DAFMM

Archive 1 (19th September 2009 to 6th June 2012)

Archive 2 (7th June 2012 - 28th February 2013)

Archive (Wikimedia Commons) (7th June 2012 - February 2013)

April 2013

Note from User: Jodosma

Hi, I'm Jodosma. I just left a message for you here. I hope it helps; if not please drop me a line. Jodosma (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. DAFMM (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the Problem with Multiple Accounts?

(Posted on Wikipedia talk: Sock puppetry).

This is just a query which I thought I'd throw out there as it has always baffled me. In my early days of editing I was once complained about for using multiple accounts, ie. that of DAFMM and another account two accounts, both of which I used for editing. What is the problem with the same individual using multiple accounts? I can understand it if there causing trouble, and using one while the other is blocked or using the other for support in arguments etc., but what about general, honest use? What if he publicised on the user pages that he edited under one user name for edits regarding one topic, and another for other topics? Is there a problem? Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#LEGIT says it all, doesn't it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You only have one pair of hands don't you? And you can log in twice using the same ID and password, then, having both windows on display at the same time you can switch easily between one and the other. The only reason anyone would need to have more than one account ID would be to give the impression that they were more than one person. If you are being honest why would you need two IDs? After all, would you like to be talking to someone in real life who changed their appearance and body language at will? It would drive me crazy. So I would say have only one account, stand up for your errors and move on, having gained by the experience. What is the point of having to continually re-invent yourself? You're not Madonna incognito are you? Jodosma (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jodosma. Thanks for your notes on my talk page. As BWilkins points out above, there are many reasons a person might want to edit anonymously. I would say to you, just as you don't judge a person by the color of his skin in the real world, don't judge editors here by their username or IP address—judge them by the edits they make. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with the last point made by 108.45.72.196 and would personally consider that to be the overriding factor with regard to my judgement of an account. I suppose my statement could be considered hypothetical in some respects and I both appreciate and recognise the case made for the incredulity caused by multiple id accounts, although I'm sure many people may like the keep their edits on some articles (although perfectly legitimate contributions) seperate to their main account (eg. does someone who edits penis may be embarrassed when editing a seperate article such as Queen Elizabeth II and consequentially create two accounts - naturally, without admission by the editor himself, the two accounts would never seem interconnected). Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is phaedrx wikipedianoob. You guys might want to somehow artfully skillfully clarify or more prominently locate somewhere a new person can see it easily, and also this would be for the volunteer enforcement teams here. They should have on wikipedia, that is the users and readers worldwide now and in the future, mentioned that sockpuppeting can only be the apropo term if there is harmful intent. If a person is not intending to harm, that is, it is not sockpuppeting even if they do do harm. For example is my case which I hesitate to draw attention to but nonetheless: I worked a high pace job using WP as a ref. about geographic facts. I used to sign in to get the screen to look how I wanted etc. It never occurred to me there were real people in the background editing it. Seriously. I never looked into or knew anything about how it worked I just assumed they got it right those Wikipeople. I developed profiles for screen appearances and stayed logged in but something would happen at my computer at the office which wasn't mine, and I would lose the password if it was a while and I rotated them as I usually do and have to do a new one. I kept doing name variants and eventually just went 0j8cqu3aj9 or f39hf9h3 to get a page quick to find out about that province in Banton or Tuntin or wherever. So, by the time the editing thing happened, which was that I made it known and not hiding it that yes I was signing in under diff names, I had no idea there was even such a thing as sock-puppeting. So I could not possibly be doing a behavior that implicitly means harmful intent. I did inappropriate noob things here (who hasn't), but sockin' ain't ever been one. Perhaps the case I illustrated is just too narrow to make a change, a worldwide-awareness-of-sockpuppeting campaign I just started huh anyway, I didn't mean a big thing maybe just clarify that accidental sockpuppeting is real. what do you all think, is the important thing. --Phaedrx (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Classics Faculty Photo

(Posted on: Talk: Peking University).

Faculty of Peking University's Institute for Chinese Classics in 1924

Removed as I could find nowhere to place the photo where it looked right and did not mess up the references at the bottom like it did before. In retrospect, the pciture, unlike the others on the page at present, was of no real consequences (merely decoration?) and so I have removed the photo. The link is copied here, so anyone is welcome to try again. Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Further Explanation Required

(Posted on: Talk: Stephen Fry).

'He is on cordial terms with Prince Charles (despite a mild parody Fry performed in his role of King Charles I in the comedy programme Blackadder: The Cavalier Years), through his work with the Prince's Trust.'

Where is the 'mild parody' in this sketch. I will watch it but on first reading I can't seem to recall a similarity. Please forgive me if I am overlooking an obvious point.

Thanks.

DAFMM (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you can't see that, I don't think anything will help you. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I have watched the sketch, but need to recall as I can't recall the connection. Should have been 're-watch' instead of 'watch'. My apologies. DAFMM (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To Edit

Amias Paulet

Jack Smooth

John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi DAFMM! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dabbler

The article Dabbler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Be..anyone (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Language-population update project

Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

— kwami (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dorset Ooser

Hello! As someone involved in WikiProject Dorset I just wanted to let you know that a relevant article, the Dorset Ooser, is currently undergoing FAC if you would be interested in taking a look at it and offering your opinion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars

The article List of Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unsourced list. Officers listed are completely arbitrary; if I wanted to add "notable officers" from the wars to this list I could probably add 500. Whole topic is more amply covered by the various RN officer categories.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)