User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 25

Active discussions

Re:QPQP For British committee of the Indian National Congress

Thankyou David, is there any article noms you would like to review?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I already reviewed {{Did you know nominations/British Committee of the Indian National Congress}}. As time allows, I will do my usual mix of content- and non-content work on Wikipedia, including reviewing additional Did You Know nominations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Followup: It just occurred to me that you may be asking of there are any article nominations I would like you to review. I prefer not to review contributions by people who are reviewing mine (and when I do so, it's because I did not check first), and likewise I prefer that editors of pages I review not review my nominations, especially if I reviewed them favorably. I can't speak for you individually, but if someone has "done me a favor" by reviewing a nomination I made favorably, I am less likely to be un-biased reviewing a submission I know they are involved with than if I review a submission that they are not involved with or which I am unaware of their involvement (the reality is that I am likely to over-compensate and judge "too harshly"). I assume the same is true for at least a significant percentage (hopefully less than a majority) of Did You Know participants. If it were up to me, I would add to the "rules" that editors should try to avoid giving final approval to paged nominated by or which had significant input from editors who favorably reviewed their own contributions, realizing that sometimes low DYN participation or the need to fulfill a "quid pro quo" obligation means either doing a review even if there may be a "DYN conflict of interest" in order to avoid introducing unnecessary delays. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


  Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-49

16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guide to Deletion

David, I thought you would be interested to know that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard does not know our well-established AfD procedures. Moreover, anyone who suggests that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome needs to do some more reading; nowhere in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Editing policy is such a preference for the preservation of article history (as opposed to article content -- not the same thing) actually stated. The Guide to Deletion recognizes the distinction between history and content, and the validity of an !vote to delete the history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had remembered it but when I looked for that wording the other day somehow I missed it. I'm glad it was my oversight and not an oversight in the documentation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Some folks in these discussions are trying to de-legitimize "delete and redirect" AfD !votes and consensus outcomes, when in fact "delete and redirect" outcomes have been a part of our standard AfD procedures almost since the beginning. I am more than a little disturbed by the assertion of several DRV participants that they may overturn "delete" and "delete and redirect" consensus outcomes on the flimsiest of pretexts and the assertion of a non-existent policy preference for preserving article history whenever possible. WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion policy both support the preservation of article content by fixing articles for notable subjects, or by merging content to other articles. Neither policy actually mentions article history, despite the assertions made by several discussion participants to the contrary. That's the real dispute behind these two DRVs and the RfC. Of course the RfC is so poorly organized and written that anyone who is new to the debate probably can't make heads or tails of it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is visibility/education/ignorance: I've participated in many AFDs over the years and when I needed to find that document, I couldn't. You've probably already seen (or will see when you check your watchlist) that I've created a second, independent, proposal to change what is on XfD pages which should solve the visibility problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/British Committee of the Indian National Congress

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Coexist (image)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi, David. I'm curious: why did you make this statement in the DRV?

"Delete outright: 2 (including AFD nom.). Delete and redirect: 1. Redirect: 3 (including Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who opened this DRV). Keep: 1"

As far as I can tell, RAN did not participate in the underlying AfD. Did you confuse RAN with AusLondonder or Sam Sailor? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If memory serves, I deliberately counted the editor who opened the DRV in that statistic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, that would explain that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this up your alley?


I think you are into weird things happening at Wikipedia? If so I would appreciate your opinion on User:JohnEAllenDDS. BTW I don't watchlist. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I will replace the page with Template:Inactive userpage blanked. That template is used specifically to blank inactive user's user pages where there is a reason to blank them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-50

17:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Boys' schools in Philadelphia

Is there a way where it can do this:

  • Philadelphia mode: Shows schools in Philadelphia region in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware - does not show Pittsburgh schools
  • Pennsylvania mode: Shows schools in Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia and Pittsburgh regions - does not show Delaware and NJ schools

I would also want "Pennsylvania mode" excluded if the template is used in New Jersey or Delaware schools, and likewise "Philadelphia mode" excluded when the template is used in Pittsburgh schools WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-51

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


Please undo your closure of my RfC immediately. It was not to do with that specific editor's situation. It was a general enquiry of principle, which I was inspired to make after seeing that editor's post. Your closure, without asking me first if that was in fact my intention, was breathtakingly thoughtless and rude.  — Scott talk 23:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Scott: Yes, it was, and I'm sorry. I've already self-reverted and apologized on the page in question. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Page protection

If you want to reduce it you're welcome to do so. I'm not comfortable undoing it myself due to the seriousness of the copyright and socking issues in combination (which is why I made it PC2 even though we don't technically use it; the copyright issues were being auto-accepted under the other protection levels). Wizardman 23:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wizardman: I am not an administrator. If I took this to WP:RPP which level of protection would you recommend, semi, pc-1, full, or continuing with pc-2 with an explicit WP:IAR justification.
Note: If you are going to stick by the pc-2 recommendation, the justification would need to be so clear and compelling that you wouldn't be called on the carpet for it except by people who put the page-protection policy as categorically above the ignore-all-rules policy as it pertains to pc-2. What you said above might meet that threshold, or it might not. I don't have my "finger on the pulse" of the Wikipedia community enough to say for sure one way or the other.
If past copyright violations were easy to spot, it might be worth considering asking a few dozen copyright-fighting vandals to watchlist it then put it under semi- or pc-1 for awhile and see what happens. If they were subtle, I'm not sure if full protection would be any better, as someone could easily sneak a subtle copyvio past an admin via an edit-protected request. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Heh, thought you were an admin, nvm on that part then. I'll take a closer look at it then and see what protection is better. Seeing as how a sockpuppet's edit still got through on the pc2 now that I look at it since it was subtle, sadly it looks like there's no way to actually prevent vandals from vandalizing that area. Wizardman 01:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris Harris (Texas politician)

Hi-I notice the tag you added to the article about Chris Harris (Texas politician) being outdated. The electoral history needs to be updated up to 2011 when Harris retired. I had to removed uncited materials that were also puffed up his political career while he was in office. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@RFD: it will be a day or two before I can do much, and I doubt I will be able to address the electoral history until next year. Please put a note on the talk page listing everything you see that needs to be updated. Hopefully you or someone else will beat me to the punch so the "outdated" tag can be removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Information about the 2008 election results should be added to the article; that was the last election Harris took part in before he retired. The article will updated, Thanks-RFD (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-52

18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello David
You took part in the TfD on this a while ago; I have opened a discussion here (and pinched a line from you; hope you don't mind) if you wish to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote: Alexa Brown

I made a vote on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. I encourage you highly to vote on whether Alexa should or shouldn't have a separate article. Thanks. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry about leaving the VT token in there :) -- samtar whisper 16:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chirand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kartik. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:American University of Malta

Could this draft be moved to the mainspace or is more work needed? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to article space. It's a very good article. In fact, I'd say it belongs in GAN. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-02

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Updating Texas school district articles on those that are to be closed

Thanks for adding the update request tag. I didn't even know about that feature!

One thing I am adding in the case of the Texas districts is to make sure that the Spanish articles, in addition to the English ones, are updated as a courtesy to the Spanish speaking immigrants in the state. If someone has trouble doing this they can contact me. I can also mention some Wikipedians on ESwiki who may help:

Of the five districts closing, so far only LMISD has a Spanish article (I have not found sufficient Spanish documents in the other four yet that would warrant starting articles on them) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-03

17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-04

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on the Electoral Systems Template

Hello Davidwr,

User:BalCoder is vandalizing the Electoral Systems Template again. Sometimes this user edits while logged out in order to avoid getting blocked due to edit-warring. Please help me police this article. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I am too busy with real life to do much editing right now. Please use the normal dispute-resolution processes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-05

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-06

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Closed down Wikipedia projects, activities or processes has been nominated for discussion


Category:Closed down Wikipedia projects, activities or processes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. DexDor (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-07

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Current monarchies

Given your interest in Category talk:Current monarchies, please note that following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_13#Monarchies, Category:Current monarchies is empty and tagged for deletion. Also, the new Category:Former constitutional monarchies has been tagged for conversion to a list. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-08

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-09

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-10

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Village pump proposal that you might be interested in

We have talked in the past about why middle and elementary schools tend to be denied as separate articles. Well, you may be interested to know that I've created a proposal at the village pump for this guideline to be changed, and gave many valid reasons. You may want to join the discussion. Just wanted to let you know. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-11

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Davidwr/Archives/Archive 25".