User talk:Andrew Davidson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Page views[edit]

These are the page views for my user page.

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:The Adventures of Tintin were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Prhartcom (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:DTTR. Further discussion should take place at the talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention that your version of the graph will rapidly go out of date and be meaningless in months to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No, the graph updates automatically. For example, see Talk:European_migrant_crisis which I updated a month ago. The template therefore belongs at the head of the talk page with the other permanent features. We just need a good way of presenting this with the other standard talk page templates. It's a new feature and we don't seem to have a standard approach for its use yet. Andrew D. (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, so the blip will soon not feature, so your graph placement and associated commentary are pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The presentation can vary as appropriate, depending on the page and its traffic. In the case of the European migrant crisis, we see a steady decline in the page's modest traffic. If it spikes again then this is a clue that something is happening. In the case of the Tintin page, we had a massive spike in interest making it the #1 popular article. The reason for this was not explained at all on the page until I spotted this and added an update. Andrew D. (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
And once the blip moves off your graph, it and you comment relating to it become pointless. You need a snapshot of the pageviews, not a live graph which will render your entry meaningless. As for most popular, see WP:TOP25 which is regularly sent to Signpost readers. It's mostly tabloid garbage, as you'd expect, far from what is expected from an encyclopaedia to be presenting on its main page I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just above, TRM was complaining that the graph view would go out of date. Now TRM is complaining that it won't. There's no pleasing some people. Myself, I shall continue to experiment with this and other new features. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What? I have said the pageview graph will go out of date, in all instances, and as such comments relating to it on any given day will become outdated and then irrelevant. If you want a graph to be relevant to associated personal commentary (as you seem to desire, at the top of article talk pages for some reason), you need a snapshot of the graph to avoid the personal commentary becoming unrelated to the graph. You are of course welcome to experiment in sandboxes etc, but do not use the encyclopaedia for such joyrides, particularly when you're not actually doing it correctly. And feel free to attempt to tout the garbage on the top 25 list as what an encyclopedia should be featuring on its main page. Perhaps you should consider a career with something even more stately like Britannica as you clearly have such standards in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

{{Annual readership}}[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Annual readership has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The result of the discussion was keep. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Tech and tools[edit]

A new reference tool - Citoid[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No PNG for photos[edit]

When you corrected the orientation problem on File:Rock on Top of Another Rock south.jpg you did so by uploading File:Rock on Top of Another Rock south.png. The objections to using PNG are: the file size increased from 1,322,852 to 8,680,934 bytes with no increase in information content and all the EXIF metadata was thrown away. If the situation occurs again, upload to the Commons (which is where you should be uploading anyway) and use the "request rotation" facility which is available there - or ask me to do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • My impression is that it's the EXIF data which can cause the rotation problem as there's an orientation tag in it which is not well-supported. As for the rocks, they have gone now, alas. I cycled past the Serpentine on my way to the Tweed Run recently and made a point of checking. Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Team editing experiment[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

  • I have commented on that talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Collections[edit]

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

AWB[edit]

Hi Andrew, I've granted you the AWB permission for 24 hours, as I'll do for any of the other participants who ask. However, you easily meet the requirements, so after you've tried it out, just drop a note back at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser #User:Andrew Davidson to give a better idea of where you're going to use it. --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

How did the Skillshare session go? Did you find AWB useful? --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: It went reasonably well and I understand the tool better now. The main issue now is that it seems to rely mainly on Windows and that's not an operating system that I use much now. Rich said that there's a Linux option so I'll look into that when I get a chance. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
That's good to hear. There's a JavaScript version called JavaScript Wiki Browser that runs inside almost any browser, so is OS-independent. It's not quite the same, but should be perfectly usable under Linux. If you try it out, let me know how you find it. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thanks for the tip. JWB sounds better and seems to load correctly so that I can see its interface. Please can you extend my permissions so that I can try using it. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
That's all taken care of, Andrew. If and when you decide you want the permission permanently, just let me know. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Inns and public houses[edit]

List of pubs in London[edit]

A topic that I suspect may be of interest to you. Feel free to help expand this new article if you're interested. Some entries would benefit from descriptions, such as those housed in buildings that are Grade II listed. Cheers, North America1000 05:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, it has crossed my mind to create something like this but I never got around to it. I'll help expand it but Edwardx is the the one we really need to get involved as he has created many of the individual articles. Andrew D. (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply, for pinging a potentially interested user, and for your additions to the article. North America1000 06:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Gladstone Arms[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 3 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Gladstone Arms, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an MP crawled to save The Glad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Gladstone Arms. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Gladstone Arms), 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, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Black Swan, Oldstead[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 26 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Black Swan, Oldstead, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Black Swan at Oldstead is rated the best restaurant in the world by TripAdvisor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Black Swan, Oldstead. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Black Swan, Oldstead), 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) 00:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Safety behaviour[edit]

Requested a dispute resolution here for an outside opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Safety_behaviors If you can, please add your side of the dispute so that this problem can be resolved. Thanks! GoldenCirclet (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Rider ranger47 Talk 11:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am responding at the relevant talk pages. Andrew D. (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Olive branch drawing.svg

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Rider ranger47 Talk 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Rider ranger47 Talk 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

“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)

RfA[edit]

NeilN[edit]

Opinion Barnstar.png Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
To Andrew Davidson, for expressing his opinion calmly under pressure. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I am dismayed to see the amount of hostility that you are receiving at the current RfA. Even though your viewpoint is clearly a minority one, you raise legitimate points. I myself !voted in support of the candidate, but I recognize that a difference of opinion should be respected. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You've always spoken your mind at RfA, and I know you do a lot of content work and are a good editor. Nothing wrong with stating your opinion whatsoever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

APerson[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Wise words on here, agree completely. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose you mean this, right? You're very welcome. When's your turn in the stocks...? Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thine Antique Pen[edit]

I thought you should know that you were mentioned here, as it didn't seem you had been notified by ping or otherwise. Samsara 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I am quite busy currently but will try to respond briefly. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Eclectic variety

Hi Andrew. I thought I'd bring conversation over here as I detest long threaded discussion at RfAs - it's just not fair on the candidate. I hope you don't mind. You mention that Thine Antique Pen's contributions are formulaic, I do agree that he does spates of formulaic creation, and I believe that's been a way of participating in the Wikicup. But the articles he's written well don't appear to be formulaic at all - paintings, volcanoes on the moon, Wheelchair basketball players, military history. All are a selection the good articles he's written over the years. I struggle to see how he's got a narrow approach in general. WormTT(talk) 13:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I take your point and will look through these and other articles when I have more time. But the comments of user Yngvadottir also concern me - the candidate may still too much of a point-scoring attitude and this might carry through to their behaviour as an admin. I'll keep an eye on the RfA and reconsider after we have more input. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    No worries, I'm not trying to change your vote - I have no problem with the oppose, just the idea that he's been creating articles by rote goes directly against my nomination and I thought I should address that. WormTT(talk) 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Worm That Turned: I have just studied those topics more closely. I give the candidate full marks for attempting varied and difficult topics but am now quite concerned about some aspects of this work. The Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly is a challenging technical topic, which seems to have been written from scratch. If we look at the state of it before other editors got involved, it seems quite weak to the point of being incoherent. For example, the sentence, "It only appears when there is the highest amount of concentrated Thorium possible." doesn't make any sense and so seems to have been written without understanding.
The article Battle of Besançon starts better but seems to have been translated from the French wikipedia. For example, consider the translation of the following sentence:

La majorité des protagonistes protestants parviennent cependant à s'enfuir ; les assaillants capturés sont quant à eux pendus avec les Bisontins réputés traîtres.

The majority of the Protestant army managed to escape, but those who were captured were hanged with traitors.

That doesn't read quite right because the context for the word traîtres has been dropped. Another editor then comes along and copy edits this and the original meaning is then garbled:

The majority of the Protestant army managed to escape, but those who were captured were hanged as traitors.

What's especially shocking, in this case, is that there seems to have been no attribution of the original authors of the French article. This is contrary to the best practice given at WP:CWW#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. As the candidate has claimed both DYK and GA credit for the article, without seeming to mention its origin in those processes, this seems to be unacceptable plagiarism, "Do not make the work of others look like your own. Give credit where it is due." Andrew D. (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught[edit]

Andrew, I'm saddened to see you pursuing you usual manner of participation at RfA. I realise that you very occasionally support candidates but this vote once again demonstrate a clear pattern that has emerged over the years including your work as Colonel Warden. We are trying to make adminship a more interesting prospect for users of the right calibre but the style and relevance of the voting is exactly what discourages them. I'm sure you will understand that I and other users now feel it is possibly getting close to the time for the broader community to comment in another venue on what appears to be your agenda. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on at the RfA, but I'd like to add that implying the candidate's gender, or disclosure thereof, has anything to do with their suitability as an admin is totally inappropriate. Sam Walton (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This RfA is still open and so it seems best to keep discussion over there. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you move this discussion halfway up your talkpage? Is it because you don't wish to continue discussion over your clearly odd position at this RFA? Perhaps you have something to hide? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • To bring related topics together. It's how I tend to file topics which I'm keeping. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Very well. Hopefully by now you see the error of your way here. If not I sure the community will disregard your future attempts to contribute at RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Each case goes differently, depending on its merits. We shall see... Andrew D. (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed. It's clear that you have no alignment with the community, which is fine, but as a word of friendly advice, you need to address your discriminatory tone in future, unless you wish to lose any credibility you thought you had. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Your userpage is on my watchlist (as you may now have guessed) and I accidentally clicked the rollback link. I apologise for that, I think it's fixed now. BethNaught (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • @BethNaught: Thanks for the explanation. Accidents will happen – especially on a touch-screen device such as a tablet, I find. If, as seems likely, you become an admin, you should please be careful not to block editors accidentally – this seems quite easy to do and is harder to undo, I gather.
Our discussion at the RfA was hatted so if you've anything more to add, feel free to continue here. But I already expect your prior history was as you indicated. If you have a maths background, then you probably took to wiki-markup and conventions quite quickly. I have an aptitude for maths and coding too but have still found the learning curve to be significant and so had trouble understanding how you would learn so well as an IP. No doubt we have a different approach...
Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll be careful, I promise! But for now I have used CSS to remove the rollback links from my watchlist. As for my learning approach, I guess I spent a lot of time reading the manual. BethNaught (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, for your information Andrew, blocking people involves multiple clicks and selections of drop downs, whereas rollback can be achieved in one or two clicks. Unblocking people is as straightforward as blocking them, it's the same process as blocking them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This information is available at WP:ADMINGUIDE/B. Using rollback and blocking/unblocking editors are very different processes. Also, a standard unblock is arguably less complicated because there are not as many inputs required. Mkdwtalk 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
If Andrew is unaware of these differences, then perhaps his "judgement" in who should and should not make an admin is in even further doubt than it already is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's a fresh example of someone being accidentally blocked. I trust BethNaught will do a better job. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an inevitability of the IP address structure. Sometimes editors with accounts will be blocked when a range block is made across a particular IP address. It happens. (If you'd done your homework, you'd have seen that the editor's account wasn't blocked). But I guess you can (and will) use it as a reason to oppose other good candidates in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • P.S. Just for your education, in order to determine which users use which IP addresses to edit Wikipedia, the Checkuser flag is required. Just in case you went off to blame other admins for not being able to do this task... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It shouldn't happen in such cases. As I understand it, a soft block would have been better. It's perhaps hard to assess performance with such admin-only functions at RfA but one might look for a cautious, careful demeanor. Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If the vandalism comes from a small range of IP addresses (which is commonplace) then a rangeblock is the best answer. I see that you were indefinitely blocked a while ago, perhaps that this sort of thing stings? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that range blocks do not have to include logged-in accounts and should not normally do so because of the high risk of collateral damage. As for myself, I have been blocked several times but I am quite thick-skinned. Others are not so phlegmatic, though. For example, I came across someone I once knew on Wikipedia; a quite respectable professional. I didn't get to do much with him here because it wasn't long before a single block resulted in him walking away from the project completely after 8 years work. My impression is that such incidents result in the loss of thousands of editors and so are responsible for the general decline in participation. This attrition of the more sensitive souls then naturally results in the survivors being quite hardened. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • You'll need to provide more than just "your understanding" if you're going to claim that a rangeblock results in the loss of thousands of editors. The example you give is a gross misuse of tools and was a good block. To throw ones toys out and leave, well that speaks more of the editor than the blocking admin. And somewhat archaic that he would quote a "25/0/0/ admin vote" when these days RFAs have usually around 200 participants. Getting adminship back then was just a matter of asking your mates for it. Odd you would talk about attrition of "sensitive souls" when you yourself have shown unlimited insensitivity toward BethNaught. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Relations between BethNaught and myself seem just fine. They refunded an article for me today and I thanked them for the service. All's well that ends well... Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

78.26[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Egads, this time period was a bit busy for me, and I missed this correspondence. Are you still working on this? I likely have some sources on this that may help, although DAHR is simply one of the best available. This was issued twice, first as a single-sided "purple label" disc, and then as a double-sided "blue label" disc. These were series that were considered prestigious, but not as "high-class" as one of their "Red Seal" series. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @78.26: Christmas Day in the Workhouse appeared on the main page on Christmas Day of 2015. It got another good spike of traffic this recent Christmas but that's not surprising. I've not done much more with it myself but I did write up an interesting pioneer of sound recording last year – Alfred Clark (director). I have moved on from that topic since it appeared as a DYK so please feel free to pick it up and add more, if you have some specialist knowledge of the period. Andrew D. (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. My apologies for sounding prickly on James Chadwick. Understanding something doesn't always make it easy to explain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Widr[edit]

Hi Andrew, I like your posts at RfA/Widr, especially your rationale about the responsibility of admins (of 22:41, 18 March 2016) and the reply to Jdcomix, which combines being informative with humour and brevity.

I was led to the RfA page by a message on the main page. I didn't know that individual RfAs are announced there, too now. This may may explain the observation someone made (which is loosely connected to Jason Quinn's observation about "anchor bias") that people come here towards the end and add a lot of "support|oppose per ..." votings. — Sebastian 18:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sebastian. After the Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform (Phase II in particular), RfA's are now announced on user's watchlists and on the {{Centralized discussion}}. Is one of those what you meant by "main page"? The watchlist notice should go up near the beginning of the RfA after a short initial grace period, so it shouldn't be directly responsible for the late voters but it surely is responsible for the larger turnout we've been seeing. Jason Quinn — continues after insertion below
I meant the Main Page, I thought it was in the banner on top that is often used for announcements such as ArbCom elections or donation appeals. But it's possible that I misremembered; it was already a couple days ago, and can't check it in my history, because it updated the access dates since. — Sebastian 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmph. I didn't see anything on the main page and I'm not aware of such a thing but it's perfectly possible that it's something that occurs now and I just missed this developement. I'll keep on eye open. Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
As for the late voters, I think many of them (like me) tend to "sit on the fence" and make a decision near the end. When I glance at the late voters, I see many highly active and respected editors that I am certain were following the discussion closely since the RfA commenced. These are people who simply don't like making a decision until they have the most information.
Regarding bias, bias at RfA has been something I've been contemplating for a while now. Anchor bias would affect later voters more than earlier voters since there's a feedback loop where each subsequent voter is biased not only by the initial comment but also by the prior bias-contaminated comments. The bias is "stacking" so to say, although the size of the effect on an individual comment likely approaches a saturation level asymptotically. The only way to defeat anchor bias is to randomize the order of the comments or to hold all comments until the end but this is incompatible with the current RfA format, which I think may be the best possible despite its susceptibility to anchor bias. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about the natural anchor bias you're describing; partly, because I think the distinction to reasonable change of opinion is hard or impossible to do. Take Andrew's vote, for instance. Of course his well thought out arguments are apt to influence me. But why shouldn't I be influence by them? Sympathetically listening to each other's arguments is good behavior in any reasoned discussion; humankind has done that pretty well at least since the rhetoric schools of Athens; why worry about it now? — Sebastian 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments and I'm glad that Sebastian understood me so well. It's good to get such feedback because opposes at RfA are more usually subject to considerable insult and intimidation. I suppose that most !voters prefer to sit on the fence for fear of attracting such opprobrium. See groupthink for more on this. I would prefer a secret ballot more like the arbcom elections to counter this. Andrew D. (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Re groupthink, I used to call it "sheep vote" back in 2005. This was the last edit to the essay. (Can you see it? Not sure if diffs to deleted pages work for you). In 2012 I deleted the page, because I felt "doesn't represent my view anymore". I'm more worried about groupthink among administrators; I think I wrote about that on WP:AN on occasion, but I can't find that now. — Sebastian 02:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I can see the diff when logged-in because I'm an admin. I was curious if it could be seen while logged-out, and when I tried it it gives shows the Special page "Permission error" that says:
You do not have permission to view this page's deleted history, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers.
So there's no security hole. I haven't been able to find any matching interface page for this message so it may be hard-coded into MediaWiki. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this the page you're looking for? sheep voting Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one, as the hatnote states. — Sebastian 07:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru[edit]

Re this edit, it required no "admin powers"- any editor could have done the same thing. I made the edit because as a Wikipedian I care about WP:BLP and as a Bureaucrat, I care about RfA. BLP mandates no need for discussion nor consensus, more it directs us to remove breaches "immediately" - I suggest you read the policy. Incidentally, I'd have done the same, if I saw it, for a similar comment from any editor. I'm not sure why you think that your helpfully improving my text at WP:ERRORS would mean I'd single you out for specially nasty and vindictive redacting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • When I saw your comment in the oppose section, it took me a while to figure out what it meant. I checked the edit history but, for some reason, I couldn't see the update – perhaps a cache needed refreshing or perhaps I couldn't see for looking. I then supposed that it was some sort of hidden revdel/oversight action. Now I look again, it's clear as a normal edit so thanks for the explanation.
I can't see the point of doing this via ordinary editing though as that will tend to draw attention to the redacted text per the Streisand effect. Anyway, I wondered if it was something to do with the article being an FA but then recalled the WP:ERROR incident. If that's got nothing to do with it then that's fine. It might help avoid confusion and speculation if the nature of such edits was made clearer. If it is an official bureaucrat clerk action then perhaps this could be indicated by a different colour?
As for BLP, it seems quite a stretch for it to be applied in this case, as one would not normally put citations to sources in such a discussion and RfA will become quite complex if we start having to do this any time we're discussing such a subject. Otherwise we'll start having to use euphemisms like "the d-word" and that will get confusing too. The NYT interview indicates that we do have to watch what we say about Kagame though and so it's good to be reminded of this. Andrew D. (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Several dissidents said that Rwanda fields a lethal intelligence service with assassins who can operate anywhere. Rene Claudel Mugenzi, a Rwandan human rights activist living in England, told me that in March 2011, Kagame was on a BBC radio show when Mugenzi called in and asked a provocative question — whether an Arab Spring-like revolution could erupt in Rwanda. A few weeks later, two Scotland Yard bobbies rapped on Mugenzi’s door to deliver a letter. “Reliable intelligence states that the Rwandan government poses an imminent threat to your life,” it read. Mugenzi was stunned. “I never thought they would try to kill me in the U.K.,” he said.

— The Global Elite’s Favorite Strongman, Jeffrey Gettleman, 4 September 2013

If you'd like to amend our BLP policy, start a discussion at WT:BLP. Until then, we are mandated to remove immediately breaches of the policy wherever they appear, not just in article space. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah[edit]

I did my Ph.D. and a postdoc in astrophysics. While "in the constellation X" is great grammatically, astronomers say "located in the constellation X" all the time. I recommend you strike this objection from your oppose in Oshwah's RfA. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • When one makes an appropriate search, there don't seem to be any cases where the word "located" is used in this way. They all seem to say just "in the constellation Sagittarius" or "in Sagittarius". My view remains that adding the word "located" is not an improvement and the candidate should not be claiming GA credit for such edits. I qualify my doubts by using the words "debatable" and "arguably" and this seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposals[edit]

FYI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal. Sam Walton (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • That went better than I expected. My thanks to the participants for their fair-minded stance. Andrew D. (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Some additional links, for the record
  1. Discussion of Cyberpower678's close
  2. Final AN archive
  3. Samwalton9's further thoughts on the matter


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Everymorning (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Andrew_Davidson_and_RFAs:_time_for_a_topic_ban?. Alex Shih (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I have closed this discussion as "no consensus"; however I see a common theme that even those opposing an outright ban have said your views at RfAs tend to be ill thought out and are generally ignored. I would advise reading Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters carefully, otherwise you are likely to find RfA a waste of your time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Final AN archive

Cullen328[edit]

New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ansh666[edit]

Hi Andrew, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh666 23:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Muboshgu[edit]

Please withdraw your question, as it is clearly out of line. You simply cannot just speculate without any facts. The right thing to do was to simply ask for clarification, as I do agree it wasn't clearly expressed in the nomination statement. As I handled that RevDel request, the content was a paragraph of gross BLP violation that needed and should have been handled immediately. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any objections to this question being removed, I'm inclined to move it and the follow up discussion to the talk page and collapse it. If so you are welcome to ask new questions (and not have that count towards your 2 questions); multiple admins have reviewed the revdel now, and support the removal as-is (I also reviewed it). Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 22:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Muboshgu#Q7, I've left the majority of the question in place, but redacted the specific article information. — xaosflux Talk 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Prospective candidates[edit]

Since this'll get lost in the noise at WT:RFA.....

I thought BlueMoonset was an admin already, so that'll be a "support" from me. I have worked on at least one article with Edwardx but I'm blowed if I can remember what it was; his AfD stats look good so I would probably support on that too. Never heard of MassiveEartha so can't really give an opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words, both of you, but I remain uninterested in becoming an Admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
And there's the rub - everyone who would be a good administrator doesn't want to be one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me Andrew and Ritchie333. There are a few areas it would help me in for content creation, and for my growing deletion activity, being able to look at the text of previously deleted articles, for example. Yet am just not seeing any compelling need. RfA may yet happen. One day... Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Silent applause (re Cordless Larry)[edit]

I didn't want to write it there. I actually commend your discussion style (except for a few words, of course, like "absurd", but forget that) and applaud your persistence in something you believe in. I'm also in awe that you don't cow down to number pressure – that is, the social pressure of having a huge number of editors against you. It's an honest appreciation of you. Warmly, Lourdes 04:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you – your kind comment is much appreciated. Our discussions are supposed to be based on the quality of argument rather than its quantity but this is not always easy. Feynman tells a story which sticks in my mind as the ideal.[1] Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

    Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. ... So everyone is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead." It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best—summing it all up—without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed.

References[edit]

  1. ^ R. P. Feynman (1985), "Los Alamos From Below", Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, p. 109

RexxS[edit]

It might be a little bit late, but I for one enjoyed your little play-on-words - or puun - as I have been known to call them. Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not getting your puun pun yet but will think on't. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Greenman[edit]

You disrupted RfA for years with your persistent systematic oppose votes. Unnecessary drama there is one of the reasons why candidates won't come forward. Your attempts at being vindictive for my pointing it out won't wash - if you are going to continue to teach people at your editathons, please consider brushing up on some of the inclusion criteria: human settlements are considered notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • This seems to refer to Greenman's RFA, which Kudpung opposed. I did not oppose and the candidate described my questions as a "a welcome change from the others". The populated place in question was Lulsley. The RfA is now closed but I am still working on a spinoff which I populated myself yesterday, before walking to the Wikimeet via some other Green Men. Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikimeets[edit]

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Great Turnstile[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great Turnstile, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Great Turnstile (entrance pictured, right) was originally built to keep cattle out of Holborn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Turnstile. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Great Turnstile), 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) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

London Meetup 109 at the Great Turnstile.JPG
I enormously enjoyed this new article. The evident pleasure you have in writing your new articles communicates itself to the reader. Smashing stuff! Tim riley talk 21:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it's kind of you to say so. I tried to get it into good shape for the Meetup there today (pictured) where it made a good talking point. Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Accounts[edit]

Per this policy, please connect your alternate accounts to this account. BMK (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I put templates on them already but if you want to check them out, the list is
I used Colonel Warden as my main account for a while for privacy reasons while the others were used in a limited way for testing and training. Andrew D. (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Your "Major Vex" account is linked to "Colonel Warden", not to your current account. BMK (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That account was not active then or now and so is just listed for completeness. Colonel Warden was my main account at the time and is semi-retired. I still look in on it to check its notifications as it gets quite a lot. The priority right now seems to be RfA, as that's on a timetable. Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Continued use of alt account?[edit]

Chenrezig Sand Mandala.jpg
Dunkerton hill in 1853.PNG

It just came to my attention (I almost never check editors' block logs...) that you were blocked indefinitely and then a week or so later your account was unblocked on condition that you retire your other account, Colonel Warden (talk · contribs). But it's since made eleven edits to the article space, six to the combined talk, Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk spaces, and four to user talk pages other than your own. Were these accidental? Perhaps you should request the alt account be blocked so you don't make that mistake anymore. Or was your unblock condition rescinded at some point? Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  • The issue was queried and explained some years ago here. I still log in to the account from time to time to attend to the many notifications about its legacy of contributions. For example, I was recently contacted by an author wanting to use an image (right) that I photographed and uploaded from that account. They were planning to credit that account name but I advised them that it would be better to use this name. The account is registered as a WP:VALIDALT with arbcom, who de-sysopped the admin who improperly placed the block and so everything seems in order now. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that the block for socking had nothing to do with their desysopping (in the ArbCom case in question, you linked to a block from 21 months earlier, where they blocked you for lying in edit summaries, rather than anything to do with sockpuppetry), and the admin who actually placed the unblock condition on you was not Kww but Yunshui, who has not only never been desysopped by ArbCom but was elected to ArbCom the following year.
Anyway, your above explanation works for the account's edits to its own talk page, but I was specifically talking about 20 or so edits to pages "other than [its] own"; and even discounting any edits to the mainspace (etc.) that might have been related to such inquiries, Somerset Coalfield, for example, was never edited by that account before you agreed to stop using it. Also, Yun specifically told you to clarify the link between the accounts on their respective userpages, but there is not currently any reference to the CW account on this account's user page.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My various accounts are listed above. The Somerset Coalfield update was for another image (right) which was first uploaded for Duncorn Hill. Images have to be used to avoid deletion and so this avoids waste. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

5 million[edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png 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 pot[edit]

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 Desbordes[edit]

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)

Images[edit]

Royal Rock Beagles[edit]

Much appreciated if you could list where you obtained this :File:Royal Rock Beagles by John Dalby 1845.png in the relevant field on the page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red 9 Aug 2014.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A courtesy notice that, per the discussion, this file now needs a fair use rationale (see directions on file page) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject 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) 17:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Great Turnstile[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Great Turnstile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles[edit]

Hi Andrew Davidson. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrctions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. Non-free content cannot be used (i.e., displayed) in the Wikipedia namespace, except in some very specific cases, which is why I have linked File:Agnata Frances Ramsay by Ida Baumann.jpg and File:Lucy Barbara Bradby.jpg being used repectively in Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles/6 and Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Articles/2. Perhaps you didn't notice the edit sums I left the first time I linked the files, so I'm posting here in more detail. If you have any more questions about this, you can ask me here or ask others for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • You should try reading your own gibberish as WP:NFEXMP states that "Article images may appear in article preview popups" and that was the nature of the usage. See also WP:BURO. Andrew D. (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Gamesters of Triskelion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gamesters of triskelion small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictures with {{keep local}}[edit]

Hi Andrew,

why are you uploading your files with local copies?--B.Eichengreen (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC) B.Eichengreen (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Maria Bitner-Glindzicz[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Maria Bitner-Glindzicz.jpg. 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) 02:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


daisybell.jpg[edit]

What was the motivation behind retaining a local copy? Arlo James Barnes 03:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Being Human - Revealing Local History[edit]

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)

Pottery Throw Down[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great work on The Great Pottery Throw Down and Keith Brymer Jones articles, I created Kate Malone last night and planned to do the other two tonight, you beat me to it! Theroadislong (talk) 18:56, 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 Month[edit]

Asia medal.svg 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 Foundery[edit]

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

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016[edit]

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 issues[edit]

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 Band[edit]

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 & Sons[edit]

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 Shootout[edit]

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 History[edit]

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

Makonde carving 1.jpg
  • 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)
Real Life Barnstar.jpg 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 Reckless[edit]

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 McNish[edit]

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 Bose[edit]

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 LCC[edit]

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)

Goats[edit]

Goatification logo.svg

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 Heater[edit]

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)

Cataracts[edit]

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)

Symbol question.svg 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)
Updated DYK query.svgOn 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)

April Fool[edit]

Hi Andrew Davidson: A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America1000 06:02, 1 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)

House of Plantagenet[edit]

I appreciate your help so far, we can use all the volunteers we can get, but what you're doing today isn't helpful. Please stop waiting until the very day that a TFA goes live to make whatever point you want to make. TFAs are typically scheduled at least two weeks in advance and often more; see WP:TFAA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You could also spend a lot more of your time at FAC which I'm sure would be appreciated. After all, the community consensus upon the promotion of today's article was to include the paragraph you have summarily deleted. Clearly your approach differs substantially to the rest of the FAC community so I'm certain your input would be considered helpful, especially well in advance of such perceived "errors" going live on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Starved Vietnamese man, 1966.JPEG
  • I browse the main page every morning. This is not especially focussed on any of the sections or articles; I just fasten on whatever catches my eye. This might be the FA, the featured picture, a DYK, an ITN headline or whatever. For example, I recognise the FP today too and recall raising some issue about that in the past but don't have the relevant link at my fingertips. Anyway, if I spot a fresh issue with something, then it is my duty to report it, right? This doesn't make me responsible for fixing everything that has led up to that point because this is a collaborative effort covering numerous articles and other pages. My own development efforts tend to be focussed on my own articles such as the DYK which has just gone up. I have just been active to see if we can get a free image for that while it's still up. I expect that to be a struggle but so it goes. And, of course, I have plenty of other non-Wikipedia things to do too.
See also shooting the messenger. :)
Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, most of the time you're not delivering bad news, you're just wasting time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Andrew, in my experience the single most common mistake made in contentious community discussions is the unchangeable belief that a person knows what the point is, what everyone should be focusing on, and the certainty that anyone who thinks different is irrelevant. In contentious RfCs concerning policy, it's more often true than not that the participants can't even agree on what questions should be under discussion. You're making a mistake here because I know what's happened at ANI in the past when a person kept waiting until the day FAs showed up at TFA to make a point about perceived flaws in those FAs ... but if you don't hear what I'm saying, I'm not going to hold it against you because this mistake is so common on Wikipedia. I'll just be sad, because you could otherwise have been a great contributor to the process. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Dank, Rambling man, this account has basically been trolling for a number of years, or AGF wrong 100% on everything, every time - ignore/discount and just work through. Time sinking seems to be the aim. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Dank seems to be referring to some previous case that I don't recall or am not familiar with. Please provide details, if you think it will help. There seem to be various editors who regularly point out errors on the main page. Dealing with these seems unavoidable and that's the point of the WP:ERROR process. It would be nice if we could catch everything before it gets put up but I doubt that we're ever going to achieve such 100% perfection. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I urge Dank not to provide details, and just walk away. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Any long-time observer at ANI will know the incidents I'm talking about. You can probably pull them up by searching for "TFA" at WP:ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I try to avoid observing ANI and when I try the suggested search I just find some fuss about Pigsonthewing and infoboxes, which doesn't seem relevant. What we have here is a vital topic that doesn't seem up to scratch. The period is generally in the news because of the Shakespeare anniversary and so we should be dealing with such issues as they appear. The idea that we should be sweeping them under the carpet instead seems quite bizarre. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you know by now what you're doing isn't right, let's hope we don't need to take it further. Looks like Ceoil hit the nail on the head. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I am still waiting for action to be taken at WP:ERRORS where both TRM and Dank indicate that they are unwilling or unable to resolve the reported error. It's puzzling that such a straightforward content issue should prove so difficult but perhaps some editor will step up. Andrew D. (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you really puzzled that numerous editors (five last count) are tired of trying to service your time-wasting? Time to get a different Wolf. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure who those five were but some other editors have turned up now who are actually willing to talk about the content in question. Those who wish to study fairy tales instead should please consider The Emperor's New Clothes. Andrew D. (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to join those discussing issues with the article. Avoid ERRORS for a while if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • And as the edit summary says Restore paragraph removed without discussion - use talk to discuss objections. Read, learn, improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Old Slaughter's Coffee House[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 4 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Old Slaughter's Coffee House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Benjamin Franklin played chess at Old Slaughter's Coffee House (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Old Slaughter's Coffee House. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Old Slaughter's Coffee House), 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) 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Gaby's Deli[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 8 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gaby's Deli, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that then-Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to save Gaby's Deli? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gaby's Deli. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gaby's Deli), 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) 23:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Admins vs content providers[edit]

For once, I have to agree with you. Entirely. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung. Four GAs and about a dozen DYKs mostly written/overhauled from scratch isn't worth anything at all, is it? And neither is thrice outdoing the definition of an active admin. Biblio (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for David Nott[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Nott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Nott (pictured) is often styled the "Indiana Jones of surgery"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Nott. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Nott), 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) 00:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

That was a depressing reminder of why I never go anywhere near that part of Wikipedia. Yuk.  — Scott talk 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Before I bring this up at WT:TFA, I'm wondering if you see the problem and if you can give me anything in the way of a compromise. What I have in mind was illustrated at, among other articles, House of Plantagenet, on its TFA day. Would you be willing to make your reports to ERRORS and hold off on edits directly to articles on their TFA day? I'm trying to find a way to wrap up this conflict quietly. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Of course, I prefer a sensible compromise to tiresome drama. We should first clarify what the problem is. I had supposed that it was my postings at WP:ERROR. But now you indicate that it is my editing of the actual articles. This has not happened on many occasions, as I recall. I edited Dan Leno some years ago, adding a famous example of his patter to the article when it appeared on the main page. There was some kind of edit conflict with Tim Riley but we sorted that out quite amicably. I have attended several editathons with him since and we get along fine. Most recently, I read yesterday's FA, John Balmer, with interest and made a minor copy edit which caused no fuss or muss. I read the sources in some detail for that topic and thought there was scope to say more about the subject but didn't have time or inclination to get into it in detail. None of this would have been appropriate at WP:ERROR because there was no error on the main page. As I understand it, WP:ERROR is only for issues with the blurbs, hooks and other content which actually appears on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This sounds really promising, thanks for the details. I think I can work with this. I need to get over a stomach bug. More soon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay, feeling better. Sorry, I don't like to do this stuff when I'm sick, I suck at it. Let's start here: what would you like to do? (Uncontroversial copyediting to a FA is of course welcome ... on any day other than the TFA day itself. Article maintainers feel besieged on TFA, and the less they have to process, the better.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Main Page Errors[edit]

What's this page for?

Please excuse my nosiness. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • It's an archive. I don't understand why WP:ERROR doesn't keep an archive of the usual sort, especially as discussions are often removed so swiftly there. It's quite unlike the practise at AFD or RFA, say, where discussions are maintained indefinitely and so can be easily referred to years later. I've been keeping a record of the discussions I've participated in. It's a work in progress but the structure has developed naturally and it's not yet too big to be awkward. Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not archived because there's no real need for archiving. The discussions there are about what it says on Main Page, which is a fleeting thing, unlike AfD or RfA that have longlasting impact. Besides, it's all there in the page history anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I stumbled across this page. Please could you tell me its purpose? Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • You asked about this in July of last year - see above. It's an archive of issues raised in which I took an interest. By keeping such archives, one is able to deal with recurring items such as your query. The general practise at WP:ERRORS is to remove items when they scroll off the main page but sometimes there are unresolved issues. And, in any case, I find it interesting to review and follow up such topics once I have started investigating the content in detail. For similar reasons, I keep records of my other activities such as page creations, DYK and editathons. See maxims such as know thyself and lessons learned. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing through protection[edit]

You are aware this happens on all portions of the main page via ERRORS every day, right? And you are aware that it happens multiple times per day at DYK once sets have been promoted to queues, right? In neither case is there any obligation to seek permission or consensus. It'd be best if you stopped trying to claim that it was required in all such cases, as clearly, practically and empirically, you're wrong to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • What seems to happen every day is that WP:ERRORS wastes time and energy by revisiting topics afresh, rather than consulting the relevant editors. For example, there was some carping and cavilling about the NZ hooks on Waitangi Day yesterday. I said that this was probably deliberate and have just noticed some relevant discussion which confirms this. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the point here. Stop telling people that you need a consensus to edit through protection. It's simply not true. Besides, I'm not clear on what your link is supposed to demonstrate? That had precisely zero to do with Waitangi Day being linked as a target article on two different sections of the main page simultaneously. Please stop misleading others regarding the editing through protection, though, that really must stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Another fresh example is the case of Easton Area Public Library in which a hook was changed in the queue then reverted at WP:ERRORS and then chewed over some more to "fix the fix". What's needed in such cases is discussion and consensus rather jumping to conclusions. The principal editor should be notified and involved in this because they will tend to know the topic best. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You missed both points again. Editing through protection happens every day, so telling people they must not or cannot is factually incorrect. And "principal editors" are often not available so decisions have to be made on their behalf. Of course, if you took any of what you're saying seriously, you'd be requesting that every admin who edits through protection at both DYK queues and the main page be de-sysopped. Of course that's not going to happen. So I think we're done here, but if you make false statements to other users who aren't aware of this conversation in the future, I'll gladly drop them a line with a diff to this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Stanhope Medal[edit]

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 Payne[edit]

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)

DYK for Bocca di Lupo, Sanguinaccio dolce, Buckwheat honey[edit]

Nice design at User:Andrew Davidson/Whimsy. I have added it to my user page (with proper attribution, and also credit to you) in my dashboard section. Neat idea! North America1000 20:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: You're welcome. As our main editor of food and drink topics, you may also be interested in some other recent work:
  1. Bocca di Lupo and The Glad, articles which I worked on for recent London editathon/wikimeets and which are currently up at DYK
  2. Sanguinaccio dolce – an interesting regional dish served at Bocca di Lupo which I've just started as a separate article
  3. Buckwheat honey – another new topic which has generated some discussion.
Bon appétit! Andrew D. (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I don't know about being a "main editor", but sure, I've made some contributions in this area that I like. Lots of others create new articles too. Check out WP:NEWFOOD, for example! North America1000 10:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Sanguinaccio dolce looks a bit like poop (ha ha), but sounds delicious. See also Ttongppang. North America1000 23:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Good point. There's lots of potential DYK material there. There are people out there who make long lists of such food... Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration case[edit]

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 English[edit]

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 Library[edit]

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

Bertha Bracey[edit]

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)
Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 creation[edit]

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 Furra[edit]

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)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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)

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 contributions[edit]

BBC 100 Women and Wikipedia freebies.jpg

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

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 Finch[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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)

Requisition[edit]

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)

Donegal[edit]

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)

Rollback[edit]

Don't revert discussions on my talkpage ... But thanks for letting me know you're stalking me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I suppose I must have inadvertently clicked my mouse pad while my watchlist was displayed and an undo link got pressed by accident. My apologies. Andrew D. (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, that would be a "rollback" abuse, not an "undo" (which requires confirmation). Glad to know you're checking on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • My watchlist calls those links "rollback" so that'll be it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for participating on the Myrcella Baratheon AfD. I would encourage you to add any additional sources to the AfD to support your vote and help with the general discussion. If there are enough sources that notability is firmly established, I would be more than happy to work on the article. I have a soft spot for the character so I would be happy to research more on here.

I would also like to apologize for the following edit [2]. I checked your contributions to see if you had participated in the last Myrcella AfD and put up any sources there; while doing so I accidentally reverted one of your edits on another AfD. I have reverted my edit, but I just wanted to apologize for that as it was my mistake. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the response. I will check it out. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Women in Classics[edit]

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

Amy Richlin[edit]

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

Beryl Rawson[edit]

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

Dorothy Tarrant[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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)


Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 Trimble[edit]

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

Miriam Griffin[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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)

Symbol question.svg 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 Elm[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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 Hammond[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 Butler[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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]

Brownie transparent.png 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 WCCWiki[edit]

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

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

Brandywell, Isle of Man[edit]

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 Bridge[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 blues[edit]

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 Fiction[edit]

Black Destroyer[edit]

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)
Updated DYK query.svgHello, 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 knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg 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)

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 fiction[edit]

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)
Forbidden Planet London January 2012.jpg
  • 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)

Hockney[edit]

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 again[edit]

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 Refuge[edit]

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 Fountainhead[edit]

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 Fruit[edit]

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 RD[edit]

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 Society[edit]

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)

WikiTribune[edit]

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 Wade[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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)

Symbol question.svg 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 sapiens[edit]

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 Electricity[edit]

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 Wood[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 Lyon[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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 Fact[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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)


Updated DYK query.svgOn 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)

Oxford Food Symposium[edit]

Oxford Food Symposium Wikithon 2017.jpeg

Hi Andrew- thanks for taking part on Friday. You mentioned that you took a photo of the event and put it somewhere on social media. Can you point me to it? Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: I've uploaded the image (right). The tweet contains the hashtag so you can find what others have done too. Thanks for helping to organise the event; it was a good one. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC) ‎
Awesome! Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

2018[edit]

Sup Andrew-D. Any reason this hasn't yet got an on-Wiki page? Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 13:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The page for this series of events is Wikipedia:GLAM/Oxford Food Symposium. The on-wiki page tends to lag behind the coverage on the sites of the sponsoring organisations, as the focus is on drawing in attendance from their communities rather than ours. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Better move fast as there aren't many spots left and it's also being plugged in other places such as the Symposium site. Andrew D. (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Symposium last year was quite a mixed bunch from foodies to farmers like James Rebanks. The BL events have had more women but seem reasonably open to the public. Being a mid-week event will tend to limit attendance and my impression is that they are trying to fill up the last few places now. It's good to have a leavening of veterans like us as newbies need a lot of hand-holding and we're also effective at getting pages written. The BL is a good place to hang out and get wiki-work done so it's good to support events there. And it would be interesting to meet you. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WhatsApp conversation style.png

Lily Bollinger[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject 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) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Foxwarren Park[edit]

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)
Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 Ezra[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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)

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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 journals[edit]

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 Cobb[edit]

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

Biting newcomers and deleting their articles: what we can do to help prevent it[edit]

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 Agrawal[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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 Society[edit]

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

DYK for Abbie Hutty[edit]

Symbol question.svg 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 Education[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

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:EAGER[edit]

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)

Deletion discussions[edit]

Osterley Television Centre[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osterley_Television_Centre

I don't know why you removed my proposal for deletion or what to do about it. Griffindd (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The prod process is only supposed to be used in uncontroversial cases and it has now been terminated. You are not expected or required to do anything more. Andrew D. (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox_World_Heritage_Site[edit]

If you have any qualms as to my close at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?, you may find WP:AN to be a more suitable venue than WP:TfD.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 12:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The discussion in question has now been closed as there being no consensus to delete. The RfC and the wider Wikidata issues are now being considered by Arbcom and there's more RfC to come. These seem the most suitable forums now. Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Manufacturers[edit]

Category:Manufacturers, 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. —swpbT go beyond 16:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pension hotel[edit]

While there is no requirement for any explanation when removing a PROD, it would be helpful if you could leave some clue for other editors beyond "(remove prod)" so that they can know your reasons. Thanks. PamD 23:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Metacomic[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metacomic 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/Metacomic 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. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Circle time[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Circle time 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/Circle time 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. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako[edit]

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Chiyo Miyako. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Dogs in urban environments[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dogs in urban environments. Since you had some involvement with the Dogs in urban environments redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Andrew Davidson.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Andrew Davidson. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'll give it a try. Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Northfield Allotments[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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/Amusement[edit]

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, Ealing[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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)

Best wishes for the holidays...[edit]

Northamerica1000 is wishing you a happy Thanksgiving. If you don't celebrate Thanksgiving, don't forget that "Any time is turkey time" (see image). North America1000 06:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The Nativity MET DT5285 (cropped).jpg Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Nativity scenes attributed to Zanobi Strozzi is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


Women in Red logo.svg
Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons.
Bengali Hindu women in prison in Alipur (c. 1856).jpg
KOCIS Hanbok fashion show (6557976891).jpg
Location map of British Isles.png



New: "Prisoners"

New: "Fashion designers"

New: "Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland"


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging


Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Andrew Davidson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

2018[edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Colonel, and wishing you a happy and prosperous new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Duncorn Hill[edit]

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 Alley[edit]

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)

Symbol question.svg 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)

Symbol question.svg 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)

Updated DYK query.svgOn 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)

DePRODing[edit]

Ductwork[edit]

The PROD was removed with no improvement whatsoever. Nothing changed. For eight years this has been a wonderful article, but it's not encyclopedic. It is the original research of what appears to be one individual without as much as a single reference. Rhadow (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The prod process is not an article improvement service and it's only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. I have opposed the proposal because it seems likely that there are alternatives to deletion which we should prefer per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Parks[edit]

Could you please explain why you have deWP:PRODed several articles about non-notable municpal parks such as Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas). If you are going to mass-deprod articles, it is strongly encouraged that you "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you don't' have to leave an explanation, it is strongly encouraged. And I am asking you now, if you would please explain your reasoning. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:PROD, "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." You should please expect opposition in such cases and so not use this process. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Copy and pasting isn't helping here. I don't know if you're trying to make a statement that you think the WP:PROD process should never be used. But what, I'm specifically asking you why in your opinion these articles should not be deleted. We'll take it one at a time. Why in your opinion should the article Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas) not be deleted?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The PROD process for that topic has now terminated. The PROD process does not start or provide for a discussion because it is only for uncontroversial topics. If you're expecting a discussion you should therefore not use this process. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
You're basically refusing to answer my question. I don't see how a small municipal park is a controversial topic. Your refusal to discuss leads me to believe you were deproding articles in bad faith. Presumably because you object to the existence of the WP:PROD process.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If it was not clear to you that deletion of municipal parks is controversial, I trust that you now understand this. Please do not use the PROD process for such topics as it is pointless; a waste of time. Andrew D. (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict){(talk page stalker)@Rusf10:, please don't assume bad faith like that. There's nothing wrong with you PRODding the article, as you expected it was uncontroversial. However, the PROD process states that anyone who objects may de-prod an article, and therefore it is now a controversial deletion. Andrew Davidson objects, presumably because he believes the topic is notable. I have my guesses as to why, and he may be right, but I don't want to put words in his "mouth". So, if you believe the topic is not notable, nominate it for AfD, where a civil discussions about the merits of the topic, or lack thereof, should take place. Happy editing! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@78.26:Why should anyone have to guess why he believes this is a controversial topic, when I've asked him his reasoning multiple times? He just refuses to answer and that why it is difficult to assume good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
It only matters that another editor believes the topic to be notable. It is therefore a controversial deletion. As you stated earlier, he is not required to give a detailed explanation. For what it's worth, and this is only me talking, deletion of geographic features are rarely considered uncontroversial. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way, just to make sure, you ask how a municipal park is a controversial topic. If you mean that literally, you mis-understand the instructions. It isn't whether or not the topic is controversial that matters, it matters if the deletion of the article is controversial. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions)!
This was all I was asking Andrew for. It wasn't that difficult of a question to answer, was it? Although I do disagree with you because a park is not a natural geographic feature like a mountain or a lake, it is a man-made designation.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

World Beer Cup[edit]

Please can you explain why you have removed a PROD in future, eg: here. As it stands, that article is little more than advertorial and, of course, press releases from the "winners" and organisers do not count towards notability, so I am at a bit of a loss regarding your rationale. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Per WP:PROD, one contests a prod by removing it. That terminates the process and so it does not provide for discussion. If you wish to discuss the article's flaws then this is best done on its talk page, where the other editors who have worked on it may comment too. Andrew D. (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I am well aware that you don't have to explain. I was asking you please to do so instead of being uncollaborative. Your constant resort to lawyering is wearing and disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)[edit]

Hi you deprodded the above article but without explaining why in your edit summary. I was wondering why you deprodded it. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Per WP:DEPROD, "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article". Per WP:REVTALK, I "avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content". Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
that's a shame because by not using an edit summary you open the debate. And Deprod says quite clearly "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page."
This would have avoided this exchange especially as I still don't know why you deprodded and there was no debate or negotiation already going on so no reason to invoke revtalk. Domdeparis (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Holy Merry Go Around[edit]

Why did you delete the proposed deletion for List of Batman storylines?

  • That is the way one contests such a proposal. Per WP:PROD, "Any editor ... may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so please explain why you object on the link provided otherwise why remove the proposed deletion template. Matt14451 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


Jazz in Africa[edit]

Would you explain why you deprodded the Jazz in Africa article? Thanks. Your opinions that jazz started in Africa and that jazz bands exist today in Africa are, at best, beside the point when it comes to creating or deleting articles, i.e. notability. Notability relies on sources. Are there enough independent, reliable sources to create an article of substance about the subject? That's what we base our subjects on. Not whether something is a good idea, whether something is true, or whether it ought to be an article because it sounds important and might be developed by someone somewhere down the road.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you explain why you deprodded The Alberts, The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, The Temperance Seven? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope you are not using No Swan So Fine's opinion as a justification for your actions. He was not only insulting, he was wrong. It's certainly odd to accuse an editor of editing as though it were something terrible. But that situation is irrelevant to this situation. When I do an internet search and I find few or no sources for an article, I consider that an uncontroversial proposal for deletion. I don't expect opposition for such an article in such a situation. It's both courteous and a WP rule that a person leave a reason for deprodding an article. If you have sources for that article, that's great. Go ahead and add them. I'm certainly not stopping you from working on that article to improve it. There's no reason why you shouldn't answer a simple matter of fact question like "Why did you deprod this article"? I don't know why. That's why I'm asking. I have no ulterior motive. Our reasons for doing things on Wikipedia are rooted in the rules of Wikipedia and, I hope, in common sense, courteousness, and rational discussion. What's the alternative? Arbitrariness. People doing whatever they damn well please. I'm sure you would not want that if the tables were turned. Please consider your replies more carefully. Please give a reason for deprodding articles per WP documentation. Thank you for replying. Cheers, mate.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

List of megaprojects in India[edit]

Andrew, would you mind explaining why you removed this? The article is the very definition of junk: it consists, essentially, of one sentence, an unattributed quotation that appears to define "megaprojects", though not in an Indian context, and one "sourced" entry whose source actually uses "mega project" apparently in a more general sense of "large project". Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Per WP:DEPROD, removal of a prod is the way that one objects to it. The particulars of the topic are best discussed on its talk page where the creator has already started discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
DEPROD also says You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to [...] [e]xplain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page: if you are asked to provide an explanation, and refuse to give one, that implies you don't have a good-faith one, or are deliberately playing your cards close to your chest so you can throw out an argument five or six days after an AFD is opened and no one responds, so the AFD can be closed as "no consensus". It would be better for all involved if you explained why you think the article is valid before the AFD so your concerns can be appropriately addressed -- better for everyone but you and perhaps the article creator (who made a bad call by leaving the article in the mainspace as is) in that, if convincing enough, maybe your reason could stop an AFD from being opened in the first place, and better for everyone else in that if your reason is not convincing then it can be addressed upfront by the opening AFD comment; presumably you consider your reason to be convincing, so the former would apply. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
You should probably also bear in mind that while there is no broad community consensus that editors in general are required to provide a reason for deprodding, there was a pretty strong consensus here that you specifically should provide a reason when you deprod, or potentially face sanctions. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain this? at the same time? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 05:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Would it help if you had to explain at ANI? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 05:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Roxy' prod was removed because this is the way that one objects to the proposal. The template states clearly that a detailed explanation is "not required". In any case, no deletion reason for the proposal was provided, just a vague direction to "See Rope", and so there was no case to answer. Note also that the template states emphatically that "If this template is removed, do not replace it" but Roxy has done so in violation of the WP:PROD process. Roxy should please read templates and their instructions more carefully before placing them. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
ANI it is then. see you. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
See "TBAN and Block Needed" at ANI, which concerns you. Thanks -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Cricketers[edit]

When you get a moment could you explain your rationale for removing the PRODs? No rush, but it'll be helpful to know if there's a logical reason for their removal. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • CAT:ALLPROD has been swamped with cricketers lately and, as I patrol this, I have been reviewing them. Typically, the concern is that the cricketer did not play first class cricket but the article says otherwise. There is therefore some dispute about the status of these cricketers. The WP:PROD process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to