ArchivesEdit

/2007 •
/2008 1 - 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 2009 January
/Archive 2009 February
/Archive 2009 March
/Archive 2009 April
/Archive 2009 May
/Archive 2009 June
/Archive 2009 July
/Archive 2009 September
/Archive 2009 October
/Archive 2009 November
/Archive 2009 December
/Archive 2010 January
/Archive 2010 February
/Archive 2010 March
/Archive 2010 April
/Archive 2010 May
/Archive 2010 June
/Archive 2010 July
/Archive 2010 August
/Archive 2010 September
/Archive 2010 October
/Archive 2010 November
/Archive 2010 December
/Archive 2011 January
/Archive 2011 February
/Archive 2011 March
/Archive 2011 April
/Archive 2011 May
/Archive 2011 June
/Archive 2011
/Archive 2012
/Archive 2013
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 2014
/Archive 2015
/Archive 2016
/Archive 2017
/Archive 2018
/Archive 2019

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Gerard's mass removalsEdit

Andy, thanks for standing up for common sense against Gerard's ongoing removal of usable information in his mass purge of references using The Sun and other sources deprecated (or in reality, "advised as deprecated in most circumstances"). Often this purge is simply removing completely uncontroversial material entirely. His edit summaries are often patently false and I've asked him to stop, but he continues regardless. The more of us that reject this approach, the better. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Addition of deprecated sources to Wikipedia articlesEdit

You are continuing to add deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles, e.g.: [1] [2] [3] [4] - despite the deprecation of the Daily Mail as a source in two RFCs and The Sun as a source in one RFC.

From the 2017 WP:DAILYMAIL RFC: "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

From the 2019 Sun RFC: "References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and they shall neither be used for determining the notability of any subject."

I appreciate that you personally disagree with the removal of deprecated sources. However, as WP:DEPRECATED describes it: "Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists so that we can save time by not repeatedly discussing or explaining the same issues, and to increase awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question." Demanding repeated relitigation of the deprecation of a source such as the Daily Mail is a waste of other editors' time.

As you have noted in previous discussions, the deprecation does not forbid all use of the Daily Mail as a source in articles. However, the two RFCs show a strong general consensus that its use is "generally prohibited". This means that any use of it needs a strong consensus - and not just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as that cannot override a general consensus, per the Arbitration Committee's 2013 statement of principles on levels of consensus. A consensus would need to be a general consensus - in an appropriate venue, such as the Reliable sources noticeboard.

I also appreciate that you feel your edits were completely correct and appropriate. However, you still need to obtain consensus for such inherently controversial edits, per WP:ONUS - which is policy - "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content."

The Daily Mail has been ruled a generally prohibited source in two RFCs; as such, the onus is upon you to seek a general level of consensus to override the general consensus of those two RFCs, before adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles.

Nor can you claim that you do not understand that adding deprecated sources to a Wikipedia article is controversial - one administrator noted in a recent discussion at WT:RSN that he would have blocked you for one of the edits listed above had he not been in a direct conflict with you at the time. While I further appreciate that you would consider this an unjust block, you cannot reasonably claim that repeatedly adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles is an uncontroversial action.

I ask that you undertake to stop adding sources that have been deprecated to Wikipedia articles without first obtaining a sufficient level of general consensus for each edit to override the general prohibition, obtained in a suitable venue.

- David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's highly disingenuous for a so-called admin to claim that sources are being "added" when in actual fact, they are simply being restored. Gerrard has a history now of fallacious and misleading edit summaries and demonstrates a complete disregard for WP:ADMINACCT. I would simply ignore this pointless threat from an involved current admin and suggest it's taken to ANI where we can examine the behaviour of this individual in more detail. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I never even need to check who it was, do I?Edit

Anytime I'm reverted, it's you, Andy.

No, Brown's gas is not real. Premixed Hydrogen and oxygen? Yes. That exists and is used, but that's not what the term "brown's gas" MEANS anymore. Google it. It's exclusively used (now, today) as snake-oil "magnecule" foolishness.

Please do one of the following:

  1. Revert your revert,
  2. Better yet DISCUSS, as in revert-AND-DISCUSS
  3. Better still, FIX THE ENTRY and prove me wrong. Add something CITEABLE about Brown's Gas and show me how right you are about it being "real".

In 48 hours I will revert your revert, and we will be 2/3 the way to our SECOND OUTSTANDING triple revert in need of arbitration.

Riventree (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
So what is your problem with what was there before? It was a reasonably detailed, correct throughout, examination of just what's wrong with the Brown's gas nonsense. And you left it with one trivial sentence, and even that little was unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do one of the following:

  1. Revert your revert,
  2. Better yet DISCUSS, as in revert-AND-DISCUSS
  3. Better still, FIX THE ENTRY and prove me wrong. Add something CITEABLE about Brown's Gas and show me how right you are about it being "real".
Riventree (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It's already cited. You removed all the citations. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

LM317 maximum currentEdit

Hi, you said in your revert of my edit:

rv misunderstanding. 1.5A is the minimum value (worst case device) for the maximum output current.

Actually that was also my understanding (and that's why I made the edit). Mathematically, the minimum of a set of maxima is NOT the maximum of the set (in general), therefore it is mathematically not correct to say that the maximum current is 1.5 A when in fact 1.5 A is the minimal maximum.

Of course I could have misunderstood the topic (I'm no electronics expert). Did you mean that 1.5 A is the "maximum current" because there is no guarantee for more than that? ʘχ (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC) edited for clarification: ʘχ (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

1.5A is the maximum current. It is the opposite meaning of minimum current. It is correct to say "1.5A maximum", if that's as small a wording as we can fit. Otherwise it would have to be more complicated (maybe a footnote).
Your mathematical argument there doesn't apply because it's not comparing the same things: safe ratings vs. currents in use.
The LM317 is designed as a "high current" voltage regulator. At the time, for this type of circuit, 1.5A was high current (it needed a big metal-backed package). Owing to manufacturing tolerances, most of them would be happy at 2A, some could handle more, but the worst case manufactured LM317 was "guaranteed" to work with at least 1.5A, so that was what the designer would generally assume as a "maximum load current" figure, as we have written it here in the simple encyclopedia version.
It's also hard to measure this limit current and its variation. A tube of LM317 would all fail at the same values, it was more about supplies from different makers. This made it very hard to design for it around 2A, especially if the designer was divorced from the procurement and manufacturing process. I never did this myself for LM317s, but did have to do it sometimes for power transistors. It was a regular problem to have a factory's production all start to fail after a year of successful manufacture, then to find that "someone in purchasing" had changed the component supplier. High-end audio amplifier designers were famously obsessive over this and would usually do their own inbound testing on the main components.
In fact, I don't recall ever having much issue with current limits on the LM317. They were also limited by power dissipation (rather than current) and for VI-VO voltage differences >12V, the power limit was hit first. This was much harder to judge as it depended on the heatsink, so usually had to be determined by experiment, bonding a thermocouple to one and adding heatsink area until it stayed reasonably cool under load. Using them as 5V supplies from 48 or 50V rails was certainly chancy, but it was at least £10 cheaper than more robust ways, so it happened a lot.
Voltage regulators also have a minimum current, below which they don't guarantee their output voltage. The LM317 is fairly good for this, it only needs a few mA to be stable, but some designs (early switchmodes) were infamous for supplying output voltages up to the input rails, unless loaded. For that reason they mostly had a deliberate switch-off circuit, so they wouldn't supply any output unless it was enough. I've got a box of cheap Chinese 5V USB motor speed controllers here at the moment, which someone was using as LED dimmers. Turns out that they're fine running into a cooling fan, but when used for LEDs they put about 20V spikes out and kill the LEDs. The joy of internet-shopping as a design technique. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Er ... so, basically, your answer to my question is "yes"?
1.5A is the maximum current.
I am trying to understand the official definition of the term "maximum current". According to the datasheets, 1.5 A is not the maximum current but the minimal maximum current -- that's what's written there. I just quote the sheets, it's not my wording, it's theirs. The only question is what it means.
Your mathematical argument there doesn't apply because it's not comparing the same things: safe ratings vs. currents in use.
I guess this statement has to do with my attempt to understand the official definitions. I understand that it is unsafe to use the LM317 beyond 1.5 A. Still, my question remains because the article does not say anything about safe ratings etc. ʘχ (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Jayron pageEdit

Although you reverted your comment here,[5] I thought you made an important point. And then it crossed my mind that Anton edits mostly from an IP, just occasionally while logged in. There's a rule that anyone using multiple accounts is supposed to declare them. The question would be whether that rule applies in a case like this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much literally a loophole. Editors vaguely "ought not" to do this. However one who does has a cast-iron defence of "technical glitch" and that's so unchallengeable that nothing is ever done. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The odd thing was that I had posted a couple of comments on his IP talk page (which was the only one I was aware of) and then he posted on my talk page using his logged-in account, telling me not to post on his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You are now subject to an interaction banEdit

Per the ANI thread,

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from interacting with JzG (talk · contribs). This includes responding to the user in ANY discussion threads, making edits to articles, or other pages, that are clearly in response to JzG's edits, mentioning, or implying mention of, JzG. Exceptions to this ban are only permitted if Andy Dingley is filing an appeal, or JzG invites Andy Dingley to comment or respond to an edit or discussion JzG is involved in. JzG is under no circumstance to enforce the IBAN per WP:INVOLVED.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talkcontribs) 16:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Asking permissionEdit

I would like to shut down the heated discussion at WP:RD/S about microwaving food. I can do this concisely by inserting two small words in your post so the sentence reads: "Dry food isn't heated so effectively by it, nor is ice." Will you permit me to add them? Best regards DroneB (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. DroneB (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

why the revert?Edit

why the revert on the Panther II? you're trying to spread false info here. and it seems you've done plenty of reverts on other stuff too. why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ LuckyBlockYoshi (talkcontribs)

See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BURDEN et al.
For decades, all sources said that the Schmalturm was intended for developments of the Panther. If you now "know" that it wasn't, you're going to have to provide some reliable sourcing to show that it wasn't. Until you do, even if you know you're right this isn't going to change. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Panther II tank#Schmalturm, which has been there for a while, although you might not have noticed it yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I FUCKING GAVE THE SOURCE, WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE PAGE COMES FROM THE SAME AUTHORS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? DO YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK? FOR YEARS THIS HAS BEEN DISPROVEN WITH THE RELAESE OF PANZER TRACTS... LuckyBlockYoshi (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

temper, temper.TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)±

also about the ratte, the source is Überschwere Panzerprojekte by Michael Fröhlich. add that in yourself if you want to. and you KNOW that the info is false in there, why the fuck do you want to revert it back to the incorrect version? makes no fucking sense, unless you think Ratte = size of city block destroy all tank and has 4 maus turret on top mega stronk? LuckyBlockYoshi (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2019_Hyderabad_gang_rapeEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2019_Hyderabad_gang_rape. DBigXray 13:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your edit warring complaintEdit

You might like to consider in future that reverting an edit to a totally unsourced claim is less ideal than using a poor source for a claim - to my mind it classes as disruptive editing.

Do it again, and I'll report you immediately for disruptive editing.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Iron Bridge and your personal abuse and disruptive editingEdit

Please stop it. Unsourced information should not be included on Wikipedia. Also, you should not be personally abusive towards other editors as you were towards me - rather gratuitously, I thought. Anger? Seriously? I'm just sticking to Wikipedia policy and explaining my actions in a calm and courteous fashion.

You've insisted on including unsourced information and you've levelled personal abuse at me. It doesn't matter that you incorrectly believe the Iron Bridge to be a true arch bridge: what matters is what can be found in reliable sources.

See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BURDEN, etc.

Also: WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc.

So stop making disruptive edits and remember to remain courteous at all times.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose what I'm thinking now is: I might well have been misled by a poor source and my poor memory, but you had no source at all. WP:BURDEN and WP:NPA should have been in your mind.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Iron Bridge updateEdit

I've found something which indicates my memory of the Iron Bridge's construction was wrong - and also describes the bridge as an arch bridge.

Having a source calling it an arch bridge, that's the important thing. As well as remaining courteous.

See The Iron Bridge talk page sooner rather than later...

Observe: I have remained calm and courteous at all times.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

ELEdit

Hiya. With regard to this edit, can you help me understand what I overlooked? We already have 4 images of the subject within the article itself, and more than 20 images of the subject on Commons. Why do we need a(nother) link to a single image of the subject? (In an article about the Nissan Micra, already containing multiple images of multiple variants of the car, would we need a link to my Flickr channel containing an image of "my Nissan Micra?) WP:ELNO suggests that we don't link things that do "not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (I don't see how a link to yet another image of this aircraft type is considered a "unique resource"). WP:ELNO also suggests that we "should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article" (I don't see how another image of the aircraft is anything other than a repeat of information already in the article. Namely what the aircraft looks like). If we had NO images of the subject, then I could just about understand it. But I'm just not seeing it. What am I missing/overlooking? Guliolopez (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I was seeing this as the Gardai use of it, more than the Defender itself. The other EL that's there, the official tAerchór one is light on them. I'd also shift both to refs, rather than ELs. Also multiple angles is useful on aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think I'm following. Shifting the official Air Corps page to sit as a ref probably does make sense. Shifting the Flickr image to sit as a ref makes absolutely no sense to me. I do not understand how a photo of this type is useful as a reference. What part of the text does it support? (That isn't already supported by other verifiable/reliable/"textual" references). I also do not understand how "multiple angles" (or multiple images) is useful to the reader. What does the reader learn from that image exactly? That is not already covered elsewhere? (I am still clearly missing something here....) Guliolopez (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not strongly attached to it. Remove it if you really don't like it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't. I have. Guliolopez (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Austerity in the United Kingdom (1939–54) has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Austerity in the United Kingdom (1939–54), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambo (carcass)Edit

Please self-revert your accusation of bad faith. Please also limit your AfD comments to content, not contributors. If you have a concern that needs to be raised at ANI, please limit your discussion of that concern to ANI or the concerned editor's talk page. AfD is not the place to discuss editor conduct. Thank you. –dlthewave 22:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No, wait for the ANI post. Or start it yourself. Your actions here, both deleting most of the article beforehand, and not linking to the previous kept AfD, are clearly extremely disruptive to an appropriate AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've opened an ANI discussion here. –dlthewave 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits by 41.69.42.182Edit

Hello Andy,

This is Riventree, and I'm looking for "Wikipedia process" advice again. I'm proved wrong, by the way. I say this in good cheer with a smile on my face, no sarcasm intended: I've been reverted and it was not you. :)

This looks like someone trying out a VPN for vandalizing wikipedia pages. A little poking around shows the edit came out of an otherwise unused IP address in Egypt, but on two very "American English" sentences, and neither revert makes sense. More, there are no other edits on these pages or by this author that are related. Is there something that should be done?

Riventree (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It would appear that you've done it. I don't think it's a VPN, just a mobile phone network. So random IPs and possible repeat edits from IP morphs are a possible, but it doesn't yet appear like organised vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Cheers.
Riventree (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Please revertEdit

They are not an expert, they are adding ref spam here. Please revert it. We do not use individual companies or sellers to source broad subjects. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No. This is not the worst example of WP:BITE I've seen lately, but it's one of the more stupid of them. This is an article tagged for ages as "needs citations" and "expert needed". When we get just such an expert, your response has been to try and report them as a "vandal" at AIV. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
No they are spamming. We do not allow companies to throw their links all over broad articles. They qualify for AIV under "promo only account" and I suggest you let an admin handle it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
And they aren't reliable sources, so please remove them immediately. Praxidicae (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Helical Cmashaft edit deletedEdit

Hello Andy.

In the "Helical Camshaft" page of wikipedia, there is an extensive presentation of the HC mechanism; this presentation, as it writes at the page header, is like an advertisement.

Advertisement or not, a reader "skilled in the art" of valvetrains, would have several questions to ask the Helical Camshaft creator (like, say, how the multi semi-camlobes are accurately controlled in an in-line engine, whether the control mechanism that displaces the semi-cam-lobes is more complicated than the Helical Camshaft itself, how much stiffer valve springs are required for the same rev limit when a conventional engine is modified to Helical Camshaft, etc).

The "skilled in the art" reader may laugh with the following claim in the "Applications" section: "The Helical Camshaft's typical 250 degree to 350 + degree duration range basically means that a suitably robust engine could “pull” strongly from about 1500 RPM to maybe 20,000 + RPM and still idle smoothly at 500 or 600 RPM", because he/she knows that a trapezoidal valve lift profile (as in the Suzuki helical cam - maximum duration plot, at the bottom of the page) cannot help creating extreme inertia loads as the revs increase and requires super-extra-stiff valve springs to keep the poppet valves from bouncing.


And here is what has to do with my deleted edit of the article:

In the practical considerations section it writes: "There is no physical reason why a Helical Camshaft could not be the “driving” cam in a Valvetronic-type oscillating cam setup. (But it would be quite complex and the Valvetronic part of the arrangement would limit the Helical Camshaft's high RPM capabilities). The result would be an almost unbelievable array of possible duration/lift combinations. "

Strictly technically speaking, this means that in order to vary independently both, the valve lift and the valve duration, it is required a combined VVA comprising the Helical Camshaft VVA "in series" with the BMW-valvetronic VVA. The result (i.e. the array of possible duration/lift profiles) would be, as it writes, "unbelievable", in expense of significant side effects.

The DVVA (Desmodromic Variable Valve Actuation), patented a decade ago in the US-PTO and in the EPO patent offices, provides alone, the above "unbelievable array of possible duration/lift combinations", being at the same time rid of valve springs (it not only opens positively the valves, but it also closes positively the valves), being at the same time rid of "oscillating cams".

Without an explanation / reference / link to the DVVA, the reader will remain with the wrong impression that in order to achieve the “unbelievable array of duration/lift combinations” there is no other solution than putting the Helical Camshaft in series with the BMW-valvetronic.

As the article is now, it is misleading. But the decision is yours.


By the way, shouldn't wikipedia have a similar article / presentation for the DVVA? If you study the DVVA mechanism at https://www.pattakon.com/pattakonDesmo.htm you will see that besides making a lot more than the Helical Camshaft and the BMW-valvetronic together, the DVVA is also more applicable in existing and future engines.

Have a nice day Manolis Pattakos — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattakonCom (talkcontribs) 13:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019Edit

 

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's GreetingsEdit

200px FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

  Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luckEdit

Merry Christmas!!Edit

Hi Andy, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and in bringing your particular set of skills and expertise to help make this a better encyclopedia. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert on fan (machine)Edit

Hi Andy, Happy New Decade! Why did you revert this edit from 1989Wiki? 1989Wiki explained well why they did the change. For the purpose of the article, I think 1989Wiki was right. You gave no explanation for the revert in the edit comment, please explain such reverts. --RainerBlome (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"solar power cannot drive a fan" is nonsense. Solar-powered fans are widespread, as small self-contained ventilators. Now, if this is contrasted to "electric motors", (i.e. "solar power" is now taken to exclude the arrangement of a solar panel and a motor), then that could be said to make an obscure sort of sense, but not one which can fit neatly into the lead of fan (machine). We are just not (in that article) interesting in arguing definitions of whether "solar power" can operate through electricity or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

RE: Northern Ireland pre 1921Edit

Hi Andy,

yes it is a bit of a sensitive topic but at the end of the day with history and as you have mentioned - 1921 is the year that NI can into existence therefore it should be just referred to as "Belfast, Ireland".

When you have one section of the info-box having just "Belfast" then further down "Belfast, Northern Ireland" - post 1921 it does tend to look half finished.

It's a bit like the constant issue of Derry / Londonderry where some won't accept the official name and vice versa.

I'm quite happy in this case because of discussion on the topic to go with your suggestion.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If you've not seen it, there's another talk: thread on the Titanic page. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Over-capitalizationEdit

Don't you think you lose all credibility when you insist on capitalizing generic descriptors for no reason other than that they have an acronym, as you insist on doing for lobe on receive only (LORO)? Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It's called sourcing. Please try it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Like in books? Dicklyon (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

edit warEdit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kh-47M2_Kinzhal&type=revision&diff=935241941&oldid=935241671 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.126.129.55 (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Third opinionEdit

Howdy hello Andy! I see you recently made a third opinion request. I am declining it however, as I see no discussion of the issue. 3O is only for moderating things that have been thoroughly discussed and have come to a stand-still. Since the IP has refused to discuss in this case, (edit sums do NOT count for discussion) I see that they have already been blocked for edit warring, the proper way to deal with this. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like a reasonable result. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

High Speed LaunchEdit

High Speed Launch was tagged as {{R from incorrect capitalization}} by Dicklyon. If this is a valid alternative capitalisation, please change the tag to {{R from other capitalisation}}, or move high-speed launch to High Speed Launch. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please follow the voluminous discussion about this on the ships project. HSL is correct, high-speed launch is an incorrect invention by DickLyon. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I see, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#High Speed Launch. I'm hoping that you and Dick can sort this out. If there is no consensus, then the default is {{R from other capitalisation}}. {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} should be reserved for capitalisations which are definitely, and uncontroversially, incorrect. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Now that I've reverted here, there are no links from article space to the capped redirect. If we use such a link in a context where we agree it is correct, then we can change the tag. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)