Open main menu

ANI-User talk:Bgwhite

Not sure why you closed the ANI:Bgwhite. As I point out in the discussion it wasn't a content dispute. It was my attempt to cooperate with him on what he wanted not to use "font" tag then bash me with that I can't use the font tag (plus) repeatedly. If you can't figure out what is going on don't post or close such a thread. Spshu (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Spshu: It was a dispute over whether a tag should or shouldn't be used which sounds like a content dispute to me. Yes, there has been some incivility on both sides, there are no sanctions that any admin will hand down in this situation. --Mdann52talk to me! 19:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, you still show that you do not understand what was going on. I agreed that the tag should not be used by asking for a similar container tag that would work in its place. The dispute is over his blocking any meaning full discussion (or correcting the page) by continuing to act as if I opposed him over the tag or wp:color.
Another way to look at it. Anything may be claim to be a content dispute as this is an encyclopedia. So, it is a lazy way of any administrator to not do any and not see the trees for the forest. Thus piss off editor who then wonder why they should ever edit here since trolls like bgwhite are allow to act in an uncivil way (continue to act as the font tag is in dispute despite asking for a replacement tag then remove the color, so it isn't easy for substitute to take place). Spshu (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue a discussion that had already been had with you. Drop the WP:IDHT attitude before I do reopen the ANI, and test out the boomerang. Closing the pointless discussion is with your interests in mind as much as anyone else's. The colours you are trying to use are not acceptable per WP:COLOR, and if you are unhappy, feel free to start a RFC on the issue. If there was a genuine problem with the close, one of the other uninvolved patrolling users on the board would have already notified me. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion has not been had with me, just plain you and others not following what happened. The attitude is that you didn't get the point.
What colors? I removed the colors for notations if you bother to look at the diffs. So that shows you didn't get the point nor have a clue what happened. The boomerang was heading towards panda for making false accusation of edit warring on at ANI with out proof.
Fine, I will end the discussion since you will not get the point. Spshu (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to revert my close at your own risk. Of course, I may act differently next time. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I fully agree with Mdann52's closure and would like to add two things: Firstly, Spshu, you seem to have completely missed Bgwhite's main points. Secondly, your self-bowdlerized insults in bold don't really excuse Bgwhite's later language, but they certainly mean you're not in a good position to complain about incivility. Huon (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Bain collection photo

Hi, Your initial evaluation of the photo File:1924 Walter John Baker.jpg, from the Bain collection, seemed rather good. I'm wondering what made you change your mind and conclude that it was "not published in us, only in UK" [1]? Can it not qualify for the PD-Bain tag like the other photos of the collection? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Asclepias: I was discussing this on IRC, but it appears I was looking at the wrong file (!?!). I have self reverted, and will sort it all out now :) --Mdann52talk to me! 19:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-29

07:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious

happy to help
Thank you, advanced clarinettist, for quality administrative service on "a few Wikias", for helping with articles for creation and fighting vandalism, for your bot, for "I will also learn from criticism" and "something amusing for those who read to the bottom", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Future destinations

Why not add now? WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT says that future routes with a confirmed start date and a source should be added now. We can remove the start date and reference when they actually start. These are not WP:CRYSTALBALL. They are confirmed by the airline with a start date. Please state at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT where we should added future destinations when they are close to the start date? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah; Wasn't aware of this. I'll reopen the request. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The flights should be bookable now. It is announced by Etihad with dates. 166.147.120.45 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CBAN

In a way it does not really matter but for your information non-admins do not close community ban discussions. Common sense dictates that if a block was required to enforce a ban, a non-admin would be unable to do this. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest discussing changing the wording of CBAN, or running for adminship. Best, --John (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I guess my application of IAR has been a bit generous in this case. I just feel a bit annoyed that this has seemingly been reverted purely because I'm a non-admin. Oh well, worse things happern at sea. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Translating existing page

I wanted to create a page in english for a french author who has been the subject of a good deal of my research. I have never done this before, so I had a few questions. Firstly, is this the proper place to ask such questions? Secondly, do I simply create a new page and then link it to the page in the original language? Finally, can I use citations in the source language for the page in english? I'm sorry that they are all basic questions, but one has to start somewhere, and you seem to know what you are doing. Thanks User:Mdann52 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalPraxis (talkcontribs) 12:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@DigitalPraxis: no issue :) I'm not an expert on translation, but I can give you a few tips. WP:Translation is a good place to start. Once you have created the page, you have to fiddle about over at wikidata, but I am willing to help you with that later if you wish. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Mdann52 , I created the page in my sandbox [[21]] and have submitted a draft for review. I probably should have had you look over it first as it is my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalPraxis (talkcontribs) 11:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Mdann52 I really appreciate your help. One other thing I'm not sure I can do is to add a photo. Is this possible for someone like to me to do considering I do not have much history as a wiki contributor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalPraxis (talkcontribs) 11:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@DigitalPraxis: You are autoconfirmed, so you can upload files using the upload wizard. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52, thank you for all your help. Last question, I promise:) How do I set it up so that a search for Edouard Louis redirects to the page for Édouard Louis (with the accent)? --DigitalPraxis (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Perhaps I have one more question for you, User:Mdann52 ... and then really, I'll leave you alone! What exactly does this mean: "Warning: Default sort key "Louis, Édouard" overrides earlier default sort key "Louis, Edouard". It appears at the bottom of the page I created yesterday - with your help. Thanks, --DigitalPraxis (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@DigitalPraxis: No problem; No point me having some idea of what I'm doing if I don't share my knowlegde :). I have set up the redirect; You can do this by using the code #REDIRECT [[Target]]. The error was my fault, but has now been fixed. (thanks to Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) for beating me to it! --Mdann52talk to me! 09:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
(watching) I removed the extra DEFAULTSORT - it was twice the same, something the bot seems not to know ;) - I also created redirect pages for both "no diacritic" and his birth name. Bold names mean there's a redirect. It takes the sort function a while to find new articles, but should work tomorrow. The function is clever enough to find he person even without diacritic. Finally, assuming that it's translated from French, I made a note on the talk page. - Interesting article, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

  You might enjoy something other than cookies. Thanks for your graphingnesses! See also this, which is amongst the future of automated citation formatting in VE and part of the direction toward normalizing citations, eventually into wikidata. (dtm from IRC) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cluebot

Thank you for your reply. So there is nothing special I have to do, no auto or archivenow parameter to set or anything? Here is the code on the page now:

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=Wikipedia talk:Quebec Wikipedians' notice board/Archive |format= %%i |age=2160 |index=yes |maxarchsize=100000 |header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |minkeepthreads=3 |archivebox=yes |box-advert=yes |box-separator=no}}

- Sweet Nightmares 13:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@SweetNightmares: Looks fine to me; The ClueBot page list is only updated every few days, and I have a feeling you "just" missed the last refresh... --Mdann52talk to me! 14:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well now my mind can rest easy, then. Thanks for your help, Mdann! - Sweet Nightmares 14:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Meadow Arts‎

I have made some changes to Draft:Meadow Arts‎, which might be worth being reviewed. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Akademiks

I'm a bit concerned about the fact you've rolled back my latest edit to Akademiks, and that this was done without messaging me. I added a source for the deleted reference, so why have you reverted this with the message "I suggest you email me before revert OTRS actions" (which feels a little rude to me)? CLW (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK - I see that you've since reversed the roll-back... CLW (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@CLW: Sorry about that. I mistook the article for another which I did put an OTRS action on; In this case, it was just a concern about the material in question. I would like to appologise; It isn't me being rude, just I have had people edit war with me over OTRS actions befroe (which WP:OTRS states you should consult with the agent first). Once again, apologies for any rudeness. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Resubmission

Recently you cleaned up my submission at Draft:Dedlen and I have resubmitted it. I just hit the resubmit button and saved it. I don't know if the reviewer's previous comment are supposed to remain or if the submit notice should go on top again. Could you clean it up for me again? Thank you! Dedlen (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dedlen: that's normal; The way the submission banner is added is a bit hacky, so we can't get it to do what we want... --Mdann52talk to me! 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Shapelle Corby article

Dear Mdann52,

Thank you for informing me of the three edit rule after my fourth attempted edit of the Shapelle Corby entry. The "edit war" you explained was interesting as it seems that it was you I was sparring with. So can you tell me what investment you have in limiting the information truly available on all circumstances surrounding this story? Plus, who is AlanS associated with to want to stop the inclusion of the link I wish to share with the world?

Kind regards Techy-rat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techy-rat (talkcontribs) 14:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Techy-rat: Incidently, I was not removing the link, and was just moving the link to the "external links" section (diff), per WP:EL. I am unaware of whom AlanS is, but he seems to be interested in cleaning the article up. Additionally, another editor has removed the link, per consensus on the articles talk page, as they feel it violates the external link guidelines. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Techy-rat:, I am associated with no one. I would remind you to assume good faith in your interactions with others in Wikipedia. I am here to help maintain the pedia. AlanS (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
and Shapelle Corby is well in need of some improvement. AlanS (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh AlanS, what a two edged sword you wield. What I wanted included in the article was to bring a balance of information to this matter. Why is it an issue to have this link where I placed it? Tech-rat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techy-rat (talkcontribs) 01:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your link is to a source which lacks credibility and is thus unreliable. AlanS (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing statement on ANI

Hi, Mdann52. I've changed your closing statement at "Continuation of disruptive activity by a SPA account" on ANI, as there seemed to be an error in it. Both the accounts have been indeffed as sockmaster + sock, not just given a month off. Hope you don't mind, it seemed simpler to just change it. I appreciate the good work you do at ANI. Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

Tech News: 2014-30

07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation

On the log of edit history of the article Monarch buttrfly the following edit was posted: 07:49, July 15, 2014‎ User:Mdann52 (talk | contribs]])‎ m . . (68,291 bytes) (-635)‎ . . (→‎top: rv link to copyvio material (Ticket:2014071510000218))

I would like to maintain that no copyright infringement was done. I referenced a url to a website, a normal and typical practice. No copyrighted material (the raw data itself) was/is used in this section of the article. No word-for-word text was copied from the reference and then pasted to the article.

There seems to be some confusion of what constitues a copyright violation. I can only say that this/these users are well-intentioned and are responding in good faith, wishing to enhance and improve the article. I have been privately contacted by a representive of Southwest Monarch Study via email. I would rather resolve this issue with the assistance other editors who have the expertise of determining copyright violations here on wikipedia rather than thru private corespondance.

bpage (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cross-post, replied on the talk page. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Status on your talk page

@Mdann52:, how do I get my status on my talk page like you have on the top right hand corner of yours? Is there some sort of code I need to insert? AlanS (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@AlanS: see User:TheDJ/qui.js. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thx. AlanS (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mdann52. You have new messages at Ollieinc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ollieinc (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-31

08:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon

Hi Mdann52, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members). It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting http://tools.wmflabs.org/huggle/files/huggle3.1.0beta.exe and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ #huggle connect!

Major changes:

  • Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
  • Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
  • Fixes of most of bug reports we had so far

In case you found a bug, please report it to bugzilla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?product=Huggle&list_id=147663 thank you! Petrb (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism

Hi Mdann52, sorry I haven't been able to complete the new task for my lessons. I've been a bit busy for the past month, so I have been only editing those articles that are related to my interest at the moment. But I will complete those tasks within the next week for sure, just want to let you know in case you wonder why I've been so quiet. Thank you very much.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@TerryAlex: no issue; as a user who has taken frequent unannounced breaks, I understand entirely. Regardless, I generally only chase people after around 3 months anyway. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U for Dan56

Hey, Mdann52. Are you willing to certify the basis of the disputes relating to the pending RfC/U on Dan56? Harmelodix (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Harmelodix: No; I am completely neutral on the issue, and wish to remain so. My suggestion was to prevent anything like this coming up, and was not saying either side was right or wrong. However, I may consider making a comment when it is opened. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I respect that, and I've already got four certifiers, so we don't need anymore. Harmelodix (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3

I understand why you tried to close it, but I disagree because a non-admin closure resulted in the failing of the RFC 1 and the issue persisted and grew because of that controversial action. Your closure and assessment of situation at this point results in nothing - just a lot of wasted time and effort for nothing. Kww will not allow exceptions (it would undo it by its very nature) and the persistent attempts to mass-remove (resulting in its OWN edit filter) absolutely make it clear that the "status quo" is unacceptable to all parties. Something needs to be done lest we have a fourth RFC - resolving even just one of the issues in this RFC would greatly go to resolving it. Even if its just an analysis of the allegations vs evidence and separating the gross issues with Rotlink's actual actions - regardless of any consensus on their origin. I hope you understand and forgive me for asking that you revert yourself and allowing an admin or three-admin closure and assessment of the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your closure to Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. It says "it ships be noted". Should this be "it should be noted"? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: that's just a common-or-garden top. Little point in fixing now. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to join in here and ask that you undo your close as well. WP:NAC is for non-contentious closes, and I don't believe that RFC qualifies. There were three very specific, independent questions in the RFC as well, and I would like to see someone go through and provide a careful weighting of arguments for and against each of the three points as well. Your declaration of a somewhat blurry consensus to not do much of anything didn't help resolve anything, and close like that puts out out of reach of a non-admin close pretty much by definition.—Kww(talk) 03:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri and Kww: Reverted. The problem with this RfC is it bundles several related issues together, and the !votes overlapped as well, which is why I closed it overall. I considered doing a plain " no consensus " close, as this had become a drama magnet, and I feel nothing has been gained by it. On the subject of unrelated questions; yes, they were unrelated at the start, but have bovine jumbled together over time. I wish good luck to the admin who attempts to unjumble this mess. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, I appreciate your motivations in attempting to close it.—Kww(talk) 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes "should be noted" was correct! Thanks an sorry for the odd typo, was very concerned with the "RFC 1" auto-linking and ended up overlooking it. Its going to be rough, but this needs a hard decision from some Solomon like figure or panel! Thanks again for trying. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to say thanks for reversing the close. As discussion is still ongoing and people ( self included ) seem to be at least considering their stances people, best to let run a little longer. PaleAqua (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-32

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I assume this was accidental?Dark 10:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls: I hit an E/c, so this is likely to have caused these issues. I am assuming you have no issues with my actual comment... :) --Mdann52talk to me! 10:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No of course not, I was just making sure that it was an ec. Thanks and have a nice day. —Dark 10:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol no

As far as your concern with kingsleys page, don't. It was clearly meant as a joke and there was not a reason to change it. Also, don't send me a warning. Ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prnis 364 (talkcontribs) 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically

Hi Mdann52: 1 Please re-open the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 61#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically that you shut off within barely 24 hours (!) basically allowing only one POV to be expressed and not allowing me or others the time to respond to the various opposing views. 2 I had placed notifications at a number of WP discussion boards and no doubt many others would have commented had you not cut off the discussion. 3 I hope you are not afraid of anything by the way that you acted so hastily. 4 While many editors expressed their opposing POVs not really based on solid established fixed WP policies, just on so-called nebulous "conventions" while this subject is important in light of the massive proliferation of categories casing confusion on articles. 5 Many of the POV's expressed assume that what they have to say is "well-known" but it is not! 6 I can assure that I have been categorizing articles and creating many categories since the inception of categories about ten years ago on WP and I have NEVER come across ANY requirement to abide by ANY rules for all WP categories, that is reflected in the wide array of opinions as to how to categorize. 7 Some say "do it more or less like this" and others say "do it more or less like that" while others say "it would interfere with something" or "it does not interfere with anything", all very confusing just like the state of categories are themselves. 8 Unless there are "mini infoboxes" on each article about how categories are to be applied and used, right now the system is a total unholy mess and no one is willing to do anything about it. 9 My proposal comes after a long period of thought and I can defend my position quite well, but you never gave me any chance, since by the time I got around to looking at it again only 24 hours later, you had cut off the discussion/s, so please re-open it for at least a week or longer and remove yourself as an involved editor due to the way you cut it off. Thank you in advance. 10 I am not sure if you are an admin or not, if you are an admin I will appeal your move, if you are not an admin I cannot understand why you did what you did without letting a proper debate develop. 11 This was not a "VOTE" it was simply a discussion to elicit IDEAS and SUGGESTIONS for a BOT to be created and not to be read the "riot act"! 12 Also since have Wikipedia:Mass message senders "authorization" how can I or anyone know that you did not simply send out a "mass appeal" to get the result? You need to be more cautious! 13 P.S. Next time let me know on my talk page what you did and let me know what you plan to do with this request. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@IZAK: no. Any bot carrying out this task fails WP:BOTREQUIRE, namely #4 and #5. Until you can get consensus and policy to support this task, then no bot op will fulfill this task. BRFA is not the correct venue to discuss changes to policy; The best place to do that is at WP:VPP or WT:CAT. Also, in terms of the MM point, you can see all the messages I have sent here. I am not an admin, but I am a reqular at the BOTREQ page, and I regually clerk requests there, closing ones that have little or no chance of becoming a functioning bot, or who do not have consensus or do not follow policies/guidelines. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mdann52: Thank you for your response. It helps to communicate. If the issue is the best location for a discussion then you could have suggested or re-directed the discussion to WP:VPP (preferably, that way it gets serious attention and not buried someplace.) And if it requires clarification of policy then by blocking off discussion after only 24 hours, you are not allowing that kind of discussion to even begin. As I have stated, all the objections that claimed to cite "policy" were very weak and just seemed to indicate an attitude of WP:ITBOTHERSME & WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and mentions nebulous and undefined "precedent/s" more than anything else. From what I have experienced in the realm of policies about categories, they are rather weak and have perhaps been formulated in the by-gone times of a decade ago when one or two categories started being placed on articles, now it's a case of many articles getting a blizzard of new categories to the point where they are not practicably usable. Something must be done to rectify this situation. No other system uses "random chaos" or "whatever any random editor desires as criteria" as a "method" for organizing names of anything that makes it impossible to locate a subject when looking for it by category. Millions of articles are suffering from this situation. Even the internal structure of each and every category itself requires that every article be listed in it alphabetically, it would be insane to claim that alphabetization as the most basic method of organization is not a sine qua non on Wikipedia at this stage. Anyone who has ever used a telephone book or an index or bibliography knows this. It is taught to young children as requirement! People have been brainwashed by the ease of Googling, but that does not help when looking for something and searching for categories on article or category pages. It is just a confusing mess and it's detrimental. I will get into this in more detail when the discussion is re-opened, preferably at WP:VPP as you suggested. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion re-opened at VPP

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Mdann52/Archive 15".