a maximum of three names (and sometimes fewer, as the deaths listed are not to predate the earliest event mentioned in a full blurb). When a death is added to a list already containing three, the earliest death is removed to make room. If more than one death occurred on the earliest date, the one added to ITN first is removed. In this instance, that was the death of Shirley Temple.

I just removed the Stuart Hall link, as his death occurred one day before the plane crash in Algeria (currently the earliest event with a full blurb).

If you believe that someone else's death should be added, feel free to propose this at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. —David Levy 07:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody listens to us poor IPs. Can you nominate Eisenhower Tree for me? Please? Please? People would be intrigued – better than a good DYK hook. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with orange-level and/or red-level tags are ineligible. Sorry. —David Levy 07:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey! (No way that article is going to be deleted. Suggest deleting Rusted AutoParts instead.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

David, could you help me out or point me in the right direction? Inadvertently I did something when changing my talk page that resulted in the point-size of text going way up and I think changing font as well. I can't seem to find how to go back to the previous default settings. It seems to be a Wiki issue as other websites appear as before on my screen. Thanks for your assistance. Sca (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, got the info from help desk. Sca (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image on ITN[edit]

Hi David. Perhaps I'm still confused, but you added File:Ole Einar Bjørndalen1.jpg to ITN but it doesn't appear to be a local, protected version. Am I missing something? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The transcluded image is File:Bjoerndalen cutout.JPG, which I protected at Commons and tagged accordingly before using it on the Wikipedia main page. The description page for File:Ole Einar Bjørndalen1.jpg is linked via the "link" parameter (to provide access to the image's uncropped version). —David Levy 09:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it's different from normal because you protected it at Commons? It doesn't seem to follow the instructions you directed me to before? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting an ITN image at Commons is a suitable alternative to uploading it locally (for reasons that I'll explain below), but it obviously isn't an option for Wikipedia administrators who aren't also Commons administrators.

The purpose of uploading a local copy of a Commons image is to prevent vandals from altering the local transclusion by uploading a different image to Commons under the same file name. (If a local copy exists, it takes precedence here.) If an image is protected at Commons, such a replacement is impossible (unless a vandal gains access to a Commons admin account).

Only an administrator can upload a new local file with the same name as one hosted at Commons, so local vandalism of a Commons image is impossible too (unless a vandal gains access to a Wikipedia admin account), even without the main page's cascading protection. —David Levy 09:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irish English[edit]

See the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#WP:ENGVAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.207 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main page image (again!)[edit]

Hi David. I tried to follow the instructions to upload and use a photo of Shigeru Ban today. If you get a moment, could you just check it was okay? I think the instructions are a little "lightweight" considering the "upload wizard" seems to get in the way. Perhaps there's a method of uploading without the wizard that I missed. Anyway, hopefully I didn't break anything, I did notice that on Commons, the file was already tagged with {{enwiki main page}}, what does that mean? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Never mind, I see you protected it at Commons as I was uploading the local version! If, however, you could check that I did my bit properly, I'd be grateful. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, I protected the file at Commons in preparation for the same image replacement. A couple of minor notes:

Unless you're modifying the image in some way (e.g. cropping it), the local copy should have exactly the same file name used at Commons. (Otherwise, the link contained in the {{uploaded from Commons}} tag will be broken unless an extra parameter is appended.)
The Commons description sometimes requires tweaking if it contains templates not used at Wikipedia (in this case, one labeling text as French).

Otherwise, the upload seemed fine. You can bypass the file upload wizard via the "plain form" link (which leads to Special:Upload). —David Levy 10:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no idea what I did to change the filename, clumsy hands, and I didn't notice the Commons-only template, my bad. Thanks for tidying up and for the advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Oso mudslide[edit]

The article was appropriately named before you moved it. It was not a "superfluous disambiguation" because two other slides have happened there, one as recently as 2006, the other in the late 1960's, as I recall, (I live 20 miles north). Also, the article name was discussed on the Oso page before it was moved into its own article. Please consider moving it back. 76.28.243.198 (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the 2006 landslide (which appears to be noteworthy primarily in connection with the ongoing emergency) described as a "mudslide". Can you point to information about the 1960s event from reliable sources? —David Levy 09:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Nancy Bartley and Ken Armstrong, Site has long history of slide problems, The Seattle Times, March 23, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.243.198 (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the link (which also enabled me to find other relevant articles). I've self-reverted the move. —David Levy 09:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Unrelated, today I've been having a lot of trouble here and on commons with pages not transcluding properly. I go to edit something, then go back to re-edit, and the prior edits (mine and others') don't show up. Takes a lot of page reloads before things seem to straighten out. Also, the servers seem slow. What's up with that? 76.28.243.198 (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been discussion of recent server problems. I don't know whether the issues that you've described are related. (I would guess that they aren't, as there apparently were no reports from the West Coast.) —David Levy 10:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

I've just started editing at Wikipedia and I was wondering if there is anything in particular that I can do to help over the website? FalconJackson (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles[edit]

I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Hello, thank you for your concerns over Wikipedia's policy. However, I will have to ask that you read article's talk pages before attempting to move them. The article in question also had no consensus to the title "Accession"--so are we to leave it blank? I think not. You need to read the talk page where a rename to "Annexation" was suggested, as even though this title was not reached via consensus, the titles of "Incorporation" or "Adoption" were in fact approved by every single person who mentioned or came into contact with them. This can, in fact, be considered the "consensus" that we need to effectively move the article. On top of this, "Accession" is an EXTREME push of POV, as almost all sources denoting this term are Russian or allied to Russia. Please note that when other sources refer to the process with the word "accession" they are referring to what Russia calls it. Thank you. მაLiphradicus Epicusთე 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard[edit]

Hey, wanted you to be aware User:LiphradicusEpicus has been reported for edit- and move-warring on Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation: [noticeboard discussion -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Notice that Kudzu1 has been reported for move-warring on Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation: [36]. I suppose this person does not read the discussion on the talk page? Or is he simply looking for problems? Out of everyone I have come into contact with, this person has the least gravitas and authority on the matter, and the most attitude. I'm not really sure what to say...[reply]

Editing my comments[edit]

(mood = bristling) Please don't do that again, even if you think it's warranted per WP:THREAD. Jeh (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your edit summary, I didn't cite WP:THREAD as a means of enforcing a rule; I linked to it purely as an explanation. In your previous edit, you reindented another user's message simultaneously and included the summary "fix indentation", so I was under the impression that you mistakenly regarded the formatting as inherently incorrect. You labeled the edit "minor" (which explicitly indicates that the changes aren't related to a dispute), so I was unaware that you objected to having your message refactored. Now that you've explained this, I have no intention of doing so again. —David Levy 17:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry for the "bristle", I just thought that my first correction to your reformat should have made it clear that I'd formatted it the way I wanted it in the first place, and that that should have been the end of it. I fixed ViperSnake's comment in the same vein: Putting it back the way s/he had written it. I tagged my first edit minor because it had nothing to do with content and didn't think it would be or should be the subject of a dispute.

(I also violate WP:THREAD in that I like alternating indent levels where two people are commenting back and forth - I see no reason to keep indenting.)

Back to the content: I really liked your reference of the Suicide methods article. Very apt! Jeh (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And my apologies for the misunderstanding. —David Levy 07:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Race blurb[edit]

Sorry, but this is so twee and sickly, you should revert it. How on earth do you expect normal readers to understand "Dark blues" and "Light blues"? And what relevance does it have to the news item? Nothing at all. Please stick to the facts and restore the original, consensually-agreed blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The teams are called the Dark Blues and the Light Blues (note the capitalization). Were you under the impression that I invented arbitrary descriptions? —David Levy 19:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be familiar with the race, so I'm guessing not (and your complaint baffles me). —David Levy 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not, they're called Oxford and Cambridge. Please revert your edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the countless reliable sources referring to the teams as the Dark Blues and Light Blues (and our article) are incorrect? —David Levy 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was that Oxford beat Cambridge. We don't need the twee nicknames. Please restore the newsworthy and consensus-agreed blurb. I'd hate to wheel war over this but you've got it wrong, and you need to fix it. If Manchester United won the league, you wouldn't correct it to "The Red Devils of Manchester..." would you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both The Oxford Times and the Cambridge News consider this information newsworthy. And again, it appears in our article about the event — the one bold-linked in the blurb.
But I'm not out to provoke a wheel war. I've self-reverted.
I'll note that wording along the lines of "disgraceful" is needlessly confrontational. I certainly don't mind being told that I've erred, but you seem to have taken the change as an affront of some sort. I assure you that I acted in good faith, with no intent other than to improve the blurb. I'm sorry if I somehow caused offense. —David Levy 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If there was any affront, it was to entirely re-write a blurb, and to override the wishes of our ITN community; I'm sure if one or more of them had chosen to include the twee nicknames, they would have suggested it. I note that there was no change to the similarly "awkward"-sounding cricket blurb currently posted (i.e. "Australia win the women's ICC World Twenty20 tournament and Sri Lanka win" should be, to some "Australia wins the women's ICC World Twenty20 tournament and Sri Lanka wins..."). Never mind, we all live and learn while we can. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators frequently adjust posted ITN blurbs' wording (addressing all sorts of style and linking issues — most of which aren't even considered at ITN/C — in the process). I do so on a regular basis. I've received very few complaints over the years, with yours being the first in which my edit was labeled "disgraceful". No matter how strongly you disagreed with the change, I don't see why that was necessary. Surely, you realize how disheartening it is to edit a page in good faith and be confronted with that type of response straight away.

One common reason to modify the blurbs is to sidestep the "defeat"/"defeats" issue that invariably causes some readers to mistakenly believe that we've goofed (and even has led well-meaning admins to "correct" the wording by switching to an inappropriate English variety). We routinely do this when feasible (i.e. when it doesn't force us to jump through hoops and end up with stilted phrasing). Because it involves two tournaments, the cricket blurb simply isn't conducive to such a change. (I did give the matter some thought, resulting only in downright Frankensteinian constructs.)

In the case of the rowing item, I saw team nicknames in the bold-linked article and confirmed their use in multiple reliable sources' coverage of the event (including those in the UK). This, in my view, was an opportunity for commonality. So I tweaked the blurb, as I have on countless occasions (often to eliminate the use of "defeats", I'll note). In your view, this was a poor decision on my part. Perhaps you're right. I don't claim to be infallible, and I welcome criticism. But I'd like to think that my efforts (here and in general) are better than "disgraceful". —David Levy 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, but spookingly using the same example!) The Dark Blues and the Light Blues are nicknames, not the official names, and yes our article and other sources use the nicknames for variety in prose. But the headlines tend to be of the "Oxford beat Cambridge" type. Similarly f Manchester United beat Southampton in the FA Cup final, we wouldn't put "the Red Devils beat the Saints" or even "the Red Devils of Manchester United beat the Saints of Southampton", so I don't see why we should have "the Dark Blues of Oxford beat the Light Blues of Cambridge". It's unnecessary and potentially confusing. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that those are nicknames, which is why I confirmed that they appeared in reliable sources' coverage of the event (including headlines) before inserting them.

As you know, the wording "Oxford defeat Cambridge" is jarring to speakers of some English varieties. As on countless previous occasions, I intended to achieve commonality. If my wording was potentially confusing, it obviously failed to meet that goal. Accordingly, I've self-reverted. —David Levy 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Outbreak titling[edit]

The non-specific month only titling was an old policy for tornado articles that has not been used since 2011. It was agreed sometime after 2010 that dates were to always be included. This can be confirmed by looking at the articles. You are going to have to trust me on this. Sharkguy05 (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

The reasoning behind it is that we could have for example an outbreak from the 5th to the 7th, and another from the the 20th to the 21st in the same month (June lets say). Obviously, we can't title both of those as "June 2014 tornado outbreak". Also, the NWS pretty much always lists the dates in their outbreak summaries. I can't think of one where they don't except for when the outbreak is infamous enough to get a title (1974 Super Outbreak, 1965 Palm Sunday Outbreak, 2012 Leap Day outbreak ect.) Sharkguy05 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

Snooker player picture swap[edit]

Was there an issue with the original picture that needed fixing? Step hen 02:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the 100px width, when viewed at higher resolutions, that shot is too wide to facilitate the customary level of facial visibility. The usual solution is to perform a crop, but that would have removed the cue stick from the shot. So I found and cropped an image in which Robertson is holding the cue stick near his head (so both appear in the reduced frame).

If you disagree with the change, please feel free to revert. —David Levy 03:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. No problem with the swap; the 'action shot' conveys more context of the sport, if it is a touch dark side. I was wondering if it was a permission, protection, or commons issue, but that wasn't the case. I remember a time when images were tweaked, tuned and swapped over the life of the post a lot more than they are nowadays. Best wishes. Step hen 03:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a businessman article[edit]

hello. admin Levy

can u Check this page (Reza Zarrab), Some users have differences over the page. i undo the last edition of the page. please check that page to solve the problem. thank you Changu13 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soma mine disaster[edit]

Hi! You have reverted my change about adding the article's title in bold and therefore removal of the related warn tag. I was in believe that it was correct and requested by the tag. Would you pls so kind to explain to me what was wrong with it. Thanks. --CeeGee 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You've misunderstood the tag, which is an explanation of why the article's title does not appear in bold. Please see the pages mentioned, MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. Thanks! —David Levy 11:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanations. I have to admit that I still cannot understand because it's too complicate for me. But I beleive you are experienced enough to do it right. Best. --CeeGee 12:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for cropping two most important files of Narendra Modi which is currently used in various articles and in main page of English Wikipedia. This is from me. HPD ^talk 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commas[edit]

Can you help me with the grammatical rule... I was taught (a long while ago admittedly) that a comma in that case would prevent the parsing of the sentence as "Manchester City win the Premier League and Arsenal", with the reader only finding out at the end of the sentence that Arsenal won their own prize, and weren't awarded to City. Step hen 01:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That issue didn't jump out at me in this instance, but I see what you mean. I think that including "F.C." might be a cleaner solution (as it seems unlikely for someone to mistake "Arsenal F.C." for something that another F.C. could win). Does that seem okay to you? —David Levy 02:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'd have to have both Manchester and Arsenal with F.C. for consistency, and that's already been removed as superfluous and not the everyday name of the team. It's a little academic anyway, more around the grammatical rules rather than a mistake that a reader would reasonably make. Happy to leave it without the comma. Thanks as always. Step hen 02:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for bringing the earlier edit to my attention. I'd already appended "F.C." to both teams' names, but I just self-reverted. —David Levy 02:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File licensing[edit]

Hey there - just a heads up that I made a request to fix the licensing of a file you uploaded at File talk:Prayuth Jan-ocha 2010-06-17 ITN.jpg. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Presidental elections in Ukraine[edit]

Hello dear user,

Since you are one of the active wiki Users, I am asking you to add an information in Main page's News section about Poroshenko's win in Presidental elections in Ukraine. Dont you think that information deserves to be on Main page? Thansk in advance. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

I'm sorry I accidentally reverted and warned you. Please accept my apologies. ... discospinster _talk 22:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. We all misclick from time to time. :-) —David Levy 22:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC (RSVP), focusing on LGBT history and culture.

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

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

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic[edit]

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

Sunday July 6 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP).

1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater.

Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.

11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

DavidHeshWalker[edit]

That cunt-headed bastard just won't get with the program (just in case you haven't noticed it by now). He keeps making a combination of good and bad edits, but doesn't cite any sources for them. I allowed a few of the good ones to stand only because I already knew they were true. Now he's conveniently deleted two messages I've sent to him concerning this. He's obviously up to no good, so just keep an eye on him. ElkoGraf (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share[edit]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Sunday August 17 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP).

2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).

Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey can you help us out with something?[edit]

David got blocked and his images reverted over at Commons. Long story short, he mass nominated 600 penis-related images for deletion, which was the catalyst for this. Unable to edit, I stepped in and set up an arbitration case for him. Some of my edits were reverted and I was blocked too. This all smells very fishy. Almost as if Commons administrators abuse their power and block/revert anyone who gets in their way. But of course *that* would not be the case....

As you are a Commons administrator as well as a TAFI contributor, I felt like you would be able to help out David more than anyone. Do you mind having a quick squiz at what went down and tell me your thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David's deletion request
David Condrey's talk page
Administrator's noticeboard (please see edit history as some of my edits were reverted)
My talk page

In case you didn't get pinged[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_semi_protection_removed_on_Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DIRECTV[edit]

I was being bold by making that move. Honestly I have no real passion for this topic, just ran into while patrolling recent changes. I have to ask, though, it seems quite obvious the organization has indeed changed it to all caps (just do a web search). Do we really need discussion? I don't quite see the MOS:TM connection, as DirectTV would then need to be something like DirectTv or Directv, or perhaps I'm missing a clause. At any rate don't forget about DIRECTV Sports Networks which I also moved. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of MOS:TM is that where a trademark (or similar) is formatted in a manner inconsistent with standard English conventions (with a preference for all-caps styling among the most common deviations), we use the latter in article titles and general prose, provided that it already is widespread. (In other words, if the nonstandard styling is the only one in common usage, we don't invent a new form or favor an obscure one.) As a combination of "direct" and "TV" (the latter of which is almost always written in all-caps), "DirecTV" is the name's most linguistically conventional form. It also is commonly used (unlike "DirecTv" and "Directv"). "DIRECTV" is the trademark holder's preferred style for the purpose of emphasis in marketing (not for any semantic reason), which is precisely the type of situation that MOS:TM is intended to address.

To clarify, when I write "undiscussed" in my summary of a move reversion, this usually isn't intended as a criticism. (I've performed many bold moves without advance discussion.) I note this to indicate that I'm not unilaterally undoing a move for which consensus was established (via the WP:RM process or otherwise). —David Levy 22:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also hope you don't mind I fixed some formatting on a few previous posts that at least in my browser messed up the whole page. Might be time to do some archiving. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, and I thank you for these repairs. Indeed, I'll do some archiving soon. —David Levy 22:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comment about easter eggs[edit]

I've replied to your comment about easter eggs at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

I've modified the blurb so that there are no easter eggs, and the blurb text makes two usages of the word in an encyclopedic manner.

Perhaps you can revisit your position?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see diff adding back, and reply. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's quite difficult trying to respond to varying recommendations from multiple different editors with differing opinions. :( — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that and commend your efforts. —David Levy 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Not sure what else I could do on that at this point in time. :( — Cirt (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Understood, good points all. I'll take your advice. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Please see

Does Wikipedia have an article or articles comparing distaste for profanity and sex issues in media in United States — versus distaste for violence in media in Europe? — Cirt (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fly Like an Eagle[edit]

You were involved in the article; I invite you to discuss the page move proposal. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share[edit]

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

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

Thursday December 4 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP).

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

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

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

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

[1] [note] Germany is the most successful team because it won three times (gold) and was runners-up three times (silver). Spain won three times but was only runners-up one time. So Germany won three golden and three silver medals, Spain won three golden medals and only one silver medal.