“I Was Kaiser Bill’s Batman”Edit

Dear Andrew Davidson, on 6 March 2010 you created the article “I Was Kaiser Bill’s Batman”. That day you wrote there, among other facts, that John O’Neill was the whistler of that song. Later another Wikipedian was quite adamant on three occasions (17 July 2013, 12 August 2013, 19 May 2015) to remove John O'Neill from the article justifying this change by referring to the very same sources that you had put in there in the beginning. I’ve contacted the mentioned Wikipedian on his talk site but he insists on being right regarding the changes. But the current statement in the article (“This was credited to Whistling Jack Smith provided as a session musician by Mike Sammes of the Mike Sammes Singers”) sounds like Jack Smith was a real person and it doesn't say anything about the actual whistler of the song. But you are more knowledgable here. So, what do the mentioned sources actually say (Then, Now and Rare British Beat 1960-1969; Whistling in the wind for a good tune)? I don't have them. I got my knowledge regarding that article from some websites on the internet which might not be recognized as reliable sources by Wikipedia. Could you look at the article once more to clarify and correct it? (A couple of days ago I wrote you on your Colonel Warden talk site. But I'm not sure if you still use that account and regularly read messages there.) Best wishes (Stillbusy (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC))

  • Thanks for your persistence. I have the information you seek and will get to this in due course. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

5 millionEdit

  The Special Barnstar
For almost making 5 millionth article. It shouldn't really matter who "won", but somehow, apparently, it does... Samsara 13:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's my notes on the event. I warmed up on the previous day by creating several fresh articles:

  • Harry the Hermit – I'd read about him in a local newspaper that week. He'd been deleted previously but seemed worth bringing back as his story is the basis for a Hollywood movie now.
  • Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans – I saw this mentioned in a list of significant journals in an amusing story: Which philosopher would fare best in a present-day university?. I checked to see if we had them and found one was missing. This then led to a couple of supporting articles:
  • Reinier Leers – publisher of the journal
  • Henri Desbordes – publisher of its predecessor. Having finished with these articles inspired by the press, I then turned to a book about fish and chip shops which I'd picked up at the bookshop of the Wellcome Collection, after an editathon there. I've been meaning to write about some of my favourites for some time and this seemed a good opportunity to get started.
  • Seashell of Lisson Grove – patronised by numerous celebs and usually rated the top fish and chip shop in London.

At that time there were about 700 articles to go and I supposed that there might be a big surge at any time. By creating articles throughout this period, I hoped to strike lucky but the surge didn't happen that day. As the pace still seemed quite slow – about one a minute – I went to bed as usual. The following morning the pace still seemed slow. I had brunch while browsing around and it was during this session that I found this page (WP:5MILLION) This seemed useful for tracking progress so I watched it while wondering whether I could go out, as planned. I had several drafts prepared offline and so started to get them ready. I then noticed Dr. Blofeld start his batch of Turkish villages and we were off to the races.

Blofeld's bot didn't seem as fast as I'd feared so I had plenty of time to get ready. I had three drafts prepared

Cas Liber then joined in with his shrubs but the pace was still quite moderate and so I had time to add another fish and chip shop to my batch, cloning it from one of the others. These were set up in separate browser tabs where I previewed them to check the format so that they just needed saving. I expected the rate to spike as it did and so started saving when there was about 21 articles to go. My batch then bracketed the 5 million mark quite nicely. Close but no cigar...

Brush potEdit

Another interesting article, I have tried to expand it and was able to make it eligible for DYK. I took the liberty to nominate it myself, hope you didn't mind? And thanks again for starting this interesting articles! Looking forward to work with you again. Jim Carter 11:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • You are very welcome. I'll take another look myself and perhaps pop into the British Museum to see what they have on display there. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I really haven't noticed that. Jim Carter 17:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Henri DesbordesEdit

Hello Andrew, thanks for creating that article. I was able to expand it but I couldn't make it expand any further than 1,350 characters. I thought it would be nice to get the article to at least start class and possibly a DYK. But I couldn't found anything else to expand the article. Do you found anything else in a search? I don't have access to HighBeam or Jstor, maybe there could be additional sources. Jim Carter 15:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your good work. I will add what I can to the article. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Being Human - Revealing Local HistoryEdit

Andrew, we're a bit thin on attendees: Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Senate House Library Nov 2015. All publicity welcome! Edwardx (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Edwardx: My thought is that you should ping editors who are active on London topics. People like Chiswick Chap and the crowd that edit articles like Sutton High Street. Of course, be careful what you wish for ... Andrew D. (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • We now have five signed up, plus there's a GeoNotice, not to mention the 16 signed up directly via EventBrite that I've just heard about! Famine to feast in no time at all. Edwardx (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE, etc.Edit

Hey. I wanted to stop by your talk page, and see if I could address your concerns away from the heated discussion on the WP:N talk page. I spend more than half my time editing sports-related articles, and we make frequent reference to WP:ROUTINE in sports-related AfDs in determining the notability of athletes, games and rivalries. For daily news coverage of events, I see WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE forming an overlapping, interlocking and usually complementary set of principles regarding news events and the persons covered as part of them. Sometimes, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E may into play, too. None of these guidelines are intended to exclude obviously notable events or persons, and usually only come into play for subjects of very marginal notability. So, talk to me -- I want to see if we can thrash this out and address what concerns you may have. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't focus on sports so much and so suppose that we have different perspectives for this reason. One concern I have is that a simple word like ROUTINE might easily be interpreted in a non-sports context and so we'd get considerable creep. But these points are best made at WP:N where there's a particular issue under debate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, WP:ROUTINE is commonly used in non-sports contexts too, but probably not as frequently as in sports. Events like Prime Minister's Questions for December 2, 2015, an individual Monday Night Football game, and last week's Arsenal vs. Tottenham match are clearly intended to be excluded, because there is almost no in-depth coverage beyond the typical news cycle, and they are often better covered as part of a larger topic. I'm happy to move this back to the WP:N talk page, but I don't want you to think I'm trying to hoodwink you into a result you're trying to avoid. Sometimes user talk page discussions are calmer and more personal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • For sports, commonplace fixtures are included but they seem to be distilled into pages such as 2015 New York Yankees season. I expect that this is done mainly for practical reasons – baseball is played every day and it would be too much work to create pages at that rate. Such pages of results are contrary to the intent of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK but the fans create them regardless. So it goes. Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Correct. Season articles are one of the outlets for content related to regular season games; if something particularly noteworthy happened in a particular regular season game, it can almost always be covered in a sentence or two in the season article rather than creating a stand-alone article for an individual regular season game. The season articles are analogous to lists in that regard. There will be occasional exceptions for individual games whose coverage clearly exceeds the threshold standards of WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and for which stand-alone articles are appropriate. The season articles should not exist as bare lists of game results. Of course, the problem is that many editors find it easy to add game results to schedule tables, but difficult to write the accompanying narrative text that explains the results in the context of the overall season. I share your frustration in that regard, and have made a bit of nuisance of myself around several of the sports WikiProjects by suggesting that if editors can't be bothered to add several paragraphs of meaningful sourced text to these season articles, they ought not to be created at all. You can imagine how that has been received. And so it goes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Asian MonthEdit

  The Asian Month Barnstar
Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I started with Methodist Girls' School, Ipoh. That then led to Sarah Crosby, which was helpful for the Women in Religion World Virtual Edit-a-thon. Sarah Crosby then led to The Foundery, which the best so far. "Only connect!" Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The FounderyEdit

Allen3 talk 00:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016Edit

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Caste issuesEdit

  The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.


Hello Andrew: I don't know if you are aware of the discretionary sanctions authorized for articles related to caste by the community. This message is prompted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samra and the sourcing discussed there. I really do not want to hand out topic bans, but you should know that the sourcing you consider to be acceptable is not considered such by others, and that lengthy discussions based on such sourcing becomes disruptive, as the AN discussion made abundantly clear. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Lengthy discussions are disruptive – got it and I agree. I shall say no more there and had already moved on. Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You know that's not what I mean, Andrew. You know that I know that you know what I mean. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hanwell BandEdit

Hello again, this is really an interesting subject. I was able to add a photograph, I will try to expand it further in a few days. Thanks! Jim Carter 18:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Thanks for the image; that's interesting too. It was taken at the Viaduct public house, which still exists and I pass it regularly. It's named after nearby Wharncliffe Viaduct which is home to a colony of bats. Andrew D. (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

James Smith & SonsEdit

Great article. How on earth has it taken this long to be created? I passed through this garden hundreds of times before I looked for it on here!. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I work in that part of London and usually look in the umbrella shop when Christmas shopping. I've taken photographs and have been meaning to start an article for some time. The trigger for action was noticing that Edwardx was moving into that domain - see Arnold Fulton. As for your garden, I'd never heard of it but will look out for it when I'm down that way now. Thanks. Andrew D. (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

2012 Budweiser ShootoutEdit

I had to remove it, because it's not technically an error, but I'm sympathetic to the points you raise. You can help with checking "old" FAs to see if they're [still/ever] worthy of the status by checking the list at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The term "stock car" still seems erroneous but such language is slippery stuff – see auto-antonym, which is also a nice pun. I also think that sponsorship names are an issue too, as they pay money to have their name splashed around in a way that we should not encourage. For example, the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race currently pretends that it's called the "The Cancer Research UK Boat Races" but that's nonsense. The BBC used to take a strong line about commercial intrusion and their website doesn't give much recognition to such fake names – see Boat Races 2015, for example. If the FA establishment can't do anything, I'll try Jimbo. Anyway, for the record and context, here's what I posted at WP:ERROR:

    The current FA is 2012 Budweiser Shootout. This turns out to have nothing to do with beer – that's commercial sponsorship, contrary to WP:SOAP. It doesn't have anything to do with shooting either – it's actually a car race. In reading the blurb and then the article, I was puzzled that almost nothing was said about the winning car. Was it a Ford, a Mercedes or what? The article says that it was a stock car race but after I go digging deep into other articles, I find that this is a complete misnomer; that the cars aren't stock at all – they are custom-built to an identical racing specification. The article doesn't tell us what the specification is and doesn't even have a picture of any car, let alone the winner. The article does give some details of the racing – talking about pack and tandem issues which it doesn't explain and which I don't really understand. So, this article seems to be written purely for fans who only care about the personalities involved – the drivers. And it's not even clear what the winner got out of it; a prize, a trophy, a medal, or what? This seems quite hopeless as an article for a general audience, being contrary to WP:JARGON. It does not represent Wikipedia's best work; it is not comprehensive and so should not be featured.

Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
"The Cancer Research UK Boat Races" but that's nonsense. Well that sums up your erroneous position perfectly, thank you for the final nail. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was much more interested in your comments about the quality of the article than its name, which either follows policy or doesn't. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, when you conclude your erroneous error report with It does not represent Wikipedia's best work; it is not comprehensive and so should not be featured., all I can suggest is that you get more involved with the WP:TFA and WP:FAR and WP:FAC processes, which don't seem to feature in your interests here. You can actually do something practical about it but you choose not to, it would appear. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The page in my userspace is also a very easy way to be involved. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I browsed through that page and selected four topics which have been added to my watchlist:
  1. Amazing Stories
  2. Brian Horrocks
  3. Greater Manchester
  4. Sinestro Corps War
I'll keep an eye on them ... Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Black Women's HistoryEdit

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 

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

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Christian75 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the

Black Women's History edit-a-thon

  • February 2016
  • More than 170 articles were created
  • Hosted by Women in Red

(... check out our next event)

--Ipigott (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Just for the record, I worked on the following during that period:
  1. Althea McNish
  2. Black music
  3. Female Vigilant Association
  4. Hetty Reckless
  5. Merikins
  6. Williston School
The work continues ... Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  The Real Life Barnstar
Thank you for everything you did to make the Black Cultural Archives day a success. We couldn't have done it without you. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, you're welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hetty RecklessEdit

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andrew; did you miss this? (Talk:Hetty Reckless/GA1) No rush, I just want to know where we are. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • That review page wasn't on my watchlist but I've added it now and will work through your comments. Thanks for the review. Andrew D. (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Althea McNishEdit

Andrew, this nomination is currently in limbo, waiting on whether you will be sufficiently expanding Merikins or not. I see you added a fair amount of material, but at 1260 prose characters, the article is not quite there yet. The problem is, the prep areas for April Fools will probably start being filled in a day or two, at which point you'll want this to be ready for promotion. Please let us know your plans on the nomination template as soon as possible—the end of the weekend at the latest—or what may happen is that it just sits in limbo and misses April Fools altogether, at which point it will be treated like a regular older nomination and reviewed as it is (without Merikins) and proceed that way. (We don't hold over April Fools for another year.) Remember, while April Fools hooks have an exemption from the seven-day rule, regular ones won't, and at this point Merikins won't be eligible for regular DYK after March 27 without a 5x expansion from 1260 characters or a GA, both of which seem unlikely at this point. Thank you, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @BlueMoonset: Thanks for the warning. I was aware of the general timetable and planned to do some work on that article later today. I'll ping you with an update later. Andrew D. (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: I've expanded Merikins some more so it now passes the x5 DYK check. I'll do some more tomorrow but the technical requirements are satisfied now:
Prose size (text only): 2824 characters (472 words) "readable prose size"
Article created by Andrew Davidson on February 13, 2016
Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 9 edits ago on March 20, 2016
I've made an appropriate note at the nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Great! I added the "review again" icon, and also added it to the list of not-yet-approved April Fool's Day hooks on the AFD page. I hope someone takes it on soon. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Time is running out: the remaining April Fool's Day hook sets will be assembled any minute, and you still need to supply the QPQ for Merikins. Please do so right away. It would be a great shame if this nomination failed for that reason. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset:. Thanks for the reminder. I had already reviewed our oldest nomination, Gui Minhai, but hadn't gotten to post the update at the Althea McNish yet. I have just done so. I'll bank a couple more reviews now so that I'm nicely in credit in case we get any last-minute issues. Andrew D. (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) ‎

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Supid BoseEdit

Is there any chance you posted the wrong link in your AfD comment? That article appears to be about an advertising executive named Dave Linne :) Thparkth (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • It's about Dr Bose too. Read on... Andrew D. (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yup I see it now. Obviously the article does talk about him so I was wrong to call you out on it. All the same it's pretty weak in terms of establishing notability - only a few paragraphs in the article are about him. Thparkth (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. In any case, I went on to find another source: 2009 2010 Class of White House Fellows. When people like Michelle Obama are bestowing such honours, it seems absurd to claim that the recipients are not notable and notability doesn't actually seem in dispute. The nomination seems to be a blatant case of WP:POINT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Trouble at t' Mill *Email to LCCEdit

We have contacted Jo at LCC, and she hopes to talk with MikePeel at Liverpool Wikimeetup this Saturday. More news then. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

GoatsEdit

What got you interested enough to start the biography of William Patrick Kenney? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The story about using a goat to deliver newspapers is good. Goats make good copy -- see Rose the goat, for example... Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice one. I'll chip in to that when I get a moment but right now I've spotted another one. Andrew D. (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. Twitter
  2. Wikimania
  3. Wikidata
  4. Phabricator
Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Evening Snow on the HeaterEdit

Hi Andrew. Well done, that's a really informative and useful article to support a Main Page image. And one you created at really short notice. I have two questions, which I thought might be better placed here than at the article Talk Page: 1. What is silk floss? - the silk article does not explain. 2. Is that really wadding for a gun, that the woman is preparing, or is it merely this type of wadding? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Martinevans123: Thanks for the feedback – it's good to know people are reading. Silk floss is the raw silk from the cocoons, before it is spun into thread – see here for a picture. You're right that batting is a better link than wadding as I suppose the silk was used for padded jackets, duvets and the like. Thanks for spotting it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

CataractsEdit

Page numbers are generally needed for books.[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Doc James: Thanks for paying attention – it is gratifying to have one's edits read by someone who actually understands them. That diff shows that I am adding page numbers in most cases. The exception was the book Essential Principles of Phacoemulsification where the statement appeared in a general blurb/preface. I have added another citation with a specific page reference.
It may help to understand what's being done here. There's a new development in cataract treatment which was recently published in Nature and reported by the BBC. This seemed a good thing and so I started a stub about lens regeneration and nominated it to appear at WP:ITN, as it's in the news. The matter is the subject of discussion there where one has to deal with editors who are more familiar with sports and video games. They want to see more citations and so that's what I'm giving them. This is arguably the blind leading the blind because none of us are qualified eye doctors but I strive to be the one-eyed man by dint of finding such sources. I did take a look at the Ophthalmology task force but that doesn't seem to be active. I also thought of pinging you but didn't want to bother you again, as you're a busy guy. But now that you're engaged, do please contribute to the discussion.
Andrew D. (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
K will take a look as I catch up on a few things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Andrew, Lens regeneration should not exist. OK, please pause and take a breath. Here is why - this is based entirely on a primary source and the corresponding hype in the media. There should not even be content anywhere in Wikipedia about this yet. Please read WP:MEDREV which describes exactly this kind of situation. Please also read WP:Why MEDRS?. As an example of the dangers of doing as you have done, please bear in mind that this happened. Then all of this. At the same time, this. Then this. Then this. Terrible. We actually have a whole article about the scandal now. The mission of WIkipedia is to provide the public with accepted knowledge. Will you please consent to the deletion of that article? Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Will you please respond to what I wrote? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I just did. Perhaps the indentation gave a different impression so I have adjusted it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
You did not. Above you describe this as an article about a new treatment and it is not a treatment - it is extremely far from being a treatment. That is where all the hype dramatically misleads people. This particular hyped thing is something that has been explored for (as you note) over ten years, and has still not become a clinical treatment. And literally every paper is met with hype like the BBC article you originally cited along with the primary source. You do not seem to be understanding this... you fell for the hype that WP:MEDREV explicitly warns us against. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Lens regeneration at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Andrew D., this DYK review has been sitting unanswered for nearly two weeks. Please respond. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I only just noticed this prompt as it has been a busy weekend. Please allow me a couple more days to deal with this. Andrew D. (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 On 30 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lens regeneration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in one study, a newt was able to regenerate the lens of its eye eighteen times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lens regeneration. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lens regeneration), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'Edit

The "Note" here says it all. EEng 09:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • The article in question (Scandals of Prince Harry) has already been speedily deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more ... Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

    — Henry V
My amazement was at the nominator's idea that it "could be fun" to carry this item as a DYK on VE day. Fucking hilarious indeed that would be -- shows a complete lack of taste and judgment. EEng 18:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! (Robert Provan)Edit

Hi Andrew Davidson Thank you for defending the Robert Provan article, and if you'd be so kind, would you please review the Tim Lokiec article and its very complicated AfD? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. I tend to stay away from discussions of people I've never heard of as there are so many of them but if that case is complex, I'll see if I can help. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Stanhope MedalEdit

This sounds good to me,

....that the Stanhope Medal (pictured) for each year's most gallant rescue was established in memory of Chandos Scudamore Scudamore Stanhope?
The word "established" is NPOV to me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like somebody did the change already.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It was done here.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I thought it was your suggestion but now I suppose you were endorsing what had been done by Yoninah. It's confusing when several people go at it like this. And even worse when you get edit conflicts in the hurly burly. Anyway, the main thing is that you should be happy with the result as you're the one that did the heavy lifting. Andrew D. (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes! I know what you are saying on everyone editing on the same thing at the same time = edit conflits!!! Yes = I am happy with the ends results. Glad I didn't have to get in on all that action = even happier for this. Thanks for your help.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, to clarify = I was endorsing what had been done by Yoninah (talk about confusing).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I tweaked the wording in the hook when I first opened my computer and checked the queues, before even looking at the animated discussion on the DYK talk page. Now I see that my edit came a few minutes after TRM's revert. Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The difference being, of course, that you won't be accused of "tinkering" or "edit warring" to adjust the hook to your own "preference", even though technically that's what happened entirely. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yikes, now two other editors have adjusted the hook "to their own preference", hence edit warring and tinkering. I wonder if the Colonel will make complaints about these two editors? Or probably not, I get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have grumbled previously about Yoninah editing approved hooks in prep but, in this case, his edit was a good correction to another edit. The subsequent edits are a mix too – it is especially entertaining to to see the spelling honor make a reappearance after it was specifically discussed on the nomination page. This is my general point; that we have a formal nomination and review process which establishes a consensus and verified approval for a hook. Other editors should not then be making unilateral changes without consultation and discussion. The discussion which I started at DYK talk was such discussion started per the advice at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

    Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter ... When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute.

What went wrong there was that the discussion was closed and so now the only forum for discussing the matter seems to be this user talk page. As a process, this is ridiculous but this is Wikipedia where you get what you pay for and so it goes. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. The "tinkering" at DYK prior to posting is a necessary evil as a result of the lightweight reviews applied to most DYKs promoted to the mainpage. If the reviews were more comprehensive, and hooks were checked by native English speakers, we'd at least stand a chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Tiger Jack PayneEdit

Thanks for picking that up, Andrew. I came across the same biography and then wanted to check it out before doing a redirect, but then I had to go out . . . Leutha (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration caseEdit

I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I added this. Please feel free to revert, but it seemed relevant. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: The instructions for that page say emphatically "Do not edit anyone else's section" and it seems that your change has been reverted for this reason. I have more evidence to come and will consider your suggestion when I draft it. If you have observations to make yourself, then please consider making a submission too. Andrew D. (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Am intending to eventually. Cheers. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 831 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 11:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I have cut the text back to stay within the limit. Andrew D. (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TIES – EU EnglishEdit

Can I ask your rationale for this unexplained revert? AusLondonder (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would guess that it somehow related to the fact that the United Kingdom has not "withdrawn" from the European Union. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Do you think the UK is withdrawing? How long do we wait? The invoking of Article 50? The actual day of departure? AusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait until it happens, seems obvious to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The matter would be best discussed at the talk page for the policy in question, In the meantime, here's a useful link to the EU's equivalent policy: English Style Guide – A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You would also be well disposed to answer the question posed, your reason for reverting was "revert" which is not expansively explanatory, yet simply and obviously and nugatorily self-describing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiener LibraryEdit

Hi Andrew. WienerLibraryWIR (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Bertha BraceyEdit

Hi, I put your hook in the quirky slot in Prep 1. (1) Two questions: Is there any reason why you don't identify her as a Quaker? (2) Are you calling her a Hero of the Holocaust, linked to British Hero of the Holocaust, because it sounds hookier? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The last slot is fine. The proper name of the award is Hero of the Holocaust. Other details such as the fact that she was a British Quaker are not needed in the hook and so would tend to dilute its impact. WP:DYKHOOK states that hooks should be "short, punchy, catchy ... and ... Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones". Both her name and the name of the award have a nice alliteration – BB / HH – and so adding other words would spoil this. Andrew D. (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks for the explanations. Yoninah (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yoninah: You're welcome and I appreciate being consulted about such issues. I am especially keen to make a good impact in this case as I plan to let staff at the Wiener Library know that their efforts are bearing fruit. The Quakers might be interested too. Andrew D. (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The outcome was 8,315 hits on the day, which is quite good for a non-picture hook. The Wiener Library is quite pleased with this good result. The German Wikipedia has translated the topic and they are doing good work with it too. Andrew D. (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 On 22 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bertha Bracey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bertha Bracey was a Hero of the Holocaust? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bertha Bracey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bertha Bracey), 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, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women editathon and article creationEdit

Hi Andrew (long time no see!). As you created an article on this list (the 160+ articles created on the day of the BBC 100 Women editathon), can you take a look and help out, or add any articles you know that were created that might be missing? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I have already added work created by new editors that I assisted during the event and will continue to help out. Andrew D. (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for FurraEdit

I have noted two issues with your DYK nomination here. To meet the expansion requirement, you'll need to add another 100 words or so. I've also requested the hook be rewritten to clarify the claim is folklore. Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew Davidson. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Furra.
Message added 11:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America1000 11:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 On 9 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Furra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that men and women from the Sidama people sing radically different songs about Queen Furra? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Furra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Furra), 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.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

An award for your contributionsEdit


These virtual BBC 100 Women freebies are for you. Thank you for your contributions to our very successful BBC 100 Women editathon
Hundreds of articles were created in thirteen countries.

WiR/WMUK/BBC 100 Women worldwide online edit-a-thon

--

(See you at our next event Women in Philosophy online edit-a-thon) Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lucy FinchEdit

 On 9 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucy Finch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lucy Finch founded the first hospice in Malawi, a country where about a million people are living with HIV/AIDS? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucy Finch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lucy Finch), 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.

Schwede66 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

RequisitionEdit

I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requisition (2nd nomination) as a fairly clear consensus that the content wasn't useful in this form. In particular, Chiswick Chap changed their position from Keep to Delete so it's 4-1 by the numbers (the nomination counts as a delete "vote"). That said, there isn't really any consensus that an acceptable article on this topic couldn't be written just that what was there isn't enough to stand alone. I will go ahead and userfy to User:Andrew Davidson/Requisition so that you can go ahead and work on it. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I think that the topic by that name is always going to be very close to a dictionary entry; far better would be Requisition process, alongside a separate (historical) article on Military requisition, where I'm sure a good solid story is there to be told. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

DonegalEdit

Hi, I reverted your edits because the original spelling was correct. Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notification. Looking into this strange orthography (Dún na nGall), I find that it is a feature of Irish Gaelic called eclipsis which is not done in Scottish Gaelic. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Women in ClassicsEdit

Event page: Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Institute of Classical Studies Jan 2017

Amy RichlinEdit

— Maile (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Beryl RawsonEdit

— Maile (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Dorothy TarrantEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Dorothy Tarrant at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Any progress on a new hook? I could suggest one, but then I couldn't review it. International Women's Day is a day away! Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I hope to get to this later today and will ping you again then. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 On 19 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dorothy Tarrant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first female British professor of Greek, Dorothy Tarrant, analysed Plato's style to conclude that he did not write the Socratic dialogue on beauty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothy Tarrant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dorothy Tarrant), 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) 00:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Gail TrimbleEdit

FYI: http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/women-in-classics.html (DonPantalone (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC))

Miriam GriffinEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Miriam T. Griffin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 12:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Miriam T. Griffin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Susanna ElmEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Susanna Elm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara HammondEdit

 On 7 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara Hammond, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara Bradby was the first woman to ride a bicycle at Oxford University, where her academic prowess inspired a limerick? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Hammond. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barbara Hammond), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Agnata ButlerEdit

 On 9 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agnata Butler, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Punch honoured Agnata Ramsay's exam success with a cartoon (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agnata Butler. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Agnata Butler), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!Edit

  Hi - you're really supportive and helpful in WCCWiki and I rarely manage to catch up with you. So I'm sending virtual baked goods (I don't actually bake ever, so it's as close as anyone gets...) as thanks. Claire 75 (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for all your help with WCCWikiEdit

To say a big thank you for all the help you give WCCWiki

  The Original Barnstar
for contributions to WCCWiki Claire 75 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Brandywell, Isle of ManEdit

Hi, I notice your edit at Brandywell, Isle of Man, which reverted an edit of mine which had reverted an edit or edits by Agljones. I would be happy if you would look into the content of this article and try to do a better job of it. I believe, though, that it consists of tendentious assertions by that editor, trying to fabricate that Brandywell is an area of moorland, when in fact they are constructing that. As they did at Windy Corner, Isle of Man, an article that went through a lot of contention including AFDs and/or RFCs, and which now redirects to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course, a list-article that I created to try to cut down the contention (and which they contended against, of course). For Windy Corner, during its AFD or RFC I ordered and received a book that was key in this editor's assertions that it was an area of moorland, and what they had asserted was in the book simply was not.

If you would look at some sources and try to manage the Brandywell article, I would be glad of it. Did you participate at Talk:Brandywell, Isle of Man? I'll check there next. --doncram 23:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Clattern BridgeEdit

 On 2 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clattern Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ancient Clattern Bridge was a medieval football goal and scolds were ducked there too? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clattern Bridge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clattern Bridge), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Dark bluesEdit

If you think this article about a blues genre doesn't belong in Wikipedia, by all means second the prod or flag it under some speedy deletion criteria I've overlooked, maybe even move it to a disambiguated title, but redirecting it to an alternate meaning of the term is not an appropriate way to get rid of it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @McGeddon: I disagree as the redirection is a sensible way of resolving the issue. The prod tag suggests and encourages such constructive edits. It also states emphatically, "If this template is removed, do not replace it." Please revert. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was fair to IAR there, as it seemed perverse to remove a prod template from an article that both you and I thought should probably be deleted, but sure. I'll leave it to you establish talk page consensus for an immediate redirect. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Science FictionEdit

Black DestroyerEdit

After you mentioned it ... I thought it worthwhile to do this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I thought you might. I may return to the topic but I have a variety of leads to follow. Only The Shadow knows ... Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 Hello, Andrew Davidson. Black Destroyer, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Black Destroyer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 On 15 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black Destroyer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the short story "Black Destroyer" was the basis for A. E. van Vogt's lawsuit against 20th Century Fox, as the plot of the movie Alien matched it so closely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Destroyer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Black Destroyer), 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) 00:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

History of science fictionEdit

Since you mention it I thought I'd link to History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950, which is currently at FAC; no need to review it (it seems to have sufficient support) but I thought you might be interested. Most of the magazines linked in the article have also been brought to GA or FA standard. If you can find improvements to those articles as you did for Marvel Science Stories, that would be great! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie: Thanks, I've added it to my watchlist and will take a look in my copious free time. Note that there was a series of van Vogt stories going through DYK recently and so I started the "Black Destroyer", which was notable as the story that started the Golden Age. I like that you can often find such classics online now, like here. One of my favourites is Sheckley's 1955 story, "Cordle to Onion to Carrot". It's not quite SF but it helps in understanding Wikipedia... Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's quite a coincidence -- I was thinking about that story on my morning commute; I've always liked that one. "Aspects of Langranak" and "Pas de Trois of the Chef and the Waiter and the Customer" are my two favourites of his; the first is beautifully self-referential about sf, and sad, in its way, and both stories are about the relationship between reality and perception in a way that few other writers have ever managed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I recall reading the second one but the first doesn't stick in my mind. I'll track it down again – it seems to be in print so Forbidden Planet (right) should have a copy. Thanks for the recommendation. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

HockneyEdit

Can you use this reference: david-hockney-print-fish-and-chip-shop-bradford :) --ClemRutter (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'll see what I can do with it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Royal Academy: Thanks againEdit

Hi Andrew, thanks so much for your support afternoon. I always learn so much for you! Eartha78 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Eartha78: You're welcome. I get a lot out of these events too and liked the RA library as a venue so I hope we return. There was not enough food though so we're now in Chinatown catching up with dim sum, pak choi, roast duck noodle soup, &c. And Tiger Beer too! I'd post some pictures but Wikipedia is not yet as slick as Twitter so your training is really helpful. #ArtAndFeminism. Andrew D. (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fulham RefugeEdit

Andrew D., your review was replied to a couple of weeks ago; are you planning to return to it soon to see whether the issues you raised were addressed to your satisfaction? Please let me know if not, so I can call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I have taken another look and it passes now. Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The FountainheadEdit

Thanks for the encouragement, but I expect I will wait for the GA, followed by a GOCE copy edit, and only then try for FA. Considering that the subject is controversial, I might even throw in an extra peer review just to be safe! If you are interested in doing the GA review, I can provide quotes or even scans of most of the offline sources to assist with verification, and/or you could request "second opinion" input on any points you are unsure about. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm too busy currently to go through such a mass of material but will keep an eye on it and help out if I can. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Women on 5 pounds a day- nearly in the red.Edit

I plucked this story out of the Guardian- I thought Helen Pridd had done a good job. Samira Kitman is the result. Can you work your magic on it- and we can see if there is any mileage in following this route in future. It would be nice to know if her barr ister quotes us in court! --ClemRutter (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Self Defence Against Fresh FruitEdit

 
WHAT'S WRONG WITH FRUIT!
You think you know it all, eh?

I was thinking of sending this to AfD on the grounds it's got no reliable sources present, I can't find any of substance in a search except for this passing mention, and is basically a plot summary + trivia. However, I do remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bishop (Monty Python) so I thought I'd ask you first to see if I'd missed anything, and in fact there is a salvageable article hiding in this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The page was already at AFD where the result was a unanimous Keep. The absence of sources is not an adequate reason to nominate for deletion because such sources can be readily found and, in any case, there are sensible alternatives to deletion. I have plenty more pressing topics while you might attend to our Chuck Berry content – pages like "You Can't Catch Me", which also don't have any sources. Don't make me release the tiger. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • such sources can be readily found ... which brings me to my favourite AfD put-down at the moment. Now look, Mr Damson, er, Davidson, I've added a bunch (a bunch? supposing he's got a pointed stick?) of sources for "You Can't Catch Me" (why nobody else found the 15 minutes to do this in the last 7 years is beyond me), so throw me some ones for "Fresh Fruit" and I'll do the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The page is read on average about once every hour. But people don't add sources because doing so is difficult and, per WP:BLUE, they don't see any need for them. I might add some to the page but am wary that it's a trap, "... just pull the lever and the 16-ton weight will fall on top of him." Did you know that this was the first time that they used this prop? I have a source which confirms this in detail but will need some more goading to risk charging at you with it... Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

George Andrew Olah RDEdit

Hi Andrew... I see you pinged me in this edit re ITN/C for RD for Olah. I was away and unable to respond, but would have helped out had I been able. Please feel free to ping me again should you need a chemist's prespective. Cheers! EdChem (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks for getting back to me. Andrew D. (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethical SocietyEdit

I took a picture of today's lecture. I hope you can use this. Kelly is a great help in this sharing endeavor.

 
The Ethical Encyclopedia a talk by Andrew Davidson

Clinton (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Clinton45: Excellent – many thanks to you and Kelly for that. I usually take lots of snaps at such events but it was so hectic that I didn't think to arrange for someone to take any pictures or do it myself. That's a big favour I owe you, so please feel free to ask if you need any assistance with any of your endeavours here. Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It advised about the 'Ethical encyclopedia' talk in the last 'Upcoming events at Conway Hall' email, but it didn't say the talk was by the legendary Colonel. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @FeydHuxtable: This is just the start. I'll now be writing it up as a paper for the Ethical Record so you can read it there. We're getting some good crossover with that society and the London wikimeet so others may be doing talks too – for example, Leutha is lined up to do a talk about positivism. You should do one too – food poverty – the sharing economy? Please share your thoughts with those hungry for knowledge... Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiTribuneEdit

Did you mean to undo this or was that just an edit conflict error? ~ Rob13Talk 18:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @BU Rob13: I agree with the removal of one of those other media sites (The Rubin Report, as it seems to be a chat show) but the others all belong as they are explicitly covered and compared with Wikitribune by the sources. Citations can be added to confirm this but we don't normally put them in the See also section. For example,

    The ideas behind Wikitribune are similar to other experiments with sustainable community journalism. Dutch news website De Correspondent, for instance, was launched in 2013 after a €1m (£850,000) crowdfunding campaign, with a goal of focusing on reporter-led in-depth coverage of a select few topics backed up by strong involvement from a community of financial backers.

Andrew D. (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case, I can see them being included, but I can't see promotional garbage like "Dutch news site that prioritises context in reporting" as a descriptor. Reader-supported sites as a heading is also dubious; it makes it sound like our readers "support" the sites, not that they're funded by readers. Crowdfunded news sites would be better. ~ Rob13Talk 19:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I started the See also section this morning with just a bare entry for Wikinews, which was explicitly suggested by someone on the talk page. The section has since been fleshed out in stages. Some push back is appropriate to stop it bloating. Thumbnail descriptions for some of the entries seem helpful as readers won't be familiar with most of them, I suppose. Please feel free to prune further but expect further developments. There ought to be history and reception sections in which the site's antecedents and competitors are analysed and so the entries will move into the body from the See also as the article text grows. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is the bot putting it in the 22 May 2017 section if it's supposed to be in 21 May? wbm1058 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Those sections seem to take their date from the end-date rather than the start date. The article in question was on the main page for most of 21 May then then came off when 22 May started. Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I asked about this at User talk:Shubinator#DYK talk issue. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Henry WadeEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Henry Wade (surgeon) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 23:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Henry Wade (surgeon) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Wade (surgeon). North America1000 22:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

IronGargoyle (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Homo sapiensEdit

I removed your nomination before others commented as it is the same one that was already posted for today earlier, see Jebel Irhoud. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Ok. I did skim ITN/C to see if it was already nominated but the different form of words didn't register. Andrew D. (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wellcome ElectricityEdit

Hello. Good to meet at Wellcome. Henrietta999 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for all your help today, Andrew. I shall definitely be in touch in the future! Henrietta999 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Be seeing you. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Constance WoodEdit

 On 16 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constance Wood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Constance Wood was the first to install a cyclotron in a hospital, but was teased by one of her patients with a rat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constance Wood. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Constance Wood), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hilda LyonEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Hilda Lyon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Full FactEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Full Fact at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I note here you haven't addressed concerns that were raised shortly after the article was nominated over a month ago. In fact, you haven't edited that article at all, nor has anyone else. I think the time for DYK here has passed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I'll take another look. Andrew D. (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 On 7 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Full Fact, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Full Fact fact-checked the Brexit referendum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Full Fact. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Full Fact), 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.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Foxwarren ParkEdit

Apologies - should not have wiped the suggestions in my haste to create the Talkpage. Thanks for re-instating. KJP1 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @KJP1: No problem. FYI, my involvement started with Amy Gentry which then led to Silvermere. I didn't want to get too side-tracked and so left Foxwarren Park as a {{R with possibilities}}. It's good that you've picked this up as I'd moved on and quite forgotten about it. I'm at the London Meetup this afternoon and will see how I can help further there as it's a good topic. Andrew D. (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 On 15 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Foxwarren Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Foxwarren Park (pictured) was the inspiration for Toad Hall, a location for Robin Hood and test site for the bouncing bomb? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Foxwarren Park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Foxwarren Park), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 00:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred EzraEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Alfred Ezra at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Khadar Khani (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 On 26 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Ezra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alfred Ezra learnt how to keep hummingbirds in captivity using baby food? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Ezra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alfred Ezra), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's journalsEdit

Colonel (it still seems wrong to call you Andrew!), I am developing an article in my user sandbox and it is making use of Victoria's journals online. That is how I came across Queen Victoria's journals. As its creator, did you get a notification that it has been newly linked to, or will that only happen when I move my draft to mainspace? I'm just curious – I aim to keep a low profile in draft, trying to avoid unwanted attention. By the way, I still have fond memories of Dog and Duck, St George's Fields, as it has quite properly become, and its hilarious AFD. Long, long ago in wikitime. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thincat: Hello again. I get lots of link notifications as I've written hundreds of articles but I've checked and your Glassalt draft doesn't seem to have triggered one yet. I think you're unwise to leave work for so long in your sandbox. If you should fall ill or otherwise be indisposed for a few months you might find that it has been deleted – there are fanatics combing through drafts and amazingly there is now a policy of deleting them after six months. My policy is to get work into mainspace as quickly as possible to avoid such deletionist disruption. This also avoids the waste of effort if someone else should work on the topic independently.
Queen Victoria's journals was started at an event at the Bodleian Library which helped to put them online. As a sequel, I started Queen Victoria's pets. There's some other Victoriana that I'd like to cover but need to visit the V&A to track it down and get some pictures. But there is another Victorian topic that I've been meaning to cover for some time and I'll take my own advice and get it started in mainspace before I forget. It's another place in Scotland...
By the way, I saw a reference to Longcat recently – any relation? That got deleted here but I'll keep any eye out for sources.
Warden (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I create rather few articles (apart from stubby ones) and they take me a long time. I'll do a practical experiment with notifications using my alternate account. I'm intrigued by your clues about a new Victoria topic. I'll ponder on what it might be. I've been reading around what she did in Scotland – she got around there (here, that is) quite a lot and the trains were a great invention. She also had the benefit of ponies, a yacht, and a whole load of servants. Thincat (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
... and no, I'd never heard of Longcat but I'll see if there's a suitable free image for my user page! Thincat (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Kim CobbEdit

Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Biting newcomers and deleting their articles: what we can do to help prevent itEdit

I seem to recall that you facilitate, or help to facilitate, editathons. That's a very noble activity and if I lived in the UK it's one which I would be spending my retirement on and hopefully working with RexxS near Birmingham. I was surprised to learn therefore, that you prefer exposing new users to the risk of being bitten and their articles deleted rather than providing them with a space where they can safely develop their articles and perhaps even get help with them. To claim that it is policy to throw them to the wolves, is probably inaccurate - we already have several rules that prevent the creation of articles in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Editathons can be done in most places. For example, my current priority is to complete some work for Wiki Loves Monuments before the end of the month and that's a global event. This may result in some biting; the wolves that hunt images seem especially ferocious for some reason. If they violate the policy then they should be sanctioned. For example, I notice an attempt to reinstate the editor Betacommand who was banned for this reason. But that discussion looks quite unproductive and I try to avoid such. For another example, consider the AfD for Bearpaw which you started. I noticed that and have some prior experience of the interminable wrangling about sheepskin boots. What I noticed in this case is that there's a notable topic there which we weren't covering – bearpaw shoe – and so I started a page for it. It's not much yet but it certainly belongs in mainspace where others may find and add to it over time. That's our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Roma AgrawalEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Roma Agrawal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The Physiological SocietyEdit

Hello IAhmed (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Abbie HuttyEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Abbie Hutty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Warofdreams talk 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Seven Myths about EducationEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing—Seven Myths about Education—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting "guidelines"Edit

MOS:COMPSCI has more history and more sense that MOS:COMP, which is not a real guideline but an essay, with few long-term editors, that someone just slapped a guideline tag on without any kind of WP:PROPOSAL process. Most MoS regulars were not even aware the page existed. It's causing problems, like editwars over trivia, and appears to be WP:OWNed by an uncivil tagteam. I think merging what's salvageable from it into MOS:COMPSCI and then MfD'ing MOS:COMP would be useful. I would support COMPSCI being an actual guideline, since it's stable and reasonable (would also entail moving it to a "Manual of Style/" name).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:EAGEREdit

Hello Andrew: Thanks for your ongoing work to improve Wikipedia. Per your editing interests, you may be interested in the new WP:EAGER, an essay I created today. Cheers, North America1000 18:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Northfield AllotmentsEdit

 On 26 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northfield Allotments, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Northfield Allotments are claimed to be the oldest in London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northfield Allotments. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northfield Allotments), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/AmusementEdit

Hi, I noticed that you wrote a review for this nomination a few hours after a different editor started a review. Since the other editor is new, he didn't know to put an icon on it. I wonder if you would mind letting the other editor finish the review, so he could gain more confidence in the QPQ process. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On second look, I see that you were questioning the purpose of the page itself. Sorry for not noticing that sooner. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a vital topic but difficult to define and so I'll be keeping it on my watchlist now I have started to engage with it. But the fate of the DYK is no big deal as the extra attention may help it along. Andrew D. (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for St Stephen's Church, EalingEdit

 On 22 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Stephen's Church, Ealing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bells of St Stephen's in Ealing (belfry and spire pictured) caused complaints, were later moved to the Docklands, and were finally installed in St Machar's Cathedral in Aberdeen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Stephen's Church, Ealing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, St Stephen's Church, Ealing), 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) 00:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Duncorn HillEdit

I put a note on User talk:Colonel Warden before being told that this is your current account.

Hi, You kindly added a reference to Duncorn Hill citing Title of article in The Journal of the South Eastern Agricultural College, University of London (41-44): 191–195, 1938. I was wondering if you had the title of the paper concerned?— Rod talk 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm more active under my real name nowadays. I have fleshed out the citation in question. Andrew D. (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks.— Rod talk 19:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hanging Sword AlleyEdit

I tried to expand this enough so it would qualify for DYK, but the sources I looked at just repeated the same three basic facts in different ways and I'm struggling to get above even 700 bytes of prose :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for having a go. There's another topic that I noticed the other day and I've just deprodded it to buy it some time. It struck me that you might know this place and be able to do something with it. It's The Loft (Kent). It didn't seem as promising as the Angel Studio but I don't know anything about it and haven't had time to look. Andrew D. (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Not heard of it myself, when in Maidstone I have frequented the Old House at Home, Earls and the Druids mostly, but I can see a few sources so I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've got it over 1500 now, thanks to a good account of a robbery there. There's more to do but it's a reasonable start. I'll have to go visit the place now, to take some pictures... Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Great work. I've just started Russia Row, which leads one way into Trump Street, which obviously holds great DYK promise. These two streets were brought to my attention by Zigzig20s, and you've inspired me with hope that expanding one of them to 1500 characters might be possible. Alas, I'm struggling. Edwardx (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As you've seen, in researching Trump Street, I came across and so started Blossom's Inn which seems to have been quite substantial. That was mainly on Lawrence Lane but was perhaps at its junction with Trump Street. We should look at maps to check. The reference to the Lord of Misrule may be apposite... Andrew D. (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I see a DYK in the offing for Blossom's Inn. Philafrenzy has worked his magic on Trump Street, which will be the "hook" target article, and I shall try to improve Russia Row, which now looks relatively feeble. I shall endeavour to take some up-to-date photos just before next Sunday's meet-up. Edwardx (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't ever ask me to help with anything ever again! (well not for 24 hours anyway) Philafrenzy (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that Blossom's Inn is coming along nicely and I especially like the picture that Philafrenzy found. I'll keep helping out as time permits and hope to see you both on Sunday. Andrew D. (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We also have Gerrard Street, London, it was hiding as a redirect to Chinatown, London, but pretty much all of the Gerrard Street-related prose had nothing to do with that and there is far much more to write about. The sources aren't really up to snuff but it is new enough and long enough to go to DYK, provided somebody fixes the references quickly enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • By coincidence, I was just suggesting to Edwardx that we meet for dim sum in Gerrard Street ahead of the London meetup. Ritchie333 might like to know that the restaurant now known as Dumplings' Legend used to be the Lee Ho Fook mentioned in Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London. That would make a good Fook hook, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Hanging Sword Alley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The QPQ has been done – I was already working on it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Hanging Sword Alley at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 On 9 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hanging Sword Alley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hanging Sword Alley was also known as "Blood Bowl Alley" after its infamous night life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hanging Sword Alley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hanging Sword Alley), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

CREEPEdit

Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_invoking_SCHOOLOUTCOMES_at_AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I have responded there. I doubt that the discussion will be productive but it will provide a topical example for the coming discussion about the Future of Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly reference WP:CREEP in your numerous comments on policy, RfCs etc. Recent examples include the AN discussion concerning SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the RfC regarding Wikidata. Why do you always phrase it as if CREEP is some sort of policy when in fact it is little more than an essay? It seems to me at best disingenuous and at worst downright misrepresentation. Bearing in mind that you very clearly did not read before jumping to conclusions in the AN thread, I wonder if you have actually read WP:CREEP. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Columbine cupEdit

 Hello, Andrew Davidson. Columbine cup, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 On 4 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Columbine cup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Columbine cup was a masterpiece resembling the shape of a cluster of doves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Columbine cup. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Columbine cup), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

InclusionismEdit

Hey, I thought it was a bit of a coincidence that someone whose user page declared them a member of that WikiProject would show up at that discussion when I had not notified anyone of it, and was going to ask you about that until I noticed that you were also a semi-regular at the Village Pump, so mystery solved. But while checking for that I noticed we'd actually interacted several times before. Sorry for not remembering you, but honestly looking back at some of those AFDs your !votes seem a little questionable. I consider myself to be a mild inclusionist (as I said in thw VP reply to you I think a true "deletionist" would probably happily target a lot of my recent work as being on obscure non-notable topics that no one in the English-speaking world, even top scholars, has ever heard of), but I don't think we should have POVFORKs or articles that exist solely to push fringe theories (I say this as someone who basically started their Wikipedia career being accused of creating a POVFORK to push a fringe theory, so I'm hardly biased), and I think most people who would self-identify as inclusionists would say the same.

Here you referred to a thoroughly discredited Victorian hypothesis as "disputed" but "notable" in a merge !vote that eventually led to the list being merged into the article on the discredited Victorian hypothesis, which is reasonable, but it doesn't look like you did due diligence in checking whether the theory the page was promoting was considered fringe.

Here you started with a textbook OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and then started claiming that blatant works of historical fiction "seem fine" as sources.

And just last night you presented a "Buddhist concept" that no dictionaries or encyclopedias of Buddhism discuss as such.

In both of the above cases it seems like you didn't actually click the links provided or do the necessary legwork before !voting keep based on a philosophy that all pages must be kept as much as possible, without regard for the specific circumstances of the articles/topics in question (since in both cases the topics were already better covered elsewhere on English Wikipedia, and the lists in question were mainly non-NPOV WP:SYNTH forks). I don't know if you are still doing this at AFDs, as I am not a regular there either way, but could you please be a bit more careful in the future?

(Note that this is not a criticism of your general practice as an editor. In the above editorinteract search I noticed you and I had crossed paths elsewhere and both been in the same minority that I still think was very much in the right, although I'd rather not publicly disclose what that was. Just noting it here so you don't get the impression that I came here to attack you or that I think you're a "bad dude", at least not in the "save the President" sense.)

Also sorry for the length.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • You're welcome and it's good to hear that you're an inclusionist too. But I didn't follow your reference to "Save the President" – is it this meme? I used to play the occasional arcade game but I'd never heard of Bad Dudes Vs. DragonNinja before. The one I liked best was Gauntlet which had an unusual collaborative format, in which you'd team up with strangers to complete the task. Rather like Wikipedia, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you're on the money -- I figured if you didn't get it (and it's hardly aybabiquitous) Googling "save the president" would get it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Huh. I completely missed this. You really need to read over WP:NOT and stop defending fringe theory articles based on your personal anti-"deletionism" policy. This is just the places where you interacted with me, and I've hardly opened an AFD in years, at least not where I meant for the page to be deleted rather than simply opening a community discussion while being essentially neutral whether the pages should be kept/merged/redirected; I'm really wondering what a more thorough search of your AFD !votes when your involvement, which was based on personal preference and a misreading of sources like the above examples, led to a "no consensus" decision would show up. Are you just going to continue to dodge the question? Do you regret saying that "tanka prose" was an actual ancient Japanese phenomenon, that the "spirit of mottainai" is a "Buddhist concept" (which claim, I'm becoming increasingly convinced, is tied to this guy's use of the word in a book meant to promote his wood construction business), that the mythicist "list of dying and rising gods" was worth keeping/merging despite everything in it needing to be rewritten and verified in reliable modern sources anyway, etc. or not? Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • BTW, I would like you to apologize for, and retract, the groundless accusations against me you made here. I was very clear from the beginning that I had not been nursing a grudge for years -- I hadn't even noticed what happened in that AFD after I retired the alt account that opened it, until last week (and if I was really still holding a grudge for anything it would not be that the article survived AFD but that one of the "keep" !votes was advocating for a JoshuSasori sock, which I assume is not standard ARS operating procedure). Anyway, accusations of misbehaviour made without evidence are personal attacks, and are prohibited on English Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not say that Hijiri88 has been nursing a grudge for years. It is quite clear that Hijiri88's activity is current and is in the nature of a spike rather than being prolonged. The point is that the issue that he was complaining about happened 5 years ago and so is water under the bridge. What's good is that we now seem to be moving on and discussing more current issues. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the above correction of your previous false accusation, but it would sound more sincere if you didn't deny you had made the false accusation in the first place. It may be water under the bridge for everyone who actually !voted "keep" in the AFD five years ago, but you didn't -- you showed up out of the blue a few days ago and said that I had wrong to post an article on a "Buddhist concept" (one I clearly didn't understand) to AFD and those who had !voted me down were right. (You still have not admitted you were wrong to call what in contemporary usage is more of a marketing term than anything deeper a "Buddhist concept", mind you; nor have you recognized that it's just a common Japanese word for "wasteful".) And (again) I wasn't aware that the AFD had not ended in "delete" until this week, because of the off-wiki harassment that forced me to retire that account. (The full history of how I happened across it is here.) I only just this week noticed that an AFD I had opened in good faith (not because I "am a deletionist", a point on which I note you have been very slow to correct your many comrades) and garnered some support (it was 3-1 in favour of deleting before the canvassing), was canvassed and steamrolled right before the one-week mark, then a non-admin showed up and completely botched the close -- and as a result five years later the article is still a mess. And ARS is still doing this -- with Swamp monster, you posted a "This article is at AFD -- you know what to do..." canvassing message after auto-!voting "keep" yourself, two more ARS members showed up and did the same, and all of you have been refusing compromise solutions, alternatives to the false "keep-delete" dichotomy, and requests to do the heavy lifting of fixing the article, even though fixing broken articles to save them from AFD is supposed to be the modus operandi of ARS. This all happened in the last two days; it is not water under the bridge from five years ago. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Joan BeneshEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 On 3 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joan Benesh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ballerina Joan Benesh married the man who suggested a better way of notating her dances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Benesh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Joan Benesh), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeking advice; Anno DominiEdit

Hello there. I'm an experienced editor who's mainly familiar with article creation and editing, and a bit confused when admin issues are raised, having rarely if ever come into the kind of conflict requiring admin warnings. I've just gone through what (for me) was a rather disturbing experience after trying to edit a page, but I can't see any policies that clearly apply to my problem. I noticed your neutral comments on the Dorothy Tarrant discussion I recently participated in, and since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about the matters I need help with, I thought I might seek your advice. It's alright to decline to get involved, although if you could at least point me in the right direction I would appreciate it very much.

Yesterday I tried to place a usage note qualifying the statement on the "Anno Domini" article that "BC comes after the year". I'd wanted to do this for some time, as I'd noticed in older reference material (which, as a classics scholar I tend to use a lot) it often preceded the year. I wasn't able to find anything about this in style guides, so I looked for encyclopedic references, and found the same practice in older editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Not sure just how strongly I'd need to support what was meant to be just a usage note, I wrote it identifying the EB and another standard reference work that uses this style, but as I wasn't satisfied with what seemed like a general reference, in my edit summary I mentioned that I was going to take it to the talk page for further advice and opinion.

No sooner than I had started writing out a note explaining the issue and asking for help, than my edit was reverted by one of that page's guardians. I reverted the deletion of my note, with a further edit summary, "please wait until I've finished posting on the talk page," but it was immediately reverted again, with the rather unfriendly note, "talk first, then post, maybe". So I finished posting my explanation of the note and my question about the sourcing, which I thought might at least be enough to justify the note until better sources could be located, and then reposted the note again. At that point, civility seemed to take over, and there was a reply to my talk page message by the editor in question. I thought that all of the points raised could be easily addressed by obtaining specific examples from the sources I mentioned, and perhaps additional examples from other sources, so I spent a few hours gathering some and setting forth what I hoped was a cogent argument from various sources.

However, before I could finish posting this, the note was deleted a third time by a new editor, asserting that "not a single reliable source" supported it, and a comment on the talk page claiming that the note violated WP:SYNTH. I strongly disagreed, since observing that something was one way and is now another, if both are properly supported by reliable sources, necessarily means that it must have changed, and the idea that it's unacceptable to say so due to WP:SYNTH is just absurd; IMO the question was verifiability, not synthesis. Did the sources I'd mentioned in the original note, and then on the talk page, show what I said they did? I thought it seemed beyond question that they did, but I went ahead and finished my post detailing specific instances and responding to the first editor's concerns.

As I was posting, and before I'd done anything else with the article itself, I received a warning on my talk page from the second editor involved, stating that I was engaged in an edit war by undoing other editors' contributions to Wikipedia without seeking consensus on the talk page, and was in danger of being blocked from editing Wikipedia for violation of the three-revert rule. Since I hadn't removed anyone else's contributions, and had only reverted twice, and had initiated the talk page discussion before the other editor had even gotten involved, I was shocked to be warned that I was in danger of being blocked from editing Wikipedia—something which I don't recall ever having been told before, despite having been involved in much more contentious discussions in the past.

What made the situation still more frustrating was the fact that the editor giving me this warning seemed to be an interested party, and had posted no similar warning on the talk page of the editor who had aggressively reverted the note as I was already taking the matter to the talk page. And, while I'm not sure if this is an issue, although it seems like it should be, the editor threatening to have me blocked from editing Wikipedia for edit warring isn't even an admin! Well, I finished my evidentiary post on the article talk page, then replied to the warning, saying point-by-point why I thought it was unjustified and improper. And then I went back to the article, looked at the note that had been deleted three times, and decided to revise what I was saying to a much shorter note, 1) avoiding the synthesis issue, and 2) cite clearly and directly to a number of reliable sources demonstrating that the usage had been different in the past (but without asserting that it had changed since then, since that was what apparently constituted "synthesis").

That was immediately reverted, instead of what seemed to me would have been the ideal solution (either helping me find better sources for something that abundant evidence clearly demonstrated was true, or tagging it with CN or Better Source tags), and the following description of my note added to my talk page: "I suggest that tagging as disputed, unsourced, and unimportant would be overkill; but all three tags would be justified". Now, by this point it's clear to me that collaborative editing seems to be out of the question; whatever I write and however I phrase it, no matter what I cite to, is simply being deleted as I add it, with no help whatever from the guardians of the article's purity; I pointed this out on the talk page, but since I didn't want to be blocked for edit warring I declined to make another attempt on the note itself, as I had no idea what I could come up with that would satisfy them.

I spent a restless night without nearly enough sleep, and still don't know how to respond. As far as I know, there's been no direct violation of a rule I could report; this doesn't seem to rise to the level of an administrator incident as far as I understand the concept (which is not very well); mediation also seems to be a step above the current level of the dispute; and a third-party opinion seems to be ruled out since there are three editors involved, and I'm not sure how to find someone neutral who'd want to get involved, but who'd be able to evaluate the evidence. Basically I'm at sixes and sevens when it comes to what to do here. So my bright idea was to find an admin who isn't connected with the discussion, but whom I might have bumped into from time to time, who could either have a quick look, or at least tell me what I ought to do next. Hopefully other than just abandoning the field, although that may just be my only option at this stage. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Editors on Wikipedia can be quite fractious, stubborn and vexatious about any issue on Wikipedia – see WP:LAME for an amusing list of examples. Issues of style like this are especially likely to give trouble and you will find that the archives for our Manual of Style are full of intense battles. Anyway, my advice is to take it easy. An RfC may be the best way forward, was done at the Dorothy Tarrant page. They typically stay open for 30 days and so will take some time to arrive at a conclusion. I'll take a look myself when I get a momemnt. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Meteor III (yacht)Edit

This is my latest yacht article that I created.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC) This is a case where my Newspaper.com subscription really came in handy. The Wikipedia library is a good place to get some excellent subscriptions.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for trying :) Jesswade88 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Indian castesEdit

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ Winged BladesGodric 06:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to South Asian social groups, such as List of General Caste in Sikhism, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. ~ Winged BladesGodric 06:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  • These overblown templates claim that I have recently edited List of General Caste in Sikhism. This claim is false as I have never edited that page. What's going here is harassment – "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." This seems to be part of pattern in which Winged Blades of Godric makes personal attacks on me. For the record, it's worth noting that these seem to date from an incident at WP:NOT when I reverted their attempt to change policy without consensus. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, they relate to your silliness at the AfD for the linked article. They are also valid notifications based on your intentions expressed there. You really do need to stop wikilawyering and wasting yet more of everyone's time before someone decides to topic ban you - a decision that I would happily support. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the number of years that you have edited WP, (a few of them with a sockpuppet), you ought to know that issuance of DS notifications, in the very exact manner I've done, are mandatory per ArbCom requirements.If you wish to seek an exemption for regulars from the templating, ARCA is that-way.And please provide diffs for makes personal attacks on me or retract your baseless accusations.And, for the record, it may be prudential to note, that despite your hyperbolic edits, the RFC was re-closed with the same result days later, resulting in the creation of the same policy.Cheers!~ Winged BladesGodric 12:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In that first incident at WP:NOT, WBoG made the edit summary "Cut out the attitude...". This seems to be a personal attack because it suggests that I have an "attitude" – what the OED describes as "Aggressive or uncooperative behaviour; a resentful or antagonistic manner." My position is that I was reverting a change made with inadequate consensus – a fairly standard action per WP:BRD. Now, in WBoG's post above he makes reference to "a sockpuppet". This seems to be an irrelevant slur or smear. My alternate accounts are respectable per WP:VALIDALT which states "For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets." WBoG should please avoid such hostile language as it may be considered to be casting aspersions. Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Again WBoG makes a personal attack, suggesting that my memory is poor. I do, of course, recall the incident quite well. The admin who blocked me was desysopped for their improper action. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • KWW was desyssoped for a host of reasons that included one bad block on CW but not the one I linked to.I think that you can do better than stating something roughly equivalent to--All blocks by desysopped admins are universally bad.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, Kww was censured for his block of CW in 2012. He was then desysopped for his block of my AD account in 2013. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sup, AD. Just a refresher, yes the admin was desysopped—but only because they were WP:INVOLVED. And in the course of your unblock request you agree[d] to retire Colonel Warden, something you patently have not done. Two things, then, come to mind. Firstly, that if another admin had blocked you, they would not have been desysopped, and secondly, that you lied in order to be unblocked another refresher: I will retire the Colonel Warden account and you expect this to be minimal ). Cheers. Happy editing! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I gather that "Serial Number 54129" used to edit as "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi". I'm still not sure why that name was changed but the point is that we should AGF in such cases and suppose that the change was made for good reasons. WBoG should avoid casting aspersions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I know, fascinating isn't it; you see what I did there though—change my username, rather than operate multiple accounts? :) ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Please provide diffs to support the WP:BLANK comments you made in the AFD. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Slightly economical with the truth, though. You end that sequence of diffs with that's where we are now, omitting a shedload of changes over three years that include reverts back to the blanked state by Widr, MusikAnimal, Rsrikanth05, Bgwhite, Serols etc. Given your encyclopaedic knowledge of encyclopaedic policy, do you not have a concern that so many regular contributors thought WP:BURDEN more important that WP:BLANK? One clue might lie in your ability to comprehend caste wars. Then again, never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh? - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a summary rather than a recapitulation of the entire edit history of the page and the point was to highlight the blanking not the edit-warring. The other point worth summarising from the edit history is that I have not edited the page in question myself. The statement made above by WBoG in his harassing template is therefore false and has still not been retracted. Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It is a disingenuous summary that presses home your ill-considered point that I was being disruptive at that article. As I say, several other people followed in the same vein. On the other hand, you have a history of poor behaviour at caste AfDs - there is even User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#Caste_issues above - and, frankly, if no admin is prepared to exercise their discretion here (or are sufficiently uninvolved to do so) then I think the next step is likely to be WP:AE. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sitush stated in the AfD that "your mention of BLANK above is the first time ever I have seen it". If it helps, I am quite happy to accept that Sitush made their actions in good faith, not being aware of the WP:BLANK guideline. My point about disruption is that such actions tend to disrupt development of the article by removing all the content and so providing no sensible structure for further improvement. It appears that Sitush is now editing the page in question in a more restrained way and so the issue seems adequately resolved. Andrew D. (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No, the issue is not resolved. You are once again trying to side-step things. I specifically said that I was giving you a chance to develop the article, as you suggested you might. But as it stands now it is no better than it was when you misled people at the first AfD using the same irrelevant sources that you are now claiming should once again ensure that the article is kept at the current AfD. BLANK is a guideline, despite your apparent disingenuousness in positing it as a policy, and you have been made aware that your argument for PRESERVE holds no water. Are you seriously suggesting that we should keep information that is wrong just because a topic might be notable? It is bollocks and you know it. This matter is going to WP:AE unless you agree not to become involved in caste-related matters because you are utterly incompetent in the topic area. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I state clearly in the para above that WP:BLANK is a guideline. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter or that it can be freely ignored. WP:PRESERVE is full policy being a shortcut to our editing policy, which I cited in the previous AfD. That policy explains our general method and makes many points. Among them, it explains that we contribute in different ways, "each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help." In this case, I have brought several sources to the table and am the only editor to do so. The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies is not irrelevant because it contains significant material about the role of caste in Sikh society. It is from a respectable university press and was published fairly recently. To reject such sources seems to set an impossible standard. How on earth does Sitush suppose we can develop our content if we can't have a reasonable discussion about such material. Andrew D. (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Squirming again, trying to back away from past deeds. BLANK was first mentioned by you at the AfD and that is where I announced that I had not seen it before. It was me who had to note that it was a guideline, rather than the policy that you implied, causing you to scramble around to find PRESERVE, which does not even support your point anyway. See you at AE. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • And how dense can you be regarding Oxford? Caste in Sikhism is discussed at Sikhism etc; the source does not discuss "general castes" in Sikhism, which does not mean "all castes", as has been explained to you previously. Honestly, I am astonished that you persist in highlighting your incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sikhism#Sikh_castes actually contains a list of Sikh castes including the mercantile Arora caste which I provided in the AfD as a specific example. The Dalit castes are identified specifically and so the whole is consistent with my vision for this content. My position is that there are reasonable alternatives to deletion. For example, we might merge the page in question with List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism and, while the material is still small, have it in the Sikhism#Sikh_castes section. As and when the content expands, the material could be split into a page such as Castes in Sikhism as suggested by Cesdeva. This is the point and guidance of the policy WP:PRESERVE -- that we develop and improve the content by such means, not by deletion and blanking. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, the very bog-standard and in no way harassing template says "for pages related to South Asian social groups, such as List of General Caste in Sikhism, which you have recently edited.", i.e. "pages related", and one doesn't have to take a giant leap of faith to imagine that editing an AFD about such an article falls under "pages related" to such a topic. There's nothing false, and nothing to retract. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That template provides a link to the page that one has supposedly edited. If the AfD was meant then that should be the link. Is he now going to officiously warn everyone who participates in that AfD? Will he now drop these templates on the talk pages of TRM and SN54129 for participating in this discussion about the matter? Andrew D. (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Won't it be good if you drop the wiki-lawyering stuff and instead move on to answer the query posed to you at the AFD and/or improve the article?! And, I never knew that if I choose to drop the sanctions-notice on a part. editor's t/p, I must follow it up by dropping them on the t/p(s) of all related editors.~ Winged BladesGodric 10:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The point is to pay attention to DS, and the warning is just to let you know that your edits will be subject to Arbcom's scrutiny, whether you believe the templates or your editing are valid or not. It's a favour to you to help you from getting blocked over something simple. I'd be thankful rather than rail against it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a case at Arbitration Enforcement that concerns you. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Andrew_Davidson. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I have responded there. Andrew D. (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Andrew dont be fearful of mean wolfs. they are teamtagging and gameing system. Just ignore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.74.77 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, out of curiosity, what are you planning on doing with User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes? You asked Sandstein to undelete and userfy it so you could work on it "soon" more than five years ago,[2] but the page has only been edited once, minor-ly, since that time. I'm considering MFDing it if you are not planning on working on it, as userfying pages that were deleted by community consensus and keeping them in your user space permanently is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that MFD no one seems to have noticed that there was prior consensus to delete the page, and that you then requested the page be userfied specifically so you could do a particular task with it.[3] The wording used by both the nominator and User:Kudpung seemed very strongly to imply that they believed it to be an article draft you created in your user space and never got around to finishing.
Anyway, you should get consensus before restoring a page that was deleted by community consensus (the consensus to delete had nothing apparently to do with article cleanup or anything that AGF would say you must be able to address alone); if you do in fact intend to "finish" the draft, that is definitely something to bear in mind.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew. The WP:AE discussion here has been closed with the following warning: Andrew Davidson is advised that before commenting further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted), they need to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. They are warned to only offer comments or article edits supported by directly relevant sources judged to be reliable and of high quality. Sources without recent consensus must be presented for review first. If the user intends to work on the draft User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes, which has been languishing for five years, that work is to be exempted from the restrictions mentioned, i.e. Andrew Davidson is allowed while it's still in userspace to offer weaker comments and sources there, provided this work gradually leads up to acceptable quality and sourcing, before it's offered for mainspace. Failure to comply with this warning will result in a topic ban or other sanction. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Sending positive vibes and recognising your contribution! Thank you. Srsval (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Naomi Parker FraleyEdit

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Table beerEdit

I've expanded this a bit and it's good to go for DYK, except I could do with another source to bolster some of the more obvious "hooky" stuff, such as "... that table beer was socially acceptable in the 18th century as you could drink several glasses without getting intoxicated?" Have you got anything? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I started the article after enjoying some Fuller's Table Beer at the Union Tavern in Maida Vale recently. There seems to be coverage of the modern type, which seems to be enjoying a revival -- see Bon Appetit, for example. The history I've found mostly seems to focus on the fine detail of excise rates but I'll keep browsing for more. But I've some other DYKs to catch up on first like Naomi Parker Fraley, which is up right now. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "No beer and no Wikipedia make Ritchie333 something something" ... "Go crazy?" "Don't mind if I do! Muahahahah!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but after looking at sources, I think this is a duplicate of small beer so I've merged the two together. Still, we have improved Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, so all is not lost. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I was well aware of the small beer page when I started this one. That's why I took some care to clarify table beer as a distinct class of beer, which was specified in law. It was a medium grade and, as we have numerous other gradations and varieties of ale and beer, it seemed reasonable to detail this one. That still seems sensible, but I still have other priorities and will return to this in due course, to see what has become of it. Andrew D. (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Copyeditor's Barnstar
A joy to review. Your article on Nicola Thorp, while short, sets an exemplary standard for start class articles in sourcing, writing style and layout. Please make more articles. I'll be following your contributions. Great work! Edaham (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not neglect to add a barnstar there also :) Edaham (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Also I enjoy reviewing articles which are good eye openers. Living as I do in China I had no idea about how current the high heel issue is. Ludicrous that women are still being bludgeoned with forced stereotypes in developed countries! Edaham (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and barnstars. It's interesting that you live in Shanghai now. Note that there's an interesting page about China's own Foot Emancipation Society. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

PortalsEdit

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Gilmore the lion and oil companyEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Gilmore Oil Company at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Gilmore Oil Company at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've reviewed your DYK nomination, and there are still some issues that need to be addressed. Specifically: one of the statements in Gilmore the Lion (in that his remains are in cold storage) is not reflected in the source (which lists his remains as either in storage or on loan, as opposed to specifically saying that his remains are in storage). Please resolve this issue promptly so that the nomination can proceed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 On 14 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gilmore the lion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gilmore, the flying lion, was named after the Gilmore Oil Company? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gilmore the lion), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 On 14 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gilmore Oil Company, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gilmore, the flying lion, was named after the Gilmore Oil Company? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gilmore Oil Company. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gilmore Oil Company), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  • 5,459 and 2,134 views, respectively. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

De Pace, BMG movementEdit

Hi Andrew, I just wanted to thank you for looking over the Bernardo De Pace article. It was the first time I have been tempted to try a did you know for quite a while. I had forgotten anything I ever knew about the process and your feedback and quick response to its existence on the list was great. I just found two places to link to the BMG article you wrote. Thank you for writing it.Jacqke (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Honey garlic sauceEdit

Re this: technically, you violated Per WP:CONTESTED by you really should not be simply reverting the PROD and not without Explain[ing] why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.[4] Even the message you left on the proposer's talk page after your second revert didn't give a reason for opposing the proposed deletion. So while it is technically out of line for User:Madmoons to re-add a PROD template that has been removed, that rule assumes that the template was removed in good faith, in accordance with the guidelines. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: actually, WP:CONTESTED covers both the points you mention, and you're seemingly incorrect on both. The wording says "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to [...] explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion" and "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." So although it might have been nice for Andrew to have given some reasoning, the reinstatement of the prod was wrong, and the next avenue for this is AfD, not prod. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Whoops! I see that now. Sorry about the mixup. I've not encountered either PROD or CONTESTED used all that much in the past; a couple of NOTHERE trolls PRODded some articles I wrote back in 2012/2013, and then in 2015-ish someone opened an ANI thread where an article's creator (a promotional SPA) had contested a PROD then opposed the subsequent AFD, and after a week the AFD was non-admin-closed as "no consensus", and I suggested the page be deleted because the article's creator had not provided a valid rationale and the closer had just been counting votes.
To be fair, though, Andrew has a history of opposing AFDs with ILIKEIT-type rationales, and even repeatedly violating WP:ARS's requirement that a rationale for keeping the article be included in an AFD's listing on that board,http://[5][6][7] and so probably shouldn't be reverting PRODs without giving any rationale. I'm neutral on whether the page in question should be deleted, mind you, so I'd rather have this be the last that is said on the matter lest I be seen as arguing for the deletion of an article whose deletion I might actually oppose.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So ... do you ever provide rationales when removing deletion tags?[8] Even if it is technically not a violation of policy, it comes across as deliberately disruptive, especially when your actual comments in AFDs often consist of bizarre counter-policy arguments, leaving other editors to assume you would give such counter-policy rationales if you gave any at all. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) I have long been considering asking for a topic ban against editors who attempt to prevent deletion without a valid policy rationale. I think there's an argument to be made that repeated ILIKEIT behavior is disruptive, and the editors involved simply need to be kept away from deletion processes. I'm still working out the idea. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Intuitive eatingEdit

About this, please give reasons in edit notes, especially if you are doing something that is going to end up absorbing a bunch of other people's time. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • No, per WP:REVTALK, we should "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content ... This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" Reasoning and debate belong in discussion pages such as the AfD which has been started for this matter. I have commented in detail there. Such comments also do not belong in edit summaries because the edit summaries cannot be edited to correct complex markup such as as links and templates. Edit summaries should be succinct and there was significant pushback when their maximum size was increased because people don't want walls of text in their watchlist. Andrew D. (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Carla CapalboEdit

I have reverted your change. You are not an AFC reviewer and should have submitted it to AFC if it was keepworthy. It has some unsourced claims (that she wrote for BBC Olive, The Independent, World of Fine Wine, Bon Appétit, Departures, Food & Wine and Decanter) and should be in draftspace until accepted. I've submitted it to AFC and there you will see if it is acceptable. I won't accept it. -- » Shadowowl | talk 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Shadowowl does not seem to understand the process. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, "A reviewer unilaterally draftifying is appropriate if all of the following are true:
(1) The topic has some potential merit
(2) Is not good enough
(3) And there is no evidence of active improvement"
Condition 3 was not met because I improved the page after saving it from G13. I expect to be doing more at an editathon on Wednesday at the British Library, which will be attended by other veteran editors and professional food writers like the subject. Shadowowl should therefore please revert their disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The fact that you are calling me a disruptor (so ironic) says enough to me that I shouldn't restore your article. It was a draft, and is not accepted by a reviewer. The policy cited is not usable. It is not a draftify.-- » Shadowowl | talk 19:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
shadowowl draftified the page by moving it from main space, where I had placed it. They did so after trying to delete the page by G13. They don't seem to understand that draft space does not belong to AfC or that they are dealing with more experienced editors. MassiveEartha, who first created the draft, has been editing since 2012 and is now a trainer. I myself have been editing even longer and have autopatrolled rights because I have created hundreds of valid articles. AfC is only for inexperienced editors who are unable to create pages in mainspace. Shadowowl should please revert and get out of the way. Andrew D. (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Getting angry doesn't help. It is a draft and this is circumventing the AFC process. AFC is not only for inexperienced editors. I am not going to revert myself. Patiently wait till someone accepts/declines the draft. And it is still not a draftify, it is a revert of a move. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Wait patiently for two months so that you can G13 it again? I don't think so. There will be plenty of other experienced editors at the editathon and I shall consult with them if the matter is not resolved sooner. Andrew D. (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Shadowowl: I have to say I agree with Andrew here, (although he could have been more polite about making the point, as presumably your edits were made in good faith). There is no requirement for an experienced editor to take anything through AFC, and in this case there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the draft other than its short length, meaning Andrew was within his rights to move it to article space and mark it as a stub so that it can be improved by himself or others. I'm not sure how your insistence on putting it back to draft space and waiting two months for someone to review it benefits anyone. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
See below. It was declined, and for good reason.--Shadowowl on mobile (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
It was declined, for what would have been good reasons if the draft had actually come through the AfC process. In this case, it wasn't, and I more or less agree with Amakuru. --joe deckertalk 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Shadowowl: the point is that you draftified an article that you had no business drafifying. If you think it doesn't assert significance then put an A7 tag on it and let an admin decide. Your action was to unilaterally delete an article created by an experienced editor, and then send it to AFC, with no due process followed. If Andrew had created that article from scratch directly into mainspace then we wouldn't be having this discussion so I'm not sure what's different about this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
It was originally a draft, and I dont think nominating it for G13 makes it a article good enough to skip afc process. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
joe deckertalk 20:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 
Hello, Andrew Davidson! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! joe deckertalk 20:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
:* I did not submit the page in question to AfC.  So why has this enormous template been placed here?  Please see WP:DTTR.  Note also a recent article creation by User:Joe DeckerGiuseppe Momo.  That is a perfunctory stub which seems inferior to the page in question.  So we see that the AfC process is dysfunctional.  Let's have the page in question placed into mainspace.  If people think it is so bad then they can take it to AfD -- a process based upon consensus rather than the arbitrary opinion of a single editor. Andrew D. (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Template was left there by automation, which apparently failed to correctly detect that Shadowowl submitted it instead of you. Chill out, and take your complaint on this to the maintainers of the AfC scripts. All the best, --joe deckertalk 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, your comparison to Momo is silly. The stub on Momo has an assertion of significance and multiple (2), independent, reliable, sources which discuss him in detail. Your article on Capaldo did not reach the latter bar. Trying to say that that's about article length or writing quality misses the point entirely. Sadly that was lost in the fact that you should have never been put in that queue in the first place, and I am sympathetic to your irritation. --joe deckertalk 20:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study of civil behaviourEdit

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you E. Whittaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewitch51 (talkcontribs) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the invitation. I have replied by email. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew, David from Wikimania 2014Edit

Now back in London, in Forest Gate with my relatives, and pleased to find you again. I will be here at the London match-up tomorrow, no plans for today. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Leave your London phone number here. I have no email to use.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dthomsen8: Hello again. I'm fairly busy today but will come early to the London Wikimeet tomorrow, Sunday 10 June. Not sure I want to publish my phone number so publically here so I suggest you email me with a number to call. Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dthomsen8: The sight to see in London today, Saturday, is the World Naked Bike Ride. Westminster Bridge at about 16:30 would be a good spot to catch it. See website, Time Out or the Standard. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I could have seen that bike ride, but I did not see your reply until much too late. Did you take pictures? I will be delighted to see you Sunday at the Pub. I am guessing that before noon is fine, and my laptop can keep me busy. I have working on Jersey since December, and I just returned on Thursday evening.
  • @Dthomsen8: The pub opens early but the Wikipedians start arriving from around 13:00. As for the bike ride, there's always lots going on in London, especially in the summer. See Twitter for coverage of today's clash... Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
* 17 Unassessed, 115 ???, 843 Total--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC).
Andy, tell me about having dinner together tomorrow. Simple arrangement is to meet at the restaurant at a set time. So, name and address of restaurant, time good for you.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Learning by teachingEdit

Thanks for having help to rescue "Learning by teaching".Jeanpol (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jeanpol: You're welcome. As that topic is difficult to work on, I suggest that you take a look at some other pedagogical topics. They can be difficult too and so you may get some insights from the comparison. For example, I started the flipped classroom topic – a different sort of role reversal in education. That topic has attracted a lot of attention but probably still needs a lot of work. Perhaps you can help with that... Andrew D. (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: Thank you for the answer. Of course I know other pedagogical topics like "flipped classroom". But the Learning by teaching method is working well since the 80ies and teacher who use it are very satisfied. One point is perhaps a little problem: "Learning by teaching" is not easy to apply, because teacher have to understand and master the theory and the technics. "Flipped classroom" is easy to integrate to LdL and is part of it. But LdL goes further than "flipped classroom" so the teacher have more to learn the system than when they use "flipped classroom". Here the theory of LdL: "Conceptualization as a source of happiness". Jeanpol (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
As you can see, "flipped classroom" is wellknowd in Germany: Umgedrehter Unterricht and in France: Classe inversée.Jeanpol (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I had just looked at: started and didn't see flipped classroom. Your article is very comprehensive. I don't understand really why you mean, "(...) that topic is difficult to work on...(...)." In Germany the topic is wellknowd an many people work using "Learning by teaching". So for instance this group on facebook: Lernen durch Lehren.Jeanpol (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Learning by teaching Grüssen Sie alle! I was just passing by and saw the title, and wondered where it had come from. Initially it seemed to be an elaborate form of product placement. I looked for a solid reference and couldn't find one- eventually on the Austriam external link I came across the Uni. in Marburg- so if there was any academic rigour method described in the joke title it would be there. Alas. mein-flipped-classroom give a clear description of what it is thought to be. There is no learning through the teaching process described there- it sounds familiar, and it was an approach we used at Abraham Moss Centre Manchester 8 from 1975 to 1981 when it was replaced by more conventional techniques. See Ron Mitsons pages in Fletcher, Colin; Thompson, Neil; Mitson, Ron (1980). Issues in community education. Lewes: Falmer. pp. 101–114. ISBN 0905273087.,

We called it Independant Resource based learning. Teachers made and selected the resources, in those days we sent relevant to the print room to be offset lithoed into booklets that were store in resource trolley- after a lead talk by the module leader the 11-14 year olds worked at their own level through the topic for 3 or 6 weeks- at the end they did a self evaluation test- and moved to the next module. We all worked (120 kids and 4 teachers)in an open area, and the puristssuggested that some kids would be doing Hums and other Maths along side each other at their own whim. This worked well for Humanities- was useless Modern Foriegn Languages, near impossible for all but basic Maths which relied on a serial build up of knowledge. By the time I joined the school walls had started to be erected and the whole shot had become more teacher centric. I loved it- but there were severe problems- producing the material took about 5 times as long as giving a teacher centric lesson. You couldn't get the staff who had the ability to help across the board. My wifes module on Basic Indonesian had the Maths specialists giving up. When she reverted to French, Spanish and German the result was the same. Exterior resource were very diffict for our inner city pupils to access. Above all you had to be a very strong diciplinarian to keep the kids in their seats. Our kids did not have the intrinsic motivation that the middle classes assume is inherent.

If we look at the concept of using Learning through Teaching- it has been around since before Billy Bunter. I often used it when supply teaching. It goes like this: Today you are supposed to be studying "the War poets" this note says they were called Wilfed Owen, and Siegried Sassoon- do you think that is a joke? Look, I don't know anything about them- perhaps you need to teach me. You have 20 minutes on the Internet to but together a 3 minute talk where you can tell the class all you have found out- start with Wikipedia- the lede will be good and look at the navbox at the bottom. Hey who is the class internet nerd? Right you don't do that task, but go round the class helping anyone that puts up a hand. That is learning by teaching! In the plenary, the students teach their peers the facts they have learned. Before the internet- you wrote them a note and sent them to the library.

So back to the articles- this article and flipped schools seem to be on pupil centric learning, rather than teacher centric. It would not be allowed in any state that has to teach to the National Curriculum. The term High School- in German means University- in the states it is the final 4 years of secondary- in the UK it a state 11-16 school. School in the US applies to tertiary education.

Viel spass, leute. ClemRutter (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@ClemRutter If you are looking for solid references, I hope you find some here: Lernen durch Lehren.Jeanpol (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@ClemRutterIt seems to be an elaborate form of product placement: Theory_of_relativity!Jeanpol (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Seemed not seems. Past tense. It will take a little time to read through all the references on Lernen durch Lehren. With the approach described- it seems to be one that I have been using since the 1970s but I can't find the references that describe it to the standards we use in en:wp. There are 45 references given in the articles but 40 of them are off-line in academic books to which I have no access, some are behind a paywall that you will nor notice if you are editing from a university ip. Looking at the other five- I am cautious of references that refer back to articles you have written or collaborated in, and cautious of articles that refer back to the wikipedia article, or a version in another language. The Sascha Stollhaus reference Stollhaus is probably the best. I am trying to verify the text- and I need more than we have got there.
Referring to the problem of writing education articles in English, I put it down to differing cultures. Educational theory is taken seriously in Germany and in the 1970, promotion in England was based on classroom effectiveness while in Rheinland-Pfalz- progression was based on the amount of study the teacher had done. Even today the theoretic knowledge needed to gain teacher status in Germany is light yearr ahead. ( I talk of differing cultures- and we have a totally different culture to that in the states.)Pedagogical theory is totally underrated in the UK. I just don't think that the UK editor has the basic vocabulary- and again we are back to the lack of basic open references.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think, the best way is to read my newest (and surely my last) article, published in a manual (june 2018): "Conceptualization as a source of happiness".Jeanpol (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you know this deletion page? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Learning_by_teaching.Jeanpol (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Swamp monstersEdit

  There is currently a discussion at AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxcvbnm (talkcontribs) 19:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And the consequence was: "Not necessary to keep this open. ... There is no consensus to take any action. ..." Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Tammie Jo ShultsEdit

 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Andrew Davidson, it's been nearly three weeks since Cwmhiraeth pointed out that the nomination of the two articles cannot proceed with the template affixed to the Tammie Jo Shults article. As far as I can see, you have two options: work on the article to remove the excessive use of blockquotes (which, while not added by you, are nevertheless in the article, and with the template it cannot be promoted at DYK to the main page) or drop the article from the nomination (by unbolding the link, which would be a shame since it's Tammie Jo who's the focus here). Please decide what you'd like to do within the next several days and post to the nomination, so the review can continue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I was waiting for activity at the article to subside and have updated it now. Andrew D. (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 On 6 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tammie Jo Shults, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tammie Jo Shults (pictured), captain of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, was one of the first female tactical fighter pilots in the US Navy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tammie Jo Shults. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tammie Jo Shults), 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) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 On 6 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tammie Jo Shults (pictured), captain of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, was one of the first female tactical fighter pilots in the US Navy? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Southwest Airlines Flight 1380), 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) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Claire PtakEdit

 On 7 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Claire Ptak, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Claire Ptak baked the lemon and elderflower wedding cake for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Claire Ptak), 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.

Ianblair23 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Violet Bakery Cookbook.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Many thanks for your email, Andrew. Your support is very much appreciated and will give somethought to what you said. Thanks again, Stinglehammer (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Unity of the intellectEdit

Andrew D., have the most recent edits addressed your concerns about this DYK nomination? Please stop by the nomination template and let us know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Education Not for SaleEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Education Not for Sale. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/CampaninoEdit

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

UK First WomenEdit

Thanks for creating Anita Corbin. Have you got a source for the list you added to the talk page? If "personal communication with the artist" it would be useful to say so. If anything published, it would be great to be able to link to it from a newly-created article to say that they were included. I'm looking at Sharon Nesmith who certainly ought to have an article... but must get on with some Real Life stuff first. PamD 10:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

And how come there are 103? I thought it was a list of 100! PamD 10:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@PamD: The list was compiled in stages from online coverage. I then got a picture of the list on display at the exhibition. I noticed the number 103 too but haven't fully reconciled the various sources. I started articles about Becky Frater and Katy Cropper (the shepherdess that got you started on this). I'll make some more passes through the list to check for missing links but not right now as I'm busy too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks: well done! I've created a redirect for Nan McCreadie to the article where she already got a mention. Too busy too. PamD 11:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Frogmore Paper MillEdit

I had a DYK all good to go "... that Frogmore Paper Mill is the oldest surviving mechanical paper mill in the world?" but I've missed the cut-off point by one day, unless I 5x expand it to 3.6K (over double the current size). Aaaaaargh! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

D'oh, the creator moved from draft space yesterday. Hallelujah, we're back on! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok. Note also that D9 gives you some wiggle-room. Andrew D. (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I've filed it. Hopefully somebody will SNOW close the AfD soon, and that'll be that. It's not often an obvious DYK hook smacks me in the face like that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Godfrey's CordialEdit

 On 10 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Godfrey's Cordial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Godfrey's Cordial, a popular infant sedative in Victorian Britain, led to numerous fatalities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Godfrey's Cordial. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Godfrey's Cordial), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

List of cottages in Dorset listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of cottages in Dorset. Since you had some involvement with the List of cottages in Dorset redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  » Shadowowl | talk 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

La Manga clubEdit

Greetings Andrew. I'm puzzled about your recent edit on La Manga Club. I don't normally request deletions but this is one of the poorest 'articles' I've read on Wikipedia and 'delete' was the most positive thing I could say. I note, but wasn't influenced by, the fact the originator has had most other articles deleted. I don't know if you believe I failed to follow proper procedure or you really think the article is worth saving AND can be improved. If the latter then I beg to differ and think it should go to a vote. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @JRPG: I am familiar with the place as it is a notable resort and sporting facility. The article is far from the worst that I have seen and is certainly improveable. Before starting a deletion discussion, please familiarise yourself with the deletion process WP:BEFORE. For example, alternatives to deletion should be considered. One sensible alternative would be merger to its location: La Manga. I would still prefer to retain the page separately though.
  • A tussle over this would be tiresome. It would be more congenial to discuss other topics mentioned on your user page such as Fortran and Chess. I myself started my career using Fortran at an engineering business. That was a while ago but, more recently, I partipated in the Mind Sports Olympiad where I was pleased to meet an old acquaintance, Bill Hartston. One of the events there was diving chess! As you have swimming experience too, perhaps you should give it a try next year.
Andrew D. (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • We should note that matters have moved on as an observer has escalated and is now edit-warring about it. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
In the meantime, thanks for a speedy reply Andrew -a tussle was unlikely if it's not an advert though contents still seem bizarre. On a different topic I've played Glenn Flear though I don't remember the result. To my shame I turned down a request for a large English white pig breeding database circa 1972 largely because our machine was optimised for maths and had a grossly inadequate memory for such a task. I might add a bit to my talk page -pity there's no reminiscences page for geriatric software engineers! JRPG (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Greetings!Edit

Hello Andrew,

Good meeting you yesterday and learning about your interests.

Here are links to my Wikidata presentation containing the examples I showed and my user page with some of my artwork.

See you around,
cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 02:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Doria RaglandEdit

hi there, as you actually inserted this photo claiming it was better than nothing I am linking you to the rfc. Talk:Doria_Ragland#Photo Govindaharihari (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I see you reverted back to your photo without discussion, with an edit summary of fix image when what you realy did was change the long term stable image https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doria_Ragland&diff=929237212&oldid=928741871 I think the photo chat thread on the talkpage opposes your change. Please feel free to open a new chat, for the time being I have replaced what was the consensus in the previous chat from 18 months ago and was stable as I understand it. Thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • The situation was not stable as an IP editor had changed the image link on 30 Nov. The link was then to an image at Hello magazine and that was not valid for several reasons. As the article image was then broken and not displaying, I fixed this by changing it to a valid free image. I made a fresh search for free images but didn't find any new ones and so changed the link to an existing version. The more tightly cropped version which Govindaharihari has now placed is inferior in my view but that's a matter of taste and de gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


File:The Cock.jpgEdit

Despite a rather considerable difference of opinion on a different matter, I noted that this did in fact have a source citation in one of the articles it appeared in and so I updated the relevant field accordingly. I am hopeful you would approve.

I've also tagged for this for "duplication" to Commons, as artworks of historical locations are useful on other projects. The local copy will of course be retained as you'd explicitly marked this media file as {{keep local}}. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I also based on the citation had a look on archive.org and found: https://archive.org/details/brightonroadclas00harpiala/page/156, so will further update. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara P. McCarthyEdit

 On 12 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara P. McCarthy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara P. McCarthy disagreed with philologist Rudolf Helm about whether or not Lucian originated a particular form of satiric dialog? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara P. McCarthy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barbara P. McCarthy), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for One-armed versus one-legged cricketEdit

 On 14 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article One-armed versus one-legged cricket, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Greenwich pensioners played one-armed versus one-legged cricket? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/One-armed versus one-legged cricket. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, One-armed versus one-legged cricket), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Satish Bhaskar listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Satish Bhaskar. Since you had some involvement with the Satish Bhaskar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Vanamonde (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Sarah KnaussEdit

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Sarah Knauss. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Nabi TajimaEdit

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Nabi Tajima. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus JudaeorumEdit

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Freddie StockdaleEdit

Thanks for reviewing Freddie Stockdale, Andrew Davidson.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I'm not sure about she passes our notability guidelines. Please add more references.

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

WBGconverse 11:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and I just moved it back to Andrew's userspace. There's no way an article in that state should be left in the mainspace, especially by a user with a record of creating substubs with as many problems as water roux. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
BTW, the source is here. Most of it is behind a paywall, but it's pretty clear Andrew picked up a copy of The Times, read an interesting obituary, and decided to sum up the subject's life in a single "X (birth-death) was a British Y" statement and throw that statement out into a Wikipedia article. It's pretty insulting to the rest of us who go looking for topics who have their own entries in paper encyclopedias but not here, carefully build articles based on what can be gathered about those topics, and only put them into the mainspace once they've reached a certain wordcount and/or have a certain number of citations of a certain number of reliable sources for you to pull stuff like this, Andrew. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Its a different philosophy, that's all. Some editors like to take ownership of a subject, hone it to perfection and then post it. This leaves very little for others to add, and can be quite intimidating. Others see value, in marking a subjects notability by adding a one line stub and letting the article develop, this allows other editors to feel valued and to develop their skills 'wiki-wiki' working co-operatively. Both are valid- both are needed.ClemRutter (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see it as a matter of "liking", though; I don't doubt that in real life I am every bit as lazy as Andrew, and this can be seen (or in theory could be seen) in my earlier articles like the speedy-deleted "1st draft stub" of Utsunomiya Yoritsuna. I would "like" to be able to leave shitty one-sentence drafts in the mainspace and then walk away but the community hates it when I do that, and I haven't seen anything to indicate they feel differently when Andrew does it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew for creating this stub which a quick Google search showed to be highly notable. I have made a start expanding it and will try to do more later. Perhaps others will help out too. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: I don't get it; the concern is not about "notability" but about abominable, one-sentence sub-stubs being left in the mainspace. If you are content to 100% of the work of creating an article but let Andrew have the "article creation" points that's your business, but where were you when the water roux debacle happened? And where will you be the next time? The only reason I'm confident that Andrew's single sentence in this instance was not completely wrong (as everything he wrote in the water roux "article" was) is that I'm fairly confident the one source he consulted probably did say that the person was British. (I'm pretty sure in this case the page as Andrew left it was a potential A7 candidate.) I'm increasingly of the mind that Andrew should have his autopatrolled rights revoked, or be placed under an "AFC only" restriction or the like, given how often this seems to happen. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes it was short but it had the essentials 1) clearly identified the subject 2) made an assertion of notability as an "opera impresario" 3) cited a reliable source. If anyone reviewing it still had doubts all they had to do was quickly Google him to see that he was notable. It took seconds. I often try to catch the obits in The Times but I missed this one and it may have remained missed if Andrew hadn't taken the trouble to get the ball rolling. The evidence for the correctness of Andrew's initial course of action is in the current article. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. There is no rule against having a one line stub if that line actually asserts the claim to notability, and is sourced. The fact that this has now been expanded into something reasonable demonstrates that there was value in Andrew starting this one off.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The above comments make no sense. In both this case and the water roux incident, nothing was done about the article for several days after Andrew's initial problematic 1st draft stub, and then something was only done after I or WBG made a fuss about it -- you might as well thank us for bringing it to the fore. Andrew's initial one-sentence stub didn't assert a claim to notability (no indication was made that the Times obituary was more than a single line, and nothing in the line of text made the person sound particularly notable). The fact that both Amakuru's reversion of the userfication and Philafrenzy's above comment talked about whether the subject "is" notable rather than the actual complaint that the article as Andrew left it (for three days) was only one sentence that didn't make a claim to notability appears to indicate that this is more about issuing a "gotcha" to those who have a problem with Andrew's editing than actually improving the encyclopedia with good articles on notable topics. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, highly notable? You might want to recheck that. WBGconverse 12:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: As you are well aware, "notable" in Wikipedia deletion discussions (which apparently this is...!?) means something different to what it means in everyday speech. If a quick Googling brings up enough hits to constitute "significant coverage" (a phrase whose meaning changes depending on how many editors like Andrew happen to have noticed this or that particular AFD) then the subject is "notable", and if it brings up more hits than expected it is "highly notable". The problem here is that no one was talking about notability, article deletion, or anything like that until Amakuru and Philafranzy brought them up (and also that the more "articles" I see Andrew "create" the more convinced I become that he is one of that class of users whom the community will probably decide sooner or later is not allowed unilaterally publish standalone articles in the mainspace). Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The OP's concern was "I'm not sure about she (sic) passes our notability guidelines." Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. Your article didn't make a claim to notability. That's what I said above. That's different from whether or not the subject is notable. WBG's first comment (and part of my last one) were about a claim to notability, but Philafrenzy and Amakuru were focused on whether the subject was notable in-and-of itself.
Anyway: have you gotten around to re-reading my RM rationale at Talk:Mottainai Grandma? You !voted on the RM without apparently having understood the rationale for moving the page, as you gave a WP:UE rationale when in fact the "English" title refers to a different topic (the barely notable bilingual edition of the first book), not what the article should be focused on (per the prior discussion between myself and User:Curly Turkey.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Monica RossEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Monica Ross at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it's been over 2 weeks since this notification. Are you pursuing the nomination any further or should I close it? Yoninah (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: When I last checked this I thought it was back on track but, if there's more needed, I'll take a look tomorrow. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Andrew Davidson. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Monica Ross.
Message added 00:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Monica Ross at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 On 12 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monica Ross, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the final work of artist Monica Ross was completed on the day of her death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monica Ross. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monica Ross), 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.

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sue JelleyEdit

FYI Someone uploaded one of your images to commons as their own image - c:File:Sue Jelley PPSWA SPF.jpg. I've tagged it for deletion, and I've copied your one to commons (and left the local copy here as requested). Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Sustainability InitiativeEdit

Hello Andrew Davidson: An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 09:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I planted several trees recently as part of the Trees for Cities programme. I started the plogging page and will go for a pick-up run now to further improve the environment. Andrew D. (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talkingEdit

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Infinity GauntletEdit

Hi Andrew,

About a year ago, you read Infinity Gauntlet and reviewed it for a DYK. I've put it up for FAC, and I'd appreciate any comments you may have. The discussion is here.

Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll take a look and comment if I have anything to say. Andrew D. (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline in insect populationsEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • GMOs and pesticides seem to be Kingofaces43's hobbyhorse not mine, but I shall bear this in mind. Note that there are similar strictures about climate change as a result of another case. Andrew D. (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You've already been warned multiple times, so I'll be blunt. Since you're chosen to edit war content and violate the discretionary sanctions instead, you need to undo your recent edit warring, and if I or others have to remove the content again and you reinsert, the discretionary sanctions will be enforced this time. I've been very patient with you since you're new on that front, but you've had enough warnings now. Arbs were very clear that what you are trying to do would be considered gaming and still violate 1RR, so it's time to knock it off and actually gain consensus for something like we're supposed to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Kingofaces43 has tried this line of argument before and it failed when AE found that this topic of insect decline was not within the scope of the GMO case. In any case, it's Kingofaces43 that is most out of order – repeating disruptive edits without consensus, using weak sources, misrepresenting the precedent, making threats, &c. And, let's remember what this is about. Sources such as National Geographic explain Why insect populations are plummeting—and why it matters. There is clearly a notable topic here and so it's quite puzzling that Kingofaces43 is so hostile towards such reputable sources. Andrew D. (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
That AE did not find that the topic was out of scope. The content specifically does involve pesticides, though some admins were initially confused by the case name thinking it only applied to GMOs, so please don't try to circumvent the DS anymore, especially the expectation that you don't edit war your content back in as means of avoiding getting talk page consensus. Also, please don't blatantly misrepresent me, especially since WP:ASPERSIONS is part of the DS. I've already told you multiple times how the topic of insect decline was already being handled at insect biodiversity and needed more fleshing out there, so to characterize me as otherwise is just getting into poor drama raising. If you're really interested in working on the content, we've already been discussing it significantly at other pages on what is actually needed for proper sourcing (which you went around during your article creation), and the diversity page is waiting for someone to actually work on it more than I gave it an initial revamp to. Kingofaces43 (talk)
  • The AE close is "The article edits in question do not fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Luquillo Experimental ForestEdit

When you first nominated your article at DYK, I was very sceptical of a wholesale decline in insects, and I still do not like a review stating, here are the results of a small number of studies - these show that insect populations around the world are collapsing. However, I accept there are some declines and I looked into the Puerto Rico study. I wrote an article on the Luquillo Experimental Forest with this result, and I thought the hook might please you. The Puerto Rico researchers attributed their findings to a rise in temperatures over the period of 2°C and thought tropical insects might be particularly susceptible to a rise in temperature. Being cynical, I think that attributing an effect to climate change is a good way to get your research study accepted for publication. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cwmhiraeth: Thanks. It's good to clarify the locations of these studies but I reckon that we already have an article for this one. I shall suggest a merger at the relevant talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Decline in insect populationsEdit

 On 21 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Decline in insect populations, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some insect populations have declined dramatically? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Decline in insect populations. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Decline in insect populations), 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, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah, climate change is a real thing. Just wait and see what happens when the bees continue to die off. Without pollination, food supplies will be affected: see No Bees, No Food. North America1000 13:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  The Resilient Barnstar
Decline in insect populations deserved a DYK and a place on the main page. It wouldn't bee there without your persistence in the face of adversity. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 12:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's an interesting topic which we can all relate to. I suppose that there's lots more to come as more studies are done but we shall see... Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to say hello, Andrew, a little bit about the insects in my life. I mostly follow a lazy gardener method, so have to know a little about increasing diversity. My garden rewards me with some organism I have never before as poke, pile and scatter my green 'waste' around, and because I live next to a biodiversity hotspot there is always new and extraordinary insects taking advantage of re-opened habitat. All this gets me a lot of reptiles (and, or including, birds) visiting or residing, but most remarkable of all is that I now have bats foraging overhead for insects in the evening. The highlight of my year so far, I try to count the wins and ignore the losses as best I can. Kudos for your admirable efforts on the article. cygnis insignis 03:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: That's good. When I used a bat detector in our local area, I found that there were more than I expected or could easily see in the twilight. There are very few reptiles here but there are plenty of amphibians. After a recent parkrun, I noticed that there were thousands of tadpoles in the lake there. I must upload a picture while I remember... Andrew D. (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A warrior's drinkEdit

  juice. North America1000 19:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure why you are honouring me with this news but I do like a few prunes for breakfast with my muesli or porridge. It is good to find another with similar tastes... Andrew D. (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Trying to get others to hopefully collaborate. As usual, it's been slow going. Worf told me to thank you for your addition to the article! North America1000 21:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  juice. North America1000 02:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

juice, created by Catfurball North America1000 22:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

List of deadliest animals to humans speedy keepEdit

Andrew, given that I and several others have questioned your AFD !votes for speedy keep as being a misinterpretation of the policy (here, for example), I really think you should not be unilaterally shutting down AFD discussions based on said misinterpretation, as you did here. The nom was not actually the only person !voting for something other than "keep", as ansh666 (talk · contribs) pointed out that WP:TNT applied, and said that their !vote would only change to "keep" if the article was improved significantly, which it wasn't, and even had the nom been alone in thinking the article shouldn't be kept, your close actually came across like you didn't read their comment: you didn't address The source gives no information about how this list was determined, so "due to any type of cause of death" has simply been made up by the person who wrote this article., The source lists a total mish-mash of species, genera and higher-level taxons, for example all snakes are lumped together., and so on -- the list having an apparently arbitrary set of inclusion criteria, and relying on a combination of WP:OR and an external source with equally arbitrary criteria is a pretty good deletion rationale, IMO.

I'm not saying that if you self-reverted and changed your super-!vote to a regular !vote that I would necessarily show up to disagree with you (I actually noticed it on ARS earlier, and had decided it wasn't worth the effort of forming an opinion), but your recent action is so completely out of line I can't imagine anyone sincerely thinking it appropriate.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Both discussions seemed ripe for closure and the speedy keep process is there to be used in such circumstances. This is avoid wasting time on further unnecessary discussion. It doesn't appear that you actually want to discuss these topics yourself and so we seem to agree that further discussion is not needed. But if other editors want to persist then they should take the matter to WP:DRV. Andrew D. (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Annie Nicolette Zadoks Josephus JittaEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Annie Nicolette Zadoks Josephus Jitta at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alex ShihTalk 03:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  • No, I don't know the exact date. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Andrew Davidson, Do you still have the original image of File:Annie N. Josephus Jitta by Hendrik Maarten Krabbé from the collection of J.C. Zadoks.jpg? The painter died in 1931, so there's no need to only display a lowres image. I think the image could also be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in higher res. Is that a correct assumption? Vysotsky (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: My upload was at a higher resolution but someone has deleted that version. I suppose that an admin can recover it so you might try WP:REFUND but I don't have that power myself. I'm not sure if I kept the image file but will keep an eye out for it.
Also, it's a curious coincidence that you should ask about it as I was re-reading that article earlier today when it appeared on my watchlist for a different reason.
Andrew D. (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
"There Are No Coincidences". Vysotsky (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: Aha, I suppose that you monitor the category which was added. Anyway, I have done some digging using the Wayback Machine and find that the URL that I specified for the image changed as a result of some site maintenance: it is now this. Note that there's an option to download the image and also that there are lots of other images by the same artist on that site. I will update the resolution and licensing for that particular image in line with your suggestion while you could investigate the other images. Ok? Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for digging up the pearls. I will retreat my request for undeletion and upload the image to Commons myself. I only need this 1 image. Vysotsky (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Education GreenhouseEdit

Apply for Education Greenhouse


Are you passionate about open education? Do you have an idea to apply Wikimedia projects to an education initiative but don’t know where to start? Join the the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse! It is an immersive co-learning experience that lasts 9 months and will equip you with the skills, knowledge and support you need to bring your ideas to life. You can apply as a team or as an individual, by May 12th. Find out more Education Greenhouse. For more information reachout to mguadalupe wikimedia.org

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andrew! This is Melissa Guadalupe Huertas from the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm sending you this message because you expressed your interest in joining the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse as a volunteer collaborator. Thank you so much for that! I'm currently contacting interested volunteers to confirm their participation and invite them to a videocall next week. During this short videocall we will go over shared roles, synchronize timelines, and get to know each other! I will also answer any questions you may have about your participation. I would really appreciate it if you could contact me via email (mguadalupe@wikimedia.org) to discuss further details. Cheers! --MGuadalupe (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I have replied by email. Andrew D. (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

a starEdit

  The Special Barnstar
You are a great editor! Lubbad85 () 02:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"incipient deletion spree"Edit

Andrew, I expect a response to this. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to use ARS as a forum to attack other editors. I honestly don't know what kind of place it was before 14 months ago, and I don't much care to find out, but badmouthing good-faith AFD nominators who (in at least one of the cases you linked) are 100% right on the policy is not an appropriate use for it in 2019. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ian McDonald (civil servant)Edit

A tag has been placed on File:Ian McDonald.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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 "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 deleted 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. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 On 14 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ian McDonald (civil servant), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 22:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Resilient Barnstar
A WORKIN' MAN, A WORKIN' MAN,
Hurray Hurray for a Workin' Man
He'll navvy and sweat till he's nearly bet,
THE GIFT OF GOD IS A WORKIN' MAN!
Jem Casey

Keep up the good work. Illegitimi non carborundum 7&6=thirteen () 17:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks, you're most welcome. That poet needs more recognition and so I have made a start... Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wholesomeness listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wholesomeness. Since you had some involvement with the Wholesomeness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

GoldenEdit

From what I can tell Golden is a for profit company? If so I'm not so interested in creating free content for them even if I do like elements of what's going on there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • All the content you write for Wikipedia is made available "for any purpose, even commercially". So, Golden can freely take your fine articles, such as Wolf in the Snow, and republish them. The significant differences seem to be that they will make it easier to write such content and that they won't so lightly delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I get that (and really they could find better articles of mine than Wolf in the Snow) and they are publishing under a CCSA 4 license themselves. But it feels different writing for something which is being used for a for-profit rather than non-profit motive. YMMV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019Edit

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
 
Text mining display of noun phrases from the US Presidential Election 2012
 

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Semantic Web and TDM – a ContentMine view

Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.

It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).

Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"

The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.

The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.

ScienceSourceReview, introductory video: but you need run it from the original upload file on Commons
Links for participation

The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue.

Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.


If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Derrick MorrisEdit

 On 23 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Derrick Morris, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Derrick Morris received a new heart in 1980 his chances of survival were slim, but he lived another 25 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Derrick Morris. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Derrick Morris), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Game of ThronesEdit

I notice you've closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrcella Baratheon after the discussion was only held for fewer than four days. This is despite the discussion having not met any of the conditions for early closure. I believe the discussion still had value as, even if no pages were deleted as a result of this discussion, a course of action was being decided on to show what articles were notable and which weren't. --TedEdwards 15:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The discussion was closed per the Snowball clause. There was no consensus to delete but a general feeling that the subjects would be best considered individually. Such further discussion should therefore take place on the separate talk pages for those articles. More general discussion can continue at forums such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire which did not appear to have been notified. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh sorry, didn't notice the link in the pun. Thank you anyway. --TedEdwards 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scriptsEdit

Hello, Andrew. I'm planning on a rewrite of decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts, and I've written up a draft of what's going to be the central section at User:A. Parrot/sandbox. The final article will cover the nature of the scripts, the pre-Rosetta efforts on hieroglyphs, and the work done after the mid-1820s, but as this is the section that addresses everything from the discovery of the Rosetta Stone to Champollion's Précis, it's the crucial one. I think I've managed a pretty careful examination of which scholar accomplished what and when, and an even-handed treatment of the priority dispute between Young and Champollion, but I'm seeking second opinions. Given that you worked on the article on the Rosetta Stone, your opinion would be valuable.

Please ignore anything contained between percent signs; I use them to denote text I'm unsure of, or notes to myself.

I've tried to write the article in British English because the only English-speaking participants in the story were British, but Americanisms have probably crept in. Feel free to correct any you find. And a final question—should Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy be called "Silvestre de Sacy", "de Sacy", or "Sacy" when referring to him by his surname? The sources I'm using can't seem to agree! A. Parrot (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "De Sacy" seems sufficient. I'll take a look at your draft and watch those pages. I recall some recent related activity at the WCC so there may be some useful connections there. Andrew D. (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. A. Parrot (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, now I feel like an idiot—the Andrew who worked on the Rosetta Stone article was Andrew Dalby, not you. I'm afraid I've always confused the two of you. (I suppose this is the advantage of usernames: more varied names mean less chance of errors like mine.) Anyway, I've given him the message I gave you. If you want to comment on the article text, feel free, but if not, I encourage you to forget my silly mistake! A. Parrot (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Eton ShirtsEdit

Hi Andrew, I just saw that you opposed the deletion of the article about Eton Shirts. Since I am trying to understand why it was proposed to be deleted in the first place I just wanted to ask you if there is anything to be done to remove the proposed deletion tag and get the article fully accepted? Or does it, according to you, work as it is without any further changes? Swe jon (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Swe jon: The reason stated was "Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT requirements of in-depth analysis in multiple media. A smattering of routine business transactions and exec transitions does not satisfy." I have rejected that proposal per WP:DEPROD and so it is done. Other proposals of a stronger sort might be made but the article is on my watchlist now and I would continue to defend it. The most pressing need, IMO, is some images for the article, especially historical ones. The copyright issues can be challenging so I recommend that you study Help:Pictures. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and your thorough answer. There is a lot of historical pictures from the 30's, 40's and 50's which could be uploaded since they, as far as I understand when I read about it, is ok from a copyright perspective? The photographer is most likely dead as well as unknown to anyone alive today, the only information available is roughly the year (or decennium) when they were created. With my COI I'm a bit unsure how to proceed with the updates of the article. Is it ok for me to upload pictures to Wiki Commons and ask someone else to add them to the article or could I even do it all the way by myself? I'm very keen not to violate the rules of the Wikipedia-community. Swe jon (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, Coming back to you on this topic. There is now some historical pictures from the 1930s available at Wiki Commons. They have recently been added to the swedish page for Eton Shirts. Since I'm keen on not overstepping any boundaries on Wikipedia (I have a declared COI) I just wanted to reach out and ask you for your advice. Should I upload the pictures or ask for help?Swe jon (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Swe jon: Thanks for the update. I looked at the Swedish article and have added most of the images to the English article. I have not formatted these as a gallery because these are sometimes attacked by editors who don't like them. Me, I like lots of pictures and it's good that we have some now. Thanks for your contribution. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: Thank you! I agree with you that it's nice with pictures and will let you know if I stumble upon anything else that could be interesting for the article. I'm not even sure that the shirt on the picture is an Eton shirt so that could be a good starter. Swe jon (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Membership renewalEdit

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.


Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Tall buildings in Jersey CityEdit

If you are going to remove Prod templates en masse, at least have the courtesy to provide an explanation. Although I know it is not a requirement, WP:DEPROD states "You are strongly encouraged" to "explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." It would really help me to actually believe that you are acting in good faith if you did so. Also, if you do have legitimate reasons to remove the PROD, could you at least do so in a reasonable amount of time? (ie. not mere hours before the seven day period is about to expire)--Rusf10 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Twinkle makes it easy to propose or nominate lots of articles like this. Opposing such deletions is more laborious because it has to be done manually, without any scripted assistance. For a bundle of that kind, with common features, it is more efficient to discuss them centrally. As for the timing, this is unimportant because the WP:REFUND process applies regardless. I patrol CAT:ALLPROD and that sorts the articles alphabetically, not by day. Andrew D. (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
How laborious is it to remove a PROD? All you have to do is revert and type an edit summary, seems pretty easy to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I do that and more besides but you seem to want something more. That usually happens when you escalate by starting an AfD. It would save effort for both of us if you cut out the Prod step altogether. Per WP:PROD, it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" and you should expect opposition in such cases. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Richard HaineEdit

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A starEdit

  The Civility Barnstar
Keep up the great work! You are valued here! Lubbad85 ()(Edits) 19:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


WP:CEN is now open!Edit

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJLTalk 17:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Maria Grzegorzewska – Help with a resource?Edit

I am struggling to find a non-digital resource and Ritchie333 thought maybe you could help me? While creating an article on Józefa Joteyko, I discovered a stub on Maria Grzegorzewska, on which the only ref link was dead. As you can see, I have now virtually finished Joteyko and Grzegorzewska, but I am looking photographs. This thesis (images on pages 20 and 28), has some photographs which indicate they were taken from a non-digitized book Maria Grzegorzewska. Materiały z sesji naukowej-7.XI.1969 r. published in 1972. If indeed they were published in 1972 without a copyright notice, they would be usable because Polish photographs published prior to 1994 without a notice are in the PD. So, I am on a quest to find the book and basically need to know what photos are in it, the page numbers, and if it is copyrighted.
Supposedly, there is a copy of it at the The British Library, St. Pancras, London, NW1 2DB United Kingdom This seems to indicate that it is part of the Library "system" and can be delivered to other locations??? Ideally, if there is no copyright, any photos of Grzegorzewska in the book can be uploaded as in the PD in Poland. I am keen to have the 1913 one of her when she arrived in Belgium for the Joteyko article and a later one of her for her own article. I totally get it if you don't have time, but will be thrilled if you can make time to help. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @SusunW: I have access to the Reading Rooms at the British Library and so can look at the book there and copy any pictures. I was there just two days ago while attending another event next door but I don't have any immediate plans to go back. I'll give some thought to when I might go again. Do you have a particular timetable or deadline for this work? Andrew D. (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Drat, wish I had known. Such is life. Not particularly urgent, but I don't want to nominate either article for GA without photos. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @SusunW: I'll try to fit it in in a week or two. It will also be an opportunity to consult other offline sources needed for other articles so I'll review what else is pending. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Gracias mi amigo. Very much appreciated. SusunW (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey Andrew Davidson, just thought I'd check in, not pressuring you, to see if you have been able to schedule a trip to the Reading Rooms? SusunW (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Finally my backlog of GA nominations has cleared and I think I can get Maria Grzegorzewska ready to nominate, but I still have no photos. Any chance you are planning on going to the Reading Rooms at the British Library soon? SusunW (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: I don't have any immediate plans but will see what I can do. Let me think on't. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently in the LSE Library and have tried their catalogue but no joy yet. In the meantime, I've added an image of a statue which is a start. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Fingers crossed. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

CyclingEdit

[9] Please help me: whereas it is accepted that automobile club and automobile association are two different things, you appear to be of the opinion that this is not the case for the realm of bicycles, correct? Please do at least try to give an explanation why, before undoing my work. If you have a reason, I will listen. -- Kku (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Both of those titles are redirects, not article titles, and none of those titles use the word "organization" which is quite a vague term in English. As for cars, in England the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association are much the same thing -- mainly concerned with breakdown services and other membership benefits. Anyway, the matter is best discussed on the article talk page, as others seem to contest your view too. Andrew D. (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
"Club" appears to indicate something quite small and endearing (DIY and Sunday trips to the countryside). An "association" in this context (if you like that better) may have a political motivation and some social thrust behind it. I may be mislead by the general usage of those terms vs. historically evolved naming conventions in the cycling world. -- Kku (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A starEdit

  The Purple Barnstar
You endure it and keep on making Wikipedia better! Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Susan BeschtaEdit

 On 30 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Susan Beschta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Susan Beschta was a punk rocker and federal judge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Beschta. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Susan Beschta), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Anna B. EcksteinEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Anna B. Eckstein at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Enwebb (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

9,165 hits.

Canned HeatEdit

  Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 537 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I archive manually and that takes time and effort. Checking others, I find that EEng is about 1110K and DGG is about 740K. The latter has topical archives and that's a format that I like so I'll be comparing notes to see how they manage their larger talk pages. I don't want to invest too much effort into a custom format though because the WMF is working on this too and WP:TPC19 may provide a general solution. Apropos the AfD, I do like Canned Heat's On the Road Again which is on my cycling playlist. Recommendations of other good tracks are also welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Birds and the bees – sourcing help please.Edit

Hi there, I met you at the insect population decline article. You seem to be a very experienced editor and perhaps you can help me. I know that WP prefers secondary sources but it is my understanding that in certain circumstances a primary source is OK to use as long as it is used correctly. Today this source has been removed from the Neonicotinoid article [10] Considering that it was published in such a prestigious journal I feel that it would be reasonable to include at least one or two sentences that mention the study when the alternative is to wait years and years for a review to come out. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Gandydancer: That's quite a fine level of detail so I'd want to review the overall context for the issue first. I recently noticed a report of a significant decline in bird populations in North America – see Decline of the North American avifauna and BBC coverage. I was thinking that an article about a general decline in bird populations would be appropriate, following the pattern of the similar articles for amphibians and insects. The most relevant page we have currently seems to be bird conservation. I'll put these pages on my watchlist and take it from there. Andrew D. (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. If you check the neonic talk page you can see that the efforts to get any new findings into the article have been going on for years but using one reason or another -- it's too soon, it's a primary study, and it does not pass our WP:MEDRS guidelines (as though birds and bees are tiny little humans), and such, it has been a struggle. As for using a primary study, both MastCell and WhatamIdoing say they are OK if used properly.
I hope you do make an article to address the decrease of the bird population. I've seen the decrease over the years and even in the last 12 years, going back to the time we bought our farm here in Maine, I'd see a small number of bats fly out of the barn every evening for the first few years but it went down to zero bats. Same thing for mud swallows -- the barn is plastered (inside) with their nests so clearly at one time they were very numerous. The first few years I saw a few pairs but it quickly dwindled to nothing as well. It really is quite heartbreaking. Gandydancer (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gage Creed (character)]Edit

Your critique is spot on MrCleanOut (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A pintEdit

 
Gimme that

Who knows, maybe I'll take you up someday on that pint you offered me a few years back or so when in London, maybe more. As Rob Halford said, some folks are a ten pint a nighter. Rocka Rolla, North America1000 17:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. When I received that, I was actually having a lighter Portuguese beer (right), which is more to my taste. Cheers! Andrew D. (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hotel MontclairEdit

With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Montclair, FYI: the building was demolished and replaced by apartments. Djflem (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • So I gather. But the relevant principle is that notability does not expire and so this is not significant. Most buildings are demolished at some point – see Blossom's Inn for an example which I worked on. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Dogs at polling stationsEdit

Hi Andrew, I was patrolling the new files feed and came across this image. I mainly looked at it because I love dogs, however I did notice you palces the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license on the image. The image is actually CC-BY-2.0. I updated the license so it was correct on the file. Just wanted to drop you a note to explain the change. Happy editing! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cameron11598: Thanks for the explanation and it's good of you to fix the issue rather than just tagging it as so many other patrollers do. Here's some further explanation.
The image was uploaded for a new article which I started at an election editathon. This was sponsored by Wikimedia UK and was covered by multiple journalists looking for an novel way to cover the election results from one location. I was naturally keen to make a good impression by getting this done quickly.
I checked the licence when I found the image. I usually upload images via the upload file page. This has a dropdown menu for the licensing options. It seems hard to get the selection exactly right because, for example, it only lists CC 4.0, not earlier versions. So, I selected what seemed to be the best of available options and pressed on.
I was able to get the article off to a reasonable start and so it has received attention in the journalistic coverage and on social media. I have used the same image on other platforms and they typically make the process of attaching images much simpler and easier. Wikimedia needs to keep up and so perhaps the dropdown menu can be revised to make this clearer. I'm not sure where it is maintained though.
The article helped generate some light-hearted, feel-good banter at the event which was helpful as the election was naturally a sensitive, political issue. Studies have found that "dogs may provide social support, improve performance, and increase social interactions" and so "Google, Amazon, and Etsy have well-publicized policies permitting their employees to bring their dogs to work". We need more dogs at Wikipedia too!
Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andrew! I definitely agree Wikipedia needs more dogs :). Additionally I do think the image upload form could probably use an overhaul. Not sure if you'd be interested but perhaps we could work on getting that on the 2020 community wishlist? A bit of an interesting fact California's previous governor Jerry Brown actually used to bring his dog into the office with him a few times a week. Unfortunately Sutter passed away during the governor's term in office. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Media coverage of catsEdit

Hi Andrew Davidson, thanks for your input regarding the above. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of cats (2nd nomination) The discussion was IMO terribly one-sided. I also believe that "tunnel thinking" by some of the others and the following of the leader kind of approach didn't help either. Your comment of "This seems to be a reasonable start on the topic and the worst case should be merger with a page such as cultural depictions of cats or cats and the Internet" was one that made a lot of sense. I accept that what I have an opinion of is not always correct. In saying that the cat media is to cat lovers a valid and important source of news for these people. To these people, "Cat News" is important as what they would hear on CBS News. Some of the strongest passions that can be invoked are ones that involve cats. Sadly I believe some people will never be able to think outside the general view that cats are furry creatures that purr and you feed them at meal time. Anyway, I have re-done & redirected The Purrington Post to Cats and the Internet. Thanks again and best wishes for the upcoming holiday season.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. I'm currently working on articles about dogs, myself. If you want to do more work on cats, then tiger versus lion will always provide a challenge! Also noticed that herding cats is just a disambiguation and so maybe there's more we can do there... Andrew🐉(talk) 00:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Newspaper bagEdit

 
A newspaper in a protective plastic newspaper bag.

In the US home delivery newspapers are usually wrapped in a plastic bag to protect them from rain and being spread by the wind. — xaosflux Talk 20:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

And now there is a stub-article on this topic :) — xaosflux Talk 21:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: That's good to know. And well done on creating the article – we're one closer to six million now. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for assistanceEdit

  Resolved

I saw, your a currently active page-mover, DolbyPedia has been moving stuff around erratically, and obviously I can't move it back so I could use your help. Most of those pages are also semi-protected so if you could help in reverting as well I would appreciate it, thanks.

I don't see any need to report this user just yet unless they remain unresponsive as they are still new. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm rather busy with the six millionth article currently and, in any case, am not sure of the details of this case. I'll take a look when I get a free moment but suggest you try some more general forum like WP:ANI if it's urgent. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Last I checked they'd stopped, I'll check back and contact an admin if it has resumed, thanks. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It resumed, but an admin is on it, so nothing further needed, thanks for the fast response. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

6th Millionth ArticleEdit

The community has determined that you were a runner-up to the 6th million article, having created Castle Folds in the same minute as the 6th millionth. Congratulations, and thank you for your work here! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'm pleased to have achieved something as it was quite a shock to have prepared a dozen article drafts and then have them all vanish when my browser crashed. I scrambled to recover them and saved Castle Folds especially as I visited the area last year and so have more to add. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Close, Andrew! Johnbod (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Especially well done, considering the browser crash. I've been getting a lot of Firefox crashes lately. Thought it was having too many open tabs, but it looks like having a too full second hard drive (which the system backs up to) may be the culprit. Edwardx (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It may be been an IP disconnect as it was about 12 hours since I started the session. Murphy's Law! Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Swietenia Puspa LestariEdit

A shocking deletion; there are clearly plenty of sources, albeit many not in English. In case you haven't seen, it's been parked at Draft:Swietenia Puspa Lestari. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

ArchivingEdit

Your talk page has 404,142 bytes of markup. Please archve most of it (and do so regularly). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I spent some time in the New Year period setting up a suitable structure and archived or cleared about 150K. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Leonard MontefioreEdit

Hi, thank you for the support; I just published an article about Leonard on dewiki. I used many sources, but trough an unknown, unreproducable error on the Oxford DNB I could read the whole entry without being logged in. So that's where many information come from. Best wishes --Keks by 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Der Keks:. Thanks for the update. I can look after the English version as I have full access to the DNB normally. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh really?! I requested a free account over their PR-email address via my wikipedia email address. Maybe they give me one :) The WDO for the right Leonard is Q75850309 --22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Keks (talkcontribs)

  Hello! Your submission of Leonard G. Montefiore at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Edda TasiemkaEdit

 On 7 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edda Tasiemka, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edda Tasiemka was known as the "human Google"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edda Tasiemka. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Edda Tasiemka), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

5,141 + 113 = 5,254 hits in 12 hours

DYK nomination of Clarice PhelpsEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Clarice Phelps at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ann ClarkeEdit

What were the "possibilities" with which you created this redirect? There seems no mention of an "Ann" at the target page. It's now been retargeted, but I just wondered. PamD 13:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I suppose that the name is a common one and that the title should now become a disambiguation page. The person I meant was covered here. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. It would have been helpful if you'd included that source and a mention of her name while making the redirect, wto give us a clue. I've now added her to her husband's article and to Frozen Ark, and mentioned her at Anne McLaren, and made the redirect into a dab page... though I suspect we'd be better off if we combined Ann/Anne dab pages. PamD 18:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Castle Folds and Great Asby ScarEdit

 On 12 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Castle Folds, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Castle Folds is surrounded by Great Asby Scar (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Castle Folds. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Castle Folds), 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.
 On 12 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great Asby Scar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Castle Folds is surrounded by Great Asby Scar (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Great Asby Scar), 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, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

= 6937 + 6516 = 13,453 hits in 12 hours.

CoronavirusEdit

Add your opinion here please. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (2nd nomination) - snow close". Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Henry SpellerEdit

Andrew Davidson, I was wondering whether you could return to your review of this nomination and see whether the sources subsequently provided by Gerda Arendt have addressed your concerns. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'll take another look. Thanks for the prompt. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Clarice PhelpsEdit

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

2,865 page hits.

Simultaneous image upload!Edit

I just uploaded

 
The Blue Lagoon at Harpur Hill Quarry, off Burlow Road, Buxton

to Wikipedia commons! Great minds think alike, I guess... --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Indeed. I suppose we both read the article Harpur Hill Quarry which is at DYK currently. The puzzle is why the main authors user:Auric and user:Dumelow didn't add an image but perhaps the bureaucracy and technicalities are too intimidating. As a picture is worth 1000 words, it's well worth getting the hang of this. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Leonard G. MontefioreEdit

 On 9 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leonard G. Montefiore, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Leonard Montefiore organised an airlift of hundreds of Jewish orphans who had survived Nazi concentration camps? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leonard G. Montefiore. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Leonard G. Montefiore), 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) 00:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

3,385 on the day; over 6,791 over 7 days -- unusual pattern

ITN recognition for Althea McNishEdit

 On 19 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Althea McNish, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Venezuelan patrol boat NaiguatáEdit

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

15,470 hits.

Welcome templateEdit

*Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#‎RfC on welcome template standardisation--Moxy 🍁 11:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RFA commentEdit

I'll reply here so as not to leave acrimonious comments on the permanent record of an RFA that's certain to pass, but regarding your comment here, it seems to demonstrate the exact opposite of what you're saying. Taking the first ten entries at User:Andrew Davidson/Main Page Errors#Did You Know that relate to errors-as-promoted—that is, discounting "someone changed it after it was posted" issues where the reviewer & promoter can't be blamed—by my count CH was responsible for 50% of them (Template:Did you know nominations/Amy H. Herring, Template:Did you know nominations/Tetrakis(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)borate, Template:Did you know nominations/Ba (gastropod), Template:Did you know nominations/City of London swords & Template:Did you know nominations/Dinosaur dental histology). Sure, it's not sole responsibility—the whole point of DYK having both a reviewer and a promoter is theoretically so that everything gets double-checked so in each of these cases CH was one of two people to fail to spot the error and the other person (and of course the person who nominated it in the first place) are equally to blame—but it doesn't tally with "I'm not finding much". ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  • None of those examples seem serious nor does Cwmhiraeth stand out as especially culpable. And, whatever was done there, was done without admin tools and I doubt that being an admin would make much difference to such issues. The admin tools will mainly matter for keeping the queues moving and the protections placed. Anyway, we shall see... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SDlinkBuilder scriptEdit

I added some documentation for my script at SDlinkBuilder — I also (unwisely?) renamed the script. — GhostInTheMachine (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@GhostInTheMachine: Thanks. That gives me a reasonable idea of how it works and I'll try it again when I'm updating my article lists. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for White storkEdit

 On 18 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article White stork, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 at Women in RedEdit

Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ITN recognition for Crew Dragon Demo-2Edit

 On 30 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Crew Dragon Demo-2, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2020 Norilsk oil spillEdit

 On 7 June 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Norilsk oil spill, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Introduction pageEdit

PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I had already started looking at that. IIRC, I agree with your position on this but am not sure that I have sufficient interest to go through the details. Generally, it seems quite creepy per Parkinson's Law. Some evidence such as A/B testing would be sensible and that's a job for the WMF. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Fever hospitalEdit

 On 12 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fever hospital, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fever hospitals, for infectious patients, were once the most common type of hospital in England and Wales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fever hospital. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fever hospital), 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.

—valereee (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

2,262 views

Nomination of De Bethel cats for deletionEdit

 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020Edit

Hello Andrew Davidson,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Suppression of IPs of IP editorsEdit

Over at VP you mention that there may be something afoot about the WMF suppressing the addresses of IP editors. Is that being discussed somewhere where I might catch up and weigh in? Do you have a link? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2020Edit

This Month in Education

Volume 9 • Issue 6 • June 2020


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issuse

"Large city" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Large city. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Large city until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Tiny car" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tiny car. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Tiny car until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Leo WetzelsEdit

Hello - you deprodded this article but there are no sources, and I cannot find any. Could you point me in the right direction for reliable sourcing please? Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I have provided some details at the article's talk page. That's the best place to discuss the topic, so that all editors with an interest in the topic may particpate. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tirril BreweryEdit

 

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3Edit

 
On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop.

Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:

  • The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
  • More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
  • Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
  • The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
  • Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
  • On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
  • In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2020Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

ITN recognition for C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE)Edit

 On 14 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The comet was visible on the main page until 20:17, 28 July 2020 – over two weeks! Is this a record? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Special purpose UK railway stations for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Special purpose UK railway stations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about Joseph Henderson pilotEdit

Hi Andrew. I appreciate your vote to keep the Joseph Henderson (pilot) page. It has been around since 2007. Let me know your thoughts on keeping it? --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. I have nothing to add at this time but will continue to watch the article and discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

List of hospitals in AngolaEdit

Following an exchange with a participant, I agree that I may have closed the AfD too early. I have reopened the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hospitals in Angola in order to generate additional comments and to tentatively reach a consensus. The article has been restored in the meantime. Thank you for your contributions! Olivier (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Rescue from Deletion BarnstarEdit

  The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar
I, Keeper, award user:Andrew Davidson with this star for saving Akron Ice House from melting away and speedy demise. As the AfD is going well, and the correct outcome should follow, you should consider this article as one that you've created...Great work! 7&6=thirteen () 15:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Georgetown BagelryEdit

Well ... no doubt you've found out-of-area substantive coverage in reliable sources that satisfy WP:AUD. What are they, please? Ravenswing 11:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I mainly recalled being taken to a bagel shop in Brick Lane by Edward after an all-night editathon. That is reasonably notable and so I supposed that this other place is too. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Permit me a moment to push my jaw back into place. You're seriously saying that you deprodded an article because you went to some other bagel shop and you think that bagel shops are presumptively notable??? Ravenswing 17:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing's user page says that "This user is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. This user may choose to work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict." Proposing lots of articles for deletion does not seem to fit this prescription. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 at Women in RedEdit

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media:   Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

File source problem with File:Hamilton McWhorter.jpgEdit

 

Thank you for uploading File:Hamilton McWhorter.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc () 14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-32Edit

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)