User talk:Samwalton9/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2016 & January 2017

Tech News: 2016-49[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can choose to see users from specific user groups in Special:ActiveUsers. [1]
  • Everyone can now see Special:UserRights. Previously only those who could change user rights could. Other users got an error message. [2]
  • ORES can now show how likely an edit is to be damaging to the wiki with different colours. This only works for languages that have trained ORES to recognize damaging edits. [3]

Changes this week

  • You will now see categories with 0 pages in Special:Categories. Previously you did not see empty categories there. [4]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 December. It will be on all wikis from 8 December (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 6 December at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help[edit]

Sam -- I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your help during our recent dealings with Wikipedia. We were highly impressed not just with your responsiveness but also with your humanity. Wikipedia is lucky to enjoy your service. We thank you. 108.171.130.161 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD concern - DeAndre Brackensick[edit]

Hi - I'm interested in restoring the article DeAndre Brackensick, which was redirected to American Idol (season 11), following an an AfD that you closed. I'm not sure that WP:Deletion Review would be the proper venue for discussing this, as I don't have any issues with how you handled the matter. The conversation that took place was clearly in favor redirecting, so I feel that you interpreted the consensus correctly. Unfortunately though, the editors who voted in the discussion failed to notice some pertinent information about the article's subject. The consensus to redirect the article was based on the incorrect notion that Brackensick had only received significant news coverage for his appearance on American Idol. At the time of the AfD though, Brackensick had already been signed to a label and released a single. Several high profile publications, such as Yahoo!, SFGate, The York Dispatch, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (among others) wrote articles discussing this single. Although the single was mentioned in our article about Brackensick, none of these reliable sources were. I'm not sure how all of the editors who voted in the AfD failed to notice that these sources had been published, but I'm not interested in pointing fingers. I'd just like to have the article restored. Would you support this? WP:Redirects for Discussion says that editors who "want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article" should just Be Bold and do so. But if you feel that some other form of action should first be taken, then I'm certainly willing to go through the appropriate channels. --Jpcase (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: Perhaps the best idea would be for you to copy the old article over to Draft space (Draft:DeAndre Brackensick), work on improving it with the sources you've found, and then we could ping some of the users in the discussion to get their thoughts. Sam Walton (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually got a little ahead of myself last night and tried restoring the article with the newly discovered sources (and an explanation on the talk page), but was reverted by another editor, who was uninvolved with the AfD. That editor suggested going to WP:Deletion Review, but as mentioned above, I'm not sure that would be the proper venue. I'll go ahead and ping the involved editors on Brackensick's talk page, which I realize I probably should have done in the first place. Hopefully we can get this resolved. --Jpcase (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged the involved editors - one has responded, reiterating their support for having the article redirected. Another has yet to explicitly state their view, but has urged me to open a discussion at WP:Deletion Review. A third editor - the one who I mentioned in my last comment - has also continued to advise that this be taken to that forum. I'm not entirely sure that this kind of issue is what WP:Deletion Review is intended for, but since that's where I'm being told to go, it seems like the best way of handling things. I'd like to get your thoughts first if possible, but I'll probably open a discussion there sometime tonight. --Jpcase (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened the discussion (WP:Deletion Review#DeAndre Brackensick). I hope that this is okay! :) --Jpcase (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'm not sure how much attention you paid to the DRV - I know it was long, and I probably talked too much - but I'd like to get your thoughts on how to best move forward. None of the original AfD's participants explicitly supported having the article restored, although Bearian originally voted to have the article kept and seems to have maintained that position, while Unscintillating seems open to the idea of possibly restoring the article, although I'm not sure that he / she is entirely on board with doing so. I never heard your opinion regarding the sources that I've shared. If you'd rather not offer one, then I can understand that, but you're certainly welcome to weigh in.

I hope everyone understands that I'm not trying to be argumentative or force a point. I just have an interest in the topic and genuinely feel that a standalone article for Brackensick would be supported by Wikipedia policy. I can be stubborn at times - probably too stubborn for my own good - but I am open to changing my mind on this matter. I'm familiar with WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:ONEEVENT. I offered my explanations for why I feel that Brackensick deserves a standalone article, under the criteria laid out in those policies - but then I never received any followup. I understand that not everyone has time for getting down into the weeds, especially when there's a lone editor arguing in favor of a position - but if I'm misinterpreting any of those three policies, then it would be helpful to know where I'm getting things wrong.

I plan on opening an RFC at the American Idol (season 11) article, as that's the course of action that's been advised to me. If you feel that there would be any reason not to do this though, let me know. I don't deal with this side of Wikipedia very often - I've been involved with a good number of AfD discussions, but rarely get into policy disagreements - so I'm sure that I've made some missteps. I probably should have waited to hear back from you before opening the DRV - and apologize if I moved too fast on that - so I'll give you more time to respond before proceeding. --Jpcase (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that someone else posted on your talk page about three minutes after I left the above message, so just making sure that this didn't get lost in the shuffle. No need to respond, but I'll give you another day to weigh in if you'd like. --Jpcase (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpcase: Sorry, I keep putting off looking through this. It does seem like the best course of action would be to discuss a standalone article at Talk:American Idol (season 11). FWIW I have no problem with a new article being created if users can agree with you that such an article would demonstrate the subject's notability. Sam Walton (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being willing to lend an ear throughout this process. I've opened an RfC at American Idol (season 11)#RfC on DeAndre Brackensick standalone article. --Jpcase (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again (he said sheepishly)...I'm sorry to keep bothering you. I know that you have other priorities that you'd rather be dealing with. You've already been extremely considerate in listening to me thus far. But you seem to be a neutral party in this, and I could use some guidance. As I said earlier, policy disagreements aren't my forte on Wikipedia. I'm trying to be respectful of everyone and only take actions that others feel to be appropriate. And I'm also aware that I've probably made some mistakes in my conduct; in the rare cases that I have been involved with prior policy disagreements, I've always accepted consensus - but I often get very caught up in trying to defend my position. I can understand how my recent actions may be seen as excessive by some, and I'll try to learn from this. The only reason I opened an RfC though, is because the DRV's closing administrator seemed to indicate that doing so would be a reasonable next step for me to take. Even then, I felt that it would be worth double-checking with you, expressly because I didn't want to upset anyone. I don't know if you've paid any attention to the conversation that's played out over at the RfC...but things have been tense. I'm not asking you to do anything, but some advice would be welcome. Even though I would still like to see the DeAndre Brackensick article restored, I'm 100% willing to close the RfC, if you feel that doing so would be prudent. --Jpcase (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpcase: You've only received feedback from one user at that RfC so far; let it continue for more time before you close it. Sam Walton (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my stance: I am not against a smerger esp. of sources. I'm now less convinced than ever of a "keep" Bearian (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ERRORS[edit]

I see you said "done" here. Did you fix it or did you just remove my comment, only I see no attempt at all to fix the lop-sidedeness of the main page in the history of the page? Please let me know what you considered that you'd done to resolve my report. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I saw this edit, which appeared to fix the issue. Did that not re-align things? Sam Walton (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2016-50[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Users who have Yahoo email addresses could not use Special:EmailUser to send emails. This has now been fixed. Emails will now come from a @wikimedia.org address. Users who get an email from you will still reply to your email address and be able to see it. [5]
  • You can now see how many categories and pages there are in the categories in Special:TrackingCategories. This is to help you find pages that could need attention. [6]
  • Markup colours for reviewed and pending revisions in the page history and recent changes and logs now match Wikimedia standard colours. The "You have a new message on your talk page" notification will have a slightly different colour. [7]

Problems

  • Because of work on cross-wiki watchlists global renaming is not working. The plan is to turn it on again on 16 December. Global renaming was turned off for a while in late November and early December as well. [8]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 December. It will be on all wikis from 15 December (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on December 13 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting[edit]

Thanks for doing that test. Syntax highlighting was tried, and proved insufficiently performant, especially on large articles/people without super-fast computers, to be worth deploying right now. But there's still hope that it will happen someday, at least as a toggle-able option. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, it's replaced my Edit Source everywhere. Interesting. Thanks for letting me know; Syntax Highlighter might be my favourite gadget, and it's always annoying when it can't load for performance reasons. Sam Walton (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some "virtual reality" categories[edit]

Hi Sam. You seem to be well-versed in this area and I just wanted to check something: I removed the virtual reality category from about a half dozen or so massively multiplayer online games like this, explaining that while they are virtual worlds, the articles make no mention (aside from the category) of these being actual virtual reality, i.e., requiring some sort of immersive or haptic interface. I think there's been some confusion about the different uses of the word "virtual," but I just wanted to make sure I'm not confused. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: That seems to make sense! When I was trying to categorise The Foo Show I struggled to find the right VR category, so thanks for working on this! Sam Walton (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad to hear that. I think the next natural sub-cat will be something like Category:Virtual reality software, or even VR interface hardware beyond Category:Virtual reality headsets‎. I've never so much as put on one of these VR visors, but it did seem to me to be a nascent category in need of some diffusion. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not sure what the difference might be between 3D computer graphics software and "virtual reality" software, so I'll tread lightly and leave that aside, at least for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the distinction is 'how does the user interact with the software' - through a monitor or VR headset? Sam Walton (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. Yes, a CGI creator using 3D graphics software would probably need to use the 3D graphics software in a different and defining way to create a "flat" 3D world or an immersive virtual one? So yes I think that might work. I won't tackle it today, though. thanks for your help, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello Samwalton9: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Thank you Class455! Sam Walton (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2016-51[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

  • Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 9 January 2017.
  • The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2016? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us! You can write in your language. Thank you!

Recent changes

  • Administrators and translation administrators can now use Special:PageLanguage on wikis with the Translate extension. This means you can say what language a page is in. The Translate extension will use that language as the source language when you translate. Previously this was always the wiki's default language. This was usually English. [9]
  • Wikis connected to Wikidata can now use the parser function {{#statements: }} to get formatted data. You can also use {{#property: }} to get raw data. You can see the difference between the two statements. There are also similar new functions in Lua. [10]

Problems

  • Some abuse filters for uploaded files have not worked as they should. We don't know exactly which filters didn't work yet. This means some files that filters should have prevented from being uploaded were uploaded to the wikis. MediaWiki.org and Testwiki have been affected since 13 October. Commons and Meta have been affected since 17 October. Other wikis have been affected since 17 November. [11]

Changes this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week. There will be no new MediaWiki version next week either.

Meetings

  • The next meeting with the VisualEditor team will be on 3 January at 20:00 (UTC). During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas Samwalton9!!
Hi Samwalton9, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Davey2010. Merry Christmas to you too. Sam Walton (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin – Anis Amri[edit]

This isn't the place for suggesting such a major change.

We get the not-an-error brushoff constantly when trying to suggest improvements to ITN blurbs at WP:ERRORS. Then, if we try to pursue it at WP:ITN/C, we're often told to take it up at WP:ERRORS. Catch-22.
I posted my suggestion at WP:ITN/C and got no response. I give up on trying to stir interest in a timely blurb about this huge story. (Yes, I know all about "not a news ticker," but readers are constantly expecting ITN to be reasonably up to date.) Mele Kalikimaka. Sca (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This ITN blurb was posted on German Wiki very soon after Amri was killed:
Der mutmaßliche Attentäter von Berlin, Anis Amri, ist bei einer Polizeikontrolle im Mailänder Vorort Sesto San Giovanni erschossen worden.
Sca (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: I'm fairly certain that re-writing the entire blurb, or adding an extra sentence to it, should be discussed at ITNC; WP:ERRORS is for things that are wrong with the main page, rather than for additions or full rewrites. Try pinging a few editors who supported or discussed the initial candidacy. Sam Walton (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Sam Walton (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, humbug! It's already getting stale. (Please see my post at the end of this discussion.) Sca (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello Samwalton9: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Thank you K6ka, Merry Christmas to you too :) Sam Walton (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Foo Show[edit]

On 26 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Foo Show, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Foo Show is an interactive virtual-reality talk show? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Foo Show. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Foo Show), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on A7 and G11[edit]

Hi Sam. I am noticing a recurring issue at CSD with well intentioned editors slapping non urgent (A7 and G11) CSD tags on articles within minutes and sometimes seconds of creation. This seems inappropriately hasty to me and could be bitey for new editors. I am toying with the idea of posting a proposal to preclude these two tags from being applied to newborn articles for a given period of time, maybe thirty minutes or even an hour. Your thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that a number of editors, myself included, have complained about in the past. Because you can sort New Pages from the most recent, patrollers are looking at pages that have just been created and tagging them straight away. That's not a problem for copyvio and the like, but I agree the less serious CSD tags (i.e. the ones that are fixable in time), shouldn't be applied so quickly, though I don't know how that would be enforced. If you're going to propose this you should look at previous discussions, which I was able to find here, here, and here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, I tend to decline those if I think there's even a small chance the article will be worked on, and warn the tagger not to tag so hastily. Sam Walton (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could probably modify the CSD A7 and G11 templates to include something similar to what we see in G13 tags where there is a box indicating whether or not six months have passed since the last edit. That should alert both the tagger and reviewing admin if the tag has been applied too quickly. I will take a look at the linked discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for being a helpful and thoughtful editor. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@And Adoil Descended: Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Hey, Samwalton9. Permit me to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepricavark: Huh, so it is. Thanks! Sam Walton (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this may be a first for me. A few moments ago, I was adding various editors to the appropriate calendar date pages and I found that your First Edit Day was actually today! Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And then it happened again a few minutes later. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Outstanding contributions recognition[edit]

Outstanding Contributions Award
Sam, your efforts at motivating and nominating editors for RfA are absolutely commendable.

While others editors talk, you're walking the talk. For these nomming efforts and much more, you're an outstanding contributor.

Keep up the great work Sam! :)

Lourdes

Thank you Lourdes! I'm adopting the philosophy that the way to fix dwindling administrator numbers is to find suitable administrators and encourage them to run, rather than create the umpteenth 10000 word RfC. Sam Walton (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Run for adminship that is, not run away from Wikipedia :D Sam Walton (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that. I applaud you for that. Lourdes 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Maurice Failevic[edit]

Thanks. Not sure why this is being ignored though, and time is running out!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Posted on the main page finally!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On this day, 5 years ago...[edit]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit day anniversary!
Best wishes, Mz7 (talk) (23:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you Mz7 :) Sam Walton (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First new admin[edit]

Thanks for your support vote. Not sure whether I should respond to your comment at the AfD page or here. Just wanted to let you know that I pointed out to Kudpung the same issue about NinjaRobotPirate's candidacy, and Kudpung has adjusted the co-nom wording. Consequently, your comment would no longer make sense to other editors. Not sure whether that's an issue. Schwede66 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 and Kudpung: Apologies that you had to discuss/fix that - it was intended as a tongue-in-cheek comment; it was obvious to me that the nomination had been written before I nominated NRP. I've adjusted the note anyway :) Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No bones broken ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it...[edit]

[12] lol. Thanks for adding to the essay. It was painfully brief, but I could think of nothing else to write. Lepricavark (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Samwalton9![edit]

Happy New Year!

Samwalton9,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Davey2010! Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Just a quick note to say I'm sorry you had to suffer aspersions on my behalf. Just so you're aware, I don't intend to respond to comments on the page, unless they specifically request a response. Hope that's okay. Although, it's ironic that BMK took that example, as I tend to lean left myself. But it was highlighted in my response. Onel5969 TT me 22:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, if additional questions are posted, will I be notified, or do I need to continually check the page? Onel5969 TT me 22:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Don't worry about it - I don't normally advocate for nominees or nominators responding to posts but I thought it was warranted in the case that a grand conspiracy is proposed! I don't intend to respond further, or to any other votes. You won't be notified about questions, so just check in every so often. There's no rush though, better that you give your answer enough thought; voters won't get annoyed unless you ignore the question for a couple of days. Sam Walton (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case we need to consider the nature of the complaint and whether or not it carries weight. IMHO it does not. I will refrain from further comment on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Oh well, this is what I feared might happen. Please withdraw the nomination. Onel5969 TT me 02:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969, it's entirely up to you, but as one who also had a rough RfA, and who knows how stressful (and painful) it can be to have Oppose votes start to accumulate, I'd encourage you to hang in there. I also considered withdrawing and Sam encouraged me to hold on. Withdrawing is a perfectly honorable course of action if you conclude that either you are not going to pass w/o cratchat promotion, or you think that the oppose votes are right. If you drop below 75% and stay there for a while then, yeah bow out gracefully. In the end this is your call, but I would encourage you to turn off the computer and not look again for 24 hours. That's what I had to do on my last full day. I was a wreck. BTW I passed by 79%. (talk page stalker) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Ad Orientem's advice is good. That said, if you still want to withdraw, that's fine, just confirm and we can do it. I'm sorry that your RfA has gone this way. Sam Walton (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ad Orientem for the advice, and for your support. And thanks Samwalton9 for your efforts, but please withdraw it. Onel5969 TT me 11:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Samwalton9![edit]

Happy New Year!

Samwalton9,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Let me add that as a somewhat regular !voter at RfA and observer of the diminishing number of active administrators, I appreciate your effort to get some new administrators approved. Donner60 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin newsletter[edit]

If you look at my tp you'll see that the discussion about the newsletter being fractured all over the place is already causing problems. Not that I care much these days for the state of the Wiki, but I don't want to get into a row with you about it, Sam. If you don't like it, you'll have to revert the stuff I posted at WT:Administrators too, where the main discussion was taking place. IMO the discussion should all be in one pace - whichever one. I mean, it's not as if an occasional newsletter needs a management structure and an editorial board. (FYI: MusikAnimal) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Hi - it's not a big deal at all, but the main reason I undid your edits was that you put the conversation in the actual newsletter for this month, not on a discussion/talk page. That newsletter will probably get sent out at some point as the first pilot. I'm personally alright with the discussion being a little spread out though; it's only a case of some specific feedback at WT:Administrators' newsletter and some more general thoughts at WT:ADMIN right now, which I don't really see as a problem because the WT:ADMIN discussion will be getting more eyes. Sam Walton (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luca A Longobardi[edit]

Hello. I had a look at the deletion discussion for the aforementioned article and discovered that there's one or two sources that could merit the article's recreation. The subject has had an article spanning over 2 pages (pages 125–126) on an edition of the Italian Vanity Fair dated 25 November 2015. An online version can be found here (though it gives the date as 18 November on the website; page 125 can be read here but the rest of the issue seems to be locked). Given some rewriting I think the article could be recreated as there's clearly significant coverage in that source (or those sources). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 19:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davykamanzi: That's a good find but you'll need more than that one source. Are there any others? If so, I'll draft-ify the article so you can work on it. Then you could ping some of the users in that discussion to get their opinions on recreation. Sam Walton (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: I've found two more articles (source 1 in Italian and source 2 in Portuguese) providing coverage on Longobardi or what seems to be his case which was ongoing at the time. I'll try and see if I can find a few more but I feel these would be enough for a stub or start-class article. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 10:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davykamanzi: I've undeleted the article and placed it at Draft:Luca A Longobardi. After expanding/sourcing, I recommend pinging the AfD voters to get their 2nd opinions on the article lest one of them immediately tag it as G4. Sam Walton (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Alright thanks for the advice. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9: I've sought a second opinion from the users involved in the deletion discussion in the draft's talk page, rewritten the article with the new sources included and submitted the draft for review. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9: hi just to let you know that Davykamanzi has just admitted to having been hired to try and revive this article. Should this disclosure have been made when he asked you to undelete the article? He only made the disclosure after I told him that I had noted his activities as a paid editor on other articles and I wondered whether there was a COI in the revival of this article. He added and then removed the disclosure tag because he hasn't actually received any payment yet. I asked him to add the tag again as per WP:PAID the "Wikimedia Foundation terms of use" because he expects to be paid. i wonder if he is editing other articles as a paid editor and omitting to make a disclosure because he hasn't received the payment yet. Domdeparis (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: Thanks for the heads up. I've added an extra note there. While telling me they were going to be paid beforehand would have been the best course of action, it isn't an issue except that tag should indeed stay. Sam Walton (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: yep i just saw it. It's a shame he didn't come out and annonce his COI as soon as he started the discussion on the draft talk page. It was odd that he wanted to revive the article as he didn't even know what the sources were that he had supposedly found and added and hadn't even bothered to translate them, that's what made me a bit suspicious about his motives. If the draft is approved I will probably nominate it again unless there has been some major changes because as it stands this is not a notable subject IMHO. Domdeparis (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: I had a quick look at this chap's user talk pages and here on his archived talk page he was warned in August 2016 about not declaring his paid editing on a draft article by @Brianhe: with the following message "Declarations need to be made on draft talk pages as well. Failing to do so on an AfC submission such as Draft talk:DataCore Software could be viewed as tilting the AfC system in your favor and abusing the volunteer reviewers." Seems like he didn't take that on board. Domdeparis (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Exwog page[edit]

Hi. I write a small free software which may be useful for people. I try to write an article about it, but every time it is removed because of the new reason. Now it is deleted and I can not edit it. I have prepared the new version of article about Exwog. Can you tell me what I must to edit for this article will be in Wikipedia: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathematicalman (talk • contribs) 09:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Exwog
Developer(s)Igor Sabo
Written inJavaFX
Operating systemWindows, Linux, Mac OS
Available inEnglish
TypeReport generator
LicenseExwog license
Websiteexwog.com

Exwog is a free software written on JavaFX by Igor Sabo. It generates Word files (.doc or .docx format) by "template" Word file (.doc or .docx format) using Excel file with data (.xls or .xlsx format). First version released in January 2016.

Features[edit]

  • allows to set names of new generated word files
  • allows to set sheets and rows of needed data
  • allows to set framing characters for the names of Excel columns
  • works on Mac OS, Windows, Linux

External links[edit]

@Mathematicalman: The page was deleted because it appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for the software. Articles on Wikipedia must cite reliable sources of information about the subject in order to show that the subject is notable, and be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia can't just have an article on every topic, software, etc. that exists; we only write articles on subjects which have already been written about elsewhere (specifically, in reliable sources). Has this software been written about in reliable news publications, books, or similarly reliable publications? Sam Walton (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Thank you for reply. In this version an article about Exwog is neutral. Can you tell me please what I must to edit if it is not neutral? About reliable sources of information - exactly what sources must write about this? For example, this software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jsreport have only two links - it's site and github, thats all. Why you don't delete article about Jsreport, but delete article about Exwog? They both are free software.
@Mathematicalman: The number of editors on Wikipedia is limited compared to the number of articles; we simply don't have enough people to look at every article in depth. Thanks for mentioning that article; I've nominated it for deletion because I agree it doesn't appear to have any reliable source coverage. Reliable sources are explained in full at WP:RS, but the short version is publications written by a person or group with a history of fact checking that has editorial oversight. News websites, tech magazines, scientific publications, or books, would be the best bet for you. Sam Walton (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: If Exwog will appear in reliable sources can I write about it there? And can you restore an article about Exwog in wikipedia in this case?
@Mathematicalman: Yes. The sources must be independent of the product though; no paid reviews, or PR pieces. Sam Walton (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-02[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • Editors who use Firefox 50 might get logged out or fail to save their edits. This is because of a browser bug. Until this is fixed you can enter about:config in the address bar and set network.cookie.maxPerHost to 5000. Firefox 50 is the current version of the Firefox. [19]

Changes this week

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Email[edit]

I sent you an email for the Signpost. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Press[edit]

Hey Sam! I was wondering if it would be possible to add an edit notice to the Oxford University Press page for The Wikipedia Library? Mainly asking people to include the stream they are actually applying for in their request for renewal or request for access. Thanks! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron11598: Good idea! What do you think about the one I just made? (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:OUP). Sam Walton (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me :D --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion[edit]

Hi Sam. I recently ran across Momina Duraid with a CSD G4 tag on it. I declined the G4 request because the article looked much different from the version deleted at AfD. However after looking at it, my gut said it was too promotional and some of the refs looked dicey. So I zapped it per G11. Now I'm having 2nd thoughts. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I agree with your 2nd thoughts - it doesn't look overly promotional to me. Sam Walton (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Cheers! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-03[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • video2commons was down for two weeks. This was because of a problem with Commons video transcoders. It is now back up. [21]

Changes this week

  • There is a new magic word called {{PAGELANGUAGE}}. It returns the language of the page you are at. This can be used on wikis with more than one language to make it easier for translators. [22]
  • When an admin blocks a user or deletes or protects a page they give a reason why. They can now get suggestions when they write. The suggestions will be based on the messages in the dropdown menu. [23]
  • You will be able to use <chem> to write chemical formulas. Before you could use <ce>. <ce> should be replaced by <chem>. [24]
  • You now can add exceptions for categories which shouldn't be shown on Special:UncategorizedCategories. The list is at MediaWiki:Uncategorized-categories-exceptionlist. [25]
  • The "Columns" and "Rows" settings will be removed from the Editing tab in Preferences. If you wish to keep what the "Rows" setting did you can add this code to your personal CSS: #wpTextbox1 { height: 50em; } You can change the number 50 to make it look like you want to. [26]
  • Sometimes edits in MediaWiki by mistake are shown coming from private IP addresses such as 127.0.0.1. Edits and other contributions logged to these IP addresses will be blocked and shown the reason from MediaWiki:Softblockrangesreason. This should not affect most users. Bots and other tools running on Wikimedia Labs, including Tool Labs will receive a "blocked" error if they try to edit without being logged in. [27]
  • When you edit with the visual editor categories will be on the top of the page options menu. [28]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 January. It will be on all wikis from 19 January (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on January 17 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 20[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What to do?[edit]

I took he-who-shall-not-be-named to ANI, but I think all the redirects need nuking. :/ Patient Zerotalk 11:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPL FL nom[edit]

Hi Sam. While I've already got substantial comments at my FL nom above, I wanted to request you to give the FL nommed list a quick dekko (the opening paragraphs only actually; the lists are fine) and give your comments at the FL nom if you think they're okay. Would be really helpful. Thanks. Lourdes 07:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruption of the RfA process[edit]

Hi Sam. The reason I was so concerned about the recent ANI being hastily closed in less than 24 hours is because not only I, but several other users have publicly expressed their opinion that Andrew Davidson's participation there is not within the spirit of good faith participation. It's been going on for years and what many are unaware of is his name change from user:Colonel Warden with the same kind of votes. I don't think we have herd the last of this. The opposers at the ANI while recognising Andrew's good content work, outreach and editathons, do not understand that it's not so much the votes themselves, but the tactic (or strategy) of his participation is archetypal of the kind of thing that discourages potential candidates of the right calibre from coming forward. Something needs to be done to clean up RfA and if it means making an example of one or two editors (this was partially achieved with the Corbett topic ban), it will be unfortunate for them, but I think given the right opportunity and the right preparation, a future ANI may have more impact when those who were denied the possibility of expressing themselves recently, will be able to to offer their opinion. Several editors have tried to reason with Andrew but his method of selectively deleting from his talk page what he perceives to be negative observations of his work does not not make matters any easier. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Article[edit]

I have a request, I want a page to be created in English named: Syed Aman Mian Sharma, he is notable, he is an Indian Child Actor, this article is already on him https://hi.wikipedia.org/s/al4o but the problem is that it is in hindi. I can Give you more than 25 references and i have also made source code for it so you only have to create the article and add or remove points that i have already made. If You are ok. We can talk further. This is one of the 29 references i can give you - Read This http://www.fuzionproductions.com/sony-tvs-upcoming-show-peshwa-bajiraos-syed-aman-mian-speaks-character-show/ -Regards MumbaikarLaunda (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Could you please take a look at the second neutral !vote. I have no idea where the editor is finding those stats ("his last 2.5 years of deleted edits only contain 6 G11 and 4 G12 taggings"). I quite often do that many in a single day when I do a longer session of reviewing at AFC. Some of the other arguments also seem a bit "off". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: Seems that Ritchie responded. Let me know if there still seems to be any confusion about this. Sam Walton (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was weird...[edit]

Thanks for fixing my bogus edit at 2017 Women's March. It must have been a weird consequence of an edit conflict or something? Embarrassing for that to happen on a high-profile article. - Brianhe (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: Don't worry about it - I suspect it might have had something to with me section editing with the Visual Editor. Sam Walton (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2016[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2016[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 9, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2016
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2016, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-04[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can see a list of the templates on a page you edit with the visual editor. [29]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 January. It will be on all wikis from 26 January (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Article update[edit]

Can you look into Physicist and make the article content factual and in touch with worldview and a lot less promotional.

Can you also guide about real world opportunities a physics undergraduate can get into, my mathematical skills are below par but could pick up on circumstantially, conceptually fair but if required to continue with the subject, require to enroll for post baccalaureate programs. I am looking for options and thoughts on the subject. Good day.59.88.211.38 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? I can certainly add it to the end of my ever-growing list of articles to look at one day. If you have any specific suggestions please feel free to go ahead and edit, or make them at the talk page. You can find much more and much better advise on your 2nd question elsewhere on the web than from me here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the first it could use fixes from someone active in the field. For the second, I was looking for an experiential opinion. Thank you for responding and Happy editing.59.88.211.38 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait[edit]

Hi. This page was redirected to a page under Arbcom restrictions. The page was subsequently reverted back to its original form, requesting a merge discussion be held prior to such a move (which I agree with, especially with the Arbcom status). However, when the page was redirected, the talk page was also redirected to the talk page of the target, and I can't undo that. Could you have a look? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969, Opdire657, and Insomniaingest: Could you help me understand what's happened here? As far as I can tell:
  • There was an article on "Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait"
  • In May 2016 the page was broadened to cover the "aftermath of Gulf War", and renamed accordingly.
  • The talk page was moved at this time too.
So the desired fixes would be to rescue the page history for Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait (or take the lazy route and provide an edit summary attribution), and create a normal talk page at Talk:Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait? Opinions welcomed, because I'm not sure I fully understand what happened here. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samwalton9 - I couldn't see the history you describe above, simply that a page was redirected, then the redirect was reverted, and asked to have a merge discussion. Which I felt was reasonable. With the additional info you expose above, I will defer to the other two editors as to what should happen, with the only caveat that the talk page should follow the article (be it a standalone, or a redirect). Oh, and thanks for responding so quickly. Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bower (software)[edit]

Hi Samwalton9,

I was looking up the Wikipedia page for Bower (software) and found that it has been deleted. Since it was deleted after an Articles for Deletion discussion, I am following the proper procedures and asking the administrator who deleted it (you) to restore it.

I am a a professional software developer and Bower is one of the most popular package managers out there, here are some evidence:

  • Over 2892 questions have been tagged as being about Bower on Stack Overflow

As someone who is familiar with this field, I can say that Bower is definitely a notable topic, to the same scale as npm (another package manager) is. It's just nobody ever searches for Bower (Software), that's probably no results was found relating to Bower.

Looking forward to your response.

Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 10:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://github.com/showcases/package-managers. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Hi Kinkreet. Thanks for asking. The notability of a subject is based solely on the coverage in independent reliable sources. As such, the number of stars on GitHub or questions asked at SO don't bear any relevance on whether we should have an article on Bower. As for the articles you linked:
  • CSS Tricks was written by a "Guest Author", making it not a reliable source of information, comparable to 'contributor' stories on websites like Huffington Post.
  • Treehouse is written on a blog, and again appears to be a user submission rather than something written by editorial staff.
  • Tuts+ appears to be another blog equivalent.
  • SitePoint is also a user-submitted story, though the website does seem to have some editorial oversight.
  • HONGKIAT may be a reliable source. They accept user submissions, but the author of that story does appear to be staff.
  • The last two are potentially reliable but are guides to use rather than broad coverage.
Overall, I'm not completely convinced that these sources demonstrate the subject's notability. Pinging AfD contributors @GeoffreyT2000, Blythwood, and SwisterTwister: to give their opinion. Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to involve Wikipedians who are in the tech / software industry. As to the notability requirements for the links I mentioned - in the tech (software / web development) world, very rarely do you have a 'trusted source' write articles about a subject beyond official documentation and guide; blog posts by notable figures like Paul Irish, Chris Coyier, Addy Osmani etc are as close to 'independent reliable sources' as you're likely to get.
I was involved in writing articles related to life sciences and the criteria for notability for that is a lot different than to software. Maybe it is worth revisiting this proposal, which was proposed in 2010. Since then, the tech and open source community has changed massively, and most software now are open source.
To be honest, articles on tech-related areas are rarely mature or complete, I am not sure how much of it is to do with articles being deleted because they don't meet (in my opinion) outdated notability guidelines, but if that is the cause, I strongly believe we should update the notability guidelines for Software.
Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 13:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note[edit]

Hi Sam--I saw you shared a concern with ZigZig about an ITN discussion. I just wanted you to know that I had a concern about the same discussion, something I consider a serious BLP violation. They archived it, but here's the last diff. I have noticed before that they seem to have a problem staying neutral, and this is pretty blatant--at ITN they said, "Obama ran as an anti-gay equality candidate", which is patently untrue if it is based on, as they said, "I [Obama] am not in favor of gay marriage". Anyway, this is not a matter of urgency, but I thought I'd share this with you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Worth keeping an eye on I think, but I don't think anything needs doing about this comment besides the warning you already gave. I think the issue is poor wording on Zigzig's part - "ran as an anti-gay equality candidate" makes it sound like Obama ran with this as some core belief/policy of his candidacy, whereas the reality is that he happened to hold that view at the time he ran. The wording makes it seem like the former, but I think ZZ only meant to imply the second. Sam Walton (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no intention of doing anything more--I'm just using your talk page as an archive in case I get hit by a train. But I am not convinced it's just poor wording. Anyway, thanks for the response, and take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for You =)[edit]

The Civility Barnstar
For your patience in helping with WikiHow516 on IRC =) Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nerd1a4i :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-05[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The OAuth management interfaces now look slightly different. [30]

Changes this week

  • ElectronPdfService will be enabled by default on Meta and German Wikipedia. This is a new way to get articles as PDF files you can download. It will come to more wikis later. [31]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from January 31. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from February 1. It will be on all wikis from February 2 (calendar).

Future changes

  • The Community Tech team will develop more tools to handle harassment of Wikimedia editors. The goal is to give the communities better tools to find, report and evaluate harassment. They will also work on more effective blocking tools. [32][33]
  • The Wikimedia technical community is doing a Developer Wishlist survey. Developers can propose ideas before 31 January 23:59 UTC. This is soon.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samwalton9/Archive_21&oldid=1078504174"