Jump to content

User talk:Andrewa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AimeeRhodes (talk | contribs) at 01:35, 8 July 2011 (→Name Change Follow Up: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

G'day! This is Andrew Alder's user talk page, you knew that. Welcome!



Archives of this page

Wow. This page has now again grown to 30k, and there are some things there that I want to remember but a great lot that I don't expect to grow any more so despite earlier comments I'm now going to simply archive a great slab of it. If you want to continue any of those discussions, do so on this page please and link to the item in the archive. Andrewa 21:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And wow again... now to 40k. See user talk:andrewa/archive2. Andrewa 01:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And again... see user talk:andrewa/archive3, user talk:andrewa/archive5. Andrewa 05:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:andrewa/archive4 is dedicated to Return of the Time Cube. Andrewa 18:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC) This continues in User talk:andrewa/archive6 along with other issues. Andrewa 19:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now:


Talk:Mudflap

Hi. For what it's worth, I don't think the IP who proposed a disambiguation page at Mudflap is being disruptive, only very inexperienced. Please consider refactoring your contributions to Talk:Mudflap to remove the references to the ANI. Let us judge the requested move on its merits, not on the reputation of the requester. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think you're wasting your time and mine. Agree that requested moves should be judged on their merits. This particular one has no merits. Andrewa (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broader issues

Two recently created DAB pages that don't seem to meet existing guidelines:

  • Frizzle. Nothing to disambiguate; The other meanings are different article names.
  • Mudflap. Again, nothing to disambiguate.

Note that these were created by different IPs. Perhaps it's not a pattern yet, and perhaps not a great problem. But it's a notable trend IMO.

There are two possible responses IMO. We could slightly broaden the scope of disambiguation to allow such cases... and perhaps the guidelines already do, it's a close call IMO, perhaps it's just clarification needed not broadening. Alternatively, we could convert these DABs to redirects. That assumes these redirects would survive WP:RFD, and I think they would, perhaps barely. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One that doesn't have a leg to stand on:

  • Cowman, a two-way DAB consisting entirely of redlinks, replacing a useful redir. Reverted!

I fear there are more to find... Andrewa (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback abuse?

You used rollback to revert me?[1] 69.3.72.9 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. No abuse, I'm entitled to do it. Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, judging by Wikipedia:Rollback feature and Wikipedia:Edit warring, you did abuse rollback, and your being an administrator does not entitle you to do so. Furthermore, I consider your canvassing [2] [3] [4] to be disruptive. Please stop. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The reason for the rollback was adequately covered by the message posted on the talk page. The messages posted were appropriate and in forums, not biased or to individual users. The single revert was not edit warring. Andrewa (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Cowman#Entries. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deniliquin, New South Wales

The follow-up for the discussion you were looking for is at WP:AWNB#RM -- moving forward. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Enid Blyton Bible Stories.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Enid Blyton Bible Stories.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 02:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoseconds

Have replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recipients of nanosecond. This is just a quick ping :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't look at my Afd reply, I'll repeat part of it here: Have you seen the large paragraph about the nanoseconds, that has existed for a long time, under Grace Hopper#Anecdotes? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fordigraph

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

no assertion of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False etymology > Folk Etymology

You participated in a discussion on the page Folk etymology as to whether it should be moved to False etymology. Despite the consensus on that discussion, the move was effected. I have requested that the move be reversed. I am notifying you as a party to that prior discussion. If you are interested, the current discussion is located here.μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Banking 500

Thanks for your contributions to the discussion on this one. Interesting footnote on the name NASCAR Banking 500: Bank of America offers licensed checking accounts and credit cards under the Banking brand. Basically, you could have your favorite club's logo and identity placed on your checks and credit cards and such. Thus, they changed the name of the Bank of America 500 to NASCAR Banking 500 Only from Bank of America to promote this service. And early on, they didn't even refer to the race distance in the name. Sometimes, these sponsored race names get to be a bit much, such as the Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips at The Glen. Also of interest, Coca-Cola has sponsored the spring race for so long that fans do call it the Coca-Cola 600 in common speech. Of course, Coke is something of an institution in the South, so that could also account for it. Who knows? Anyway, thanks again. Khan_singh (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in Article of Andre Geim, winner of 2010 Nobel Prize

Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:

- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml

- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf

- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/

- …


clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. BestAlexander468 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Re comments on Talk:Gold Peak requested move

Andrewa - Question. You made the following statement: Please read the instructions before proposing any more moves, and use subst: in future as requested there and above. I am not sure what you are implying as the move request was made with the template {{ subst:move|new|why }}. Please explain. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly my mistake... I made a couple last night! Must have been more tired than I thought. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgiven! --Mike Cline (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have a copy of a bound edition in 7 volumes, probably bought new by my grandfather c. 1915, and inherited from my father. I have edited user page User:Andrewa/harmsworth and uploaded a few images. Might this be ready to start a general article?Timpo (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would IMO be a good article topic. I put the user page there to help provide provenance for scanned images; It seemed a good source for these. But other things have kept this project on the back burner. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fordigraph for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Fordigraph, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fordigraph until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brig

Hello, Andrewa. You have new messages at Talk:Brig (ship).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Andrewa - thanks for sorting out the move of Brig. Happy Christmas. Shem (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hatter

Thanks for tidying. I have re-tidied. I hope for a positive outcome. -- Evertype·✆ 19:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Sailing vessels and rigging

Category:Sailing vessels and rigging, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Relisting requested moves

When re-listing requested moves the re-listing statement (well technically only the time stamp) has to go before the original date/time stamp as otherwise the bot does not pick up the new date/time. For this reason it is also normal to put the relist statement in small so it's more obvious it's not part of the original rationale. See for example this change that I just made so your re-list would actually result in a re-list - hope you don't mind changing your edit like that. Dpmuk (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No... thanks! I was wondering why it was taking so long! Next time I will know. Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move - Chihuahua (state)

You once were involved into an article naming discussion of Chihuahua (state). There is now a new move request you might be interested in: Talk:Chihuahua#Requested move - Chihuahua (state) TopoChecker (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Talk:Art of the United Kingdom

I strongly disagree with your closing comments at the move discussion here. While I accept that that debate was no consensus, I had not anticipatthe number of drive-by nationalist comments & had not done a very full explanation in the nom. I shall certainly renominate after a while, with a fuller explanation, and from the start challenging commenters whose comments make no sense on any basis. Needless to say, none of the opposers had ever edited this or related articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It was my call, and I made it as best I could.

You should renominate if and only if you believe that the renomination has a chance of succeeding. The fact that you believe it should succeed is a given, and it's not enough. It will just annoy people if you renominate and merely repeat arguments from the previous nomination, whether they were in the initial rationale or in later discussion. This case has been formally rejected, rightly or wrongly.

Yes, wait a while. The less new material you have, the longer you need to wait. Consensus can change but it takes time.

I would encourage you to use some of this time to consider:

  • WP:OWN. The fact that these other editors hadn't ever edited this or related articles doesn't reduce their right to comment on the move.
  • WP:NPA. The phrase drive-by nationalists doesn't do your cause any good.
  • WP:AGF. Nobody makes comments that make no sense on any basis. If you dismiss rather than understand opposing arguments, you're most unlikely to be able to answer them.
  • WP:consensus. Again, try to understand where the people who disagree with you are coming from, otherwise, no matter how correct your own arguments are, they are unlikely to be successful.

Hang in there, and thanks for your contributions and enthusiasm. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patronizing response! What changes is not consensus, but the particular bunch of drive-bys one happens to collect. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, and if you read some of the links above you'll see that I'm not alone in this. Your responses consistently violate one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. All the best anyway. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of expression (disambiguation)

Feel free to merge the two disambig pages yourself, no objections to doing that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Andrewa (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i.e Lio Convoy

In future, please familiarize yourself with the subject at hand before attempting to mediate a dispute. Google-hits are rarely helpful in determining how widely a name is used. The article used the name "Leo Prime" for quite some time, so I would not be surprised if many of those hits were in fact WP mirrors.

Further to the point, naming the page "Leo Prime" is a violation of policy. The most widely used name for the character is indeed Lio Convoy, and failing to acknowledge that is a violation of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE.

You were supporting a group of dedicated POV-pushers who have been at this for years. I expected better from an admin. --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find fault with my efforts. Some disagreement is inevitable, but you obviously feel strongly about this. My advice is to take a break from the subject area until you recover your perspective.
The Google searches excluded compliant mirrors, but it's difficult to eliminate non-compliant ones. Disagree that I'm in violation of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. As I see it, you have simply failed to provide evidence to back up any of your claims, or to address the evidence others have provided supporting other views. The argument you put above dismissing the Google searches is a case in point. The rationale you gave for your non-admin closure of the latest RM is another.
Lastly a technical point... I was not mediating. I was contributing as an editor, and I have exactly the same rights to do so as you also enjoy. Andrewa (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Leo Prime" has been used on three obscure toys that were retroactively deemed to be toys of the character, and it is used only to refer to those toys. Whereas "Lio Convoy" has been used in all the fiction the character has ever appeared in, and several other toys. It is the name used by virtually the entire fandom.
WP:Common usage applies. WP:Naming conventions (use English) applies. The result of the most recent proper RM discussion ("proper" meaning "one that hadn't been provoked by a unilateral move) applies. The sourcing on the article proves my point.
Draw your own conclusion. --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Box Office Guru

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 Box Office Guru 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 web content, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Enfcer (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisian revolution

There are also wikipedia policies made through longer consensus and discussions that this that already mandate certain naming conventions Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles.2C_headings.2C_and_sections and Wikipedia:Article_titles. The dte and the capitalisation is what matters not a heat-of-the-moment discussion.Lihaas (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at your cross-post to Talk:Tunisian Revolution#Capitalisation. Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on beetle

A conversation was continued on the wikiproject insect talk page, should the comments there not be taken into consideration? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the relevance of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects#RFC:Use scientific naming conventions? to Talk:Beetle#Requested move which I closed as rough consensus against the move. The RFC, to which you linked from the RM which you raised, is certainly relevant if it reaches a conclusion, particularly if the decision is opposite to the RM, but it hasn't and doesn't look likely to. The RM is also relevant to the RFC; I'll provide a link the other way. Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those who support out number those who oppose, and their reasons are based solely on one; which I've attempted to attend to. How will you know which way to the consensus favors? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 13:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are just wasting time with this rhetoric.
At the RM four contributors opposed, and none other than you as proposer supported. This is arguably a strong consensus against; I described it as rough and was being deliberately conservative in this. Your attempts at countering their reasons failed to convince them or me, particularly when you resorted to a mild personal attack (and please read WP:NPA before deciding whether this last comment is accurate).
So I can only assume (because you don't say) that the claim that those who support out number those who oppose refers to the RFC, not to the RM, although the topic of this talk page section (chosen by you) is Consensus on beetle.
As I observed above, the RFC has reached no conclusion. It is perhaps unfortunate that nobody posted a heads-up there while the RM was in progress, and I note that you raised the RFC the day after raising the RM so you had every opportunity to do so, but that is history now. Agree that the head count at the RFC currently favours scientific names, but there is still a long way to go there IMO.
The RFC is a good thing. The RM was a good thing. But until and unless the RFC reaches a conclusion favouring scientific names, I strongly recommend that you accept the RM verdict. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming question

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I was hoping you could help me out with something. I raised an issue similar to this one at this page, since the move just happened. Was I wrong to do this and am I missing something, and if not should this page be moved back? Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the input. I'd make the effort to look to more into it, but I have no interest in being accused of Wikihounding and will probably back off a bit, although I agree this is an issue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another

Sorry if this gets annoying to you, feel free to tell me to stop, but [5].--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Franklin Edward Cover and Jane Nossette Jarvis.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... [6] and [7] are a slightly different pattern but the same general issue. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be wrong to move Jarvis back?--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, I just realized the user has had this complaint raised with him at ANI before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive124#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 --Yaksar (let's chat) 04:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I see also an old RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Block of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) from which I gather they were previously blocked for similar actions to the recent move. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well would you look at that, the plot thickens. And it seems the user has an ongoing RfC that just started about avoiding consensus, I think I may just weigh in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal

I'd like to invite you to express your opinion on the following thread: [8]. The previous move request (Székely → Szekelys) was canceled and the new title proposal is Székelys(Iaaasi (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

National Liberation War

As promised I'm notifying you of a new RM on Talk:Yugoslav Front. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thread on solicitation of others in !voting

Hi. This is a courtesy notification to user Jivesh boodhun, user Ratizi, admin Andrewa, and admin User:Kww. ( I've posted this identical message to each of these four user-talk pages. ) I'd like to let you know that I created a talk-page section entitled "Solicitation concerns" about an article or matter that you've been involved with previously, and that I think may be of interest to you. I've added this page to my own watchlist, temporarily, in order to not miss any response you might make here, but I'd prefer to keep all comments on the talk page for the "Dangerously in Love 2" article, if possible. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RM alert

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 11:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving 'Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002'

Thank you for evaluating and carrying out the move proposal at Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. --trevj (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re:Please sign on talk pages

For your information, I submitted the Roger Joseph Manning Jr. move request under "Uncontroversial requests" and someone bumped it down to Current discussions, apparently improperly. I had nothing to do with it. Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Careless of them and me. I'll talk to them. Andrewa (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Performance

Hi, I'm not sure where to rate this articl on WikiProject sailing's importance scale. Could you please help, thanks. Oddbodz (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Don't give me templated warnings, even if you add onto them with whatever personal message you believe makes them any more useful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have reworded anything that could be construed as a personal attack on Talk:KABA.chan, unless there is something that I have missed (I assume that it is merely because I used the word "shit").—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. I'd suggest a serious read of Category:Wikipedia user conduct, particularly WP:NPA. Andrewa (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DearS subarticles

Could you move List of Dears characters and List of Dears episodes to reflect the change in capitalization of the main article? --Cybercobra (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be to List of DearS characters and List of DearS episodes respectively... good point. I'll have a look, it might be best to list them as uncontroversial at WP:RM citing the recent strong consensus close of the related RM, not quite sure. But not wanting to make work for anyone so I will have a look. About to go to bed so not right now. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done... noted your valid requests for speedies which was an equally valid way but it's really no more trouble for me as an admin to do the moves than to do the deletes. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was just trying to expedite them so another admin could perhaps have done them while you got some shuteye. Also:

Hello, Andrewa. You have new messages at Talk:DearS#Subsidiary_pages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics in general

I see you've discussed this issue at Leach Walesa a few months back, but it is not the best page for that. Perhaps you may be interested in the discussion we are having now at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound a better place for the discussion. Thank you, I'll have a look. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal reply

As I said, the issue you're trying to raise is one of the sticking points for this whole discussion. In case I'm jumping to conclusions with you, I will recap the history of this naming debate. Sources aside, people have their own personal opinions on this topic. Sentence case is used in a lot of texts and doesn't make species names stand out so much. Some people don't think species names should be treated as proper nouns, and making a special case for them adds confusion because families, genera, and sometimes subspecies are not treated this way. (Otherwise, we would be writing about Fish and Birds and Plants in the body text. It can be very confusing to be reading about "ruffed lemurs", but then—in the same sentence—start talking about "the Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur".) The case for uppercase involves not only a preference for treating species as proper nouns, but also handling the exact situation you cite (Nile crocodile). Is an article talking about "a brown bear" (a bear with brown fur) or "a Brown Bear" (Ursus arctos)? There may be a few other points for either side that I've missed, but this is the bulk of the debate, sources aside. Although nothing is documented or discussed, I have good reason to believe that the original WP:PRIMATES rule for uppercase was written around an editor's personal preference, but was just overturned based on sources and consensus. This decision has also helped WP:Mammals make a big step start standardization. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much since most people don't care whether they're reading about mammals in one article, reptiles in another, or birds in another. All they see is inconsistency... and we're the only encyclopedia or major source I know of that is inconsistent.

Just like the topic of standardizing the rules of WP:ASSESS (with project-specific grades such as B+ or A) any attempt to reform and standardize to make things easier for readers and editors usually ends in deadlock because of two factors: 1) projects trying to preserve their custom-made system, or 2) editors (usually long-standing admins) who belabor the point that the topic under discussion is a unresolved or perennial issue, revisit the most divisive issues simply to re-spark endless debate, claim the discussion is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, or claim that it can't be worked out (because it never has before) and that we shouldn't bother trying. I apologize if I'm being a dick, but I'm seeing your approach to this conversation as a perfect example of the latter.

I can see how my approach could be described in that rather unflattering and dare I say biased assessment. If you have had the same problem with other long-standing editors, I find that a little reassuring but not surprising.

I know WP:NPA and WP:AGF—I have read them and direct people to them all the time. I only start to become uncivil when people come in and try to derail fruitful discussion (that they themselves have no vested interest in) by saying that its hopeless, pointless, by trying to bog the discussion down with most divisive issues with the hope of scaring off people who don't want to follow a complex discussion and thus closing the discussion down. If these issues are so impossible to solve, then why have other encyclopedias and authoritative sources resolved them? If they're pointless, then why did these other sources bother devising a standard? And if the perplexing problems that hopelessly befuddle one approach or another rule out any possibility of standardization, then how have they gone on to successfully write their material so consistently? If I'm misunderstanding your intentions, please clarify. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to try to resolve this issue. Unlike you, I write extensively under this project and the inconsistency affects me. Your input is certainly welcome. I have attempted to debate this issue in a civil tone with you, but you either don't answer my questions or you continue to drone on negativity, so much so that others in the discussion have noted it. If you have thoughts or concerns state them. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. But I refuse to sit by while someone goes on and on about how hopeless this issue is to resolve.

If you have read WP:NPA then you should know that it is simply not acceptable to start to become uncivil, regardless.
To err is human. (Trust me, I've seen a lot worse.) But it's hard to carry on meaningful debate when one party states "...the battle was lost long ago. So far as our local conventions go, we're stuck with an inconsistency..." It would have been one thing if you had come in, shared that sentiment and left. But continuing to insist that it's pointless and then trying to complicate the issue will only frustrate and annoy people who are trying to foster fruitful discussion and—hopefully—consensus. Please understand that I had no intention of volleying "personal attacks." I explained why I was getting annoyed with your actions and (attempted) to step away from the debate. That was the sole intention. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you add WP:OWN to your reading list. The more I read your various posts, the more it seems to be a key issue, perhaps the key issue. A position of ownership is not likely to produce consensus.
I'm not sure if I see how WP:OWN applies. Some people have suggested I violate it with the lemur articles I write, but as the policy states: "In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership." I do welcome discussion, I do care about factual accuracy, and although I don't consider myself an expert, some of the experts in my field have called me an expert. (In fact, I usually collaborate with the experts when writing these articles.) I hold myself accountable for what I write by using the {{Maintained}} template. But in the case of this question/proposal, I don't see the relevance of the accusation. As I've explained my accusations, I would appreciate it if you would do the same... because from my perspective, I certainly don't feel like I own any part of this debate. I'm vocal and I feel strongly (not about sentence case or upppercase, but about conformity in general), but that does not necessarily mean that I feel a sense of ownership. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you want, I'm willing to work with you to make a more meaningful proposal for the project. The current question/proposal was very informal and the vote is very difficult to score given the comments following the supports/opposes. Would you be willing to work with me on making a more straight-forward proposal with only 2 or 3 clear-cut voting options that would at least make a step towards some sort of standardization? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to work with you. I agree that the issue is important, otherwise I would not be spending so much time on it. We agree on a number of things, including that standardisation on the capitalisation of the article titles for Tree of Life species is a good thing, and that either title or sentence case as a standard would each be better than no standard.
I will however expect you to respect the behavioural guidelines. This involves respecting my point of view, and I see no evidence of that in this latest post. Do you?
I am fine with this. I should note that although you will disagree, I feel that I have been following those guidelines. I got irritated, pointed out what I interpreted as stereotypical trolling behavior, and attempted to bow out of the discussion before it could degenerate. We both have to understand that we're dancing along a very blurry line where we both see each other as being uncivil and/or disruptive. We both think we've done our best to adhere to behavioral guidelines, yet we both have clearly crossed the line at some point in our discussion. I strongly dislike arguing, and prefer civilized debate. In the future, if we encounter a point we disagree on, then let's make sure that we both understand exactly what we disagree on, and then agree to disagree... then leave it at that. The problem right now, to be honest, is that I don't fully understand your point of view. You never explained your reference to WP:IAR, and given what you have wrote under the Tree of Life discussion and then here under this discussion, I only perceive contradiction. You say you care, but it doesn't matter (???). Please explain. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think this standardisation is very important, and that to have consistent rules should be such a high priority that it's worth compromising long-standing principles including NPA and consensus. I don't.
If we're to work together, it needs to be on the basis of accepting that both are valid viewpoints. I'm not sure I can, but I'm willing to consider it. Are you? Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not deliberately launching personal attacks. I am not a despotic ruler. But you have to admit that this consensus-based system won't work if every time we have a vote someone storms in and starts bellowing: "it doesn't matter, it's all meaningless", etc. As you suggest, we need to step back and consider all the viewpoints. But first, please explain to me—concisely—what your viewpoint is. With what you've said in the discussion and what you've said here, I honestly cannot follow you. I think you know my position, but just in case, I will state it clearly: I only slightly favor sentence case, strongly prefer standardization, and favor following the sources—despite their own inconsistencies—as much as possible. So without pointing to policy pages, discussing "personal attacks", or debating the procedure for properly resolving the issue, what exactly is your take on the capitalization and standardization issue? Once I understand that, we can hopefully build from there. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My position... fair enough, I'll try to summarise.
(1) If it were my decision alone, I'd go with common names, capitalised whenever referring to a specific species (or other taxon), where a common name exists, and scientific names otherwise.
Rationale: Respect for long-standing Wikipedia conventions such as common name and use English, while minimising ambiguity. I believe that's the underlying principle behind WP:AT and that it's a good one, and that we're unlikely to change it any time soon.
(2) I'm interested in and will support almost any convention which can gain consensus.
Rationale: It's not my decision alone. I've entered into these discussions because of my work at WP:RM#Backlog, which as noted at Talk:Lycaon pictus#Requested move (see also #Article title capitalisation) and elsewhere is often excessive lately. Part of the reason is Tree of Life requested moves which seem to have no particular pattern, and on occasions refer to conventions which do not exist. It's a mess.
(3) I remain concerned about your contribution to this debate.
Rationale: Nobody is above WP:NPA. NPA is not about making Wikipedia more fun, it's vital to making it work at all. Your response seems to be that you don't think it matters, and various other excuses. You persist in these low-level personal attacks, embedding them in long-winded replies. OK, my replies are long-winded too! This pattern of low-level abuse is unlikely to gain consensus. Instead, other contributors will bow out of the discussion. Some of them may leave the Tree of Life project or even Wikipedia, which I'd prefer to avoid. But others will not participate in the discussion only to reappear to scuttle any concrete proposal. Sound familiar? Your response seems to be that this proposal should be above WP:consensus as well. Not a possibility, sorry!
Now, what's your position? Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for spelling things out so clearly. I think I'm starting to understand you a bit better, although there are still some points that I'm not following, particularly your interpretations of the policies you cite. More on that in a minute. Using your position as a template, here is my position:
(1) If it were my decision alone, I'd go with common names using sentence case whenever referring to a specific species (or other taxon), where a common name exists, and scientific names otherwise. (Admittedly, this can be complicated because quite a few species have multiple common names, and sometimes none stand out as the dominant. There are also cases where species are so poorly known by the public that the common name is very rarely used. But I digress...)
Rationale: Respect for long-standing Wikipedia conventions such as common name and use English, while following what appears to be a modest majority among all literary sources in the life sciences. From what I saw on WP:AT, it said, "Use lower case, except for proper names." (It is not universally accepted that species common names are proper names. If a case can be made for this, I may reverse my opinion.) If there is an underlying principle behind WP:AT that I did not pick up on, please explain it to me.
I think that it's possible that a case can be made for considering all Tree of Life taxon common names as proper nouns. When I say "a case can be made" I mean one that gains rough consensus and becomes a guideline. And I fear that it's not possible to make such a case for treating them as common nouns. In particular of course, birds. Andrewa (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(2) I'm interested in and will support almost any convention which can gain consensus.
Rationale: It's not my decision alone. I agree that the Tree of Life "conventions" are a mess. Admittedly, when I think of consensus, I think of the big votes at the Village Pump, and WP:consensus mentions that under WP:CONLIMITED. Here is an example of how I envision addressing this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates#Request for comment: Capitalization with primates Admittedly, this was a simple one since it only involved one project and a smaller set of sources. Although it would be frustrating to undo the changes we've implemented so far, I would still support a convention with consensus, even if it goes against this vote.
Regarding your concerns, I apologize for what came across as a personal attack. I'm concerned that you are interpreting neutral comments or explanations as "low-level personal attacks". Any "intended abuse" stopped when I started this thread. Right now, I am merely explaining my side of things and trying to find common ground. I'm not making excuses, and I wasn't looking to pick a fight with you. I interpreted (incorrectly, I presume) your negative remarks to be a clear case of what is described at WP:Consensus: "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." Whether true or not, that was how I was interpreting your posts. You suggest that this is an incorrect interpretation, and I apologize. Likewise, my "personal attacks" were a poorly worded attempt to point out what I saw as trolling or filibustering, at which point I tried to walk away. This is not an "excuse", but what was going through my mind at the time. Was it handled well? No. I can now see how it would have come across as a personal attack. Going the other way, I interpreted your reply ("Sorry I've offended you. Doing my best. Suggest you take a quiet read of WP:NPA and WP:AGF...") as a subtle personal attack... particularly after previous rebuffs like: "Reply to post above the outdent, above: Please explain to me how WP:IAR even applies here? It applies everywhere. The points you raise questioning its applicability are begging the question on too many counts to list." (Btw, it was a serious question.) Again... these are not excuses or low-level personal attacks. This is where I was coming from, and I clearly made mistakes. For that, I apologize. I just need you to understand that you weren't the only person who was offended by the remarks made.
I've been involved in several bitter disputes with disruptive editors who are now banned for persistent personal attacks. I'm not suggesting you are in that category, but I'd like to point out one thing you have in common with each of them: In each and every case, when I have referred them to WP:NPA, they have in reply accused me of attacking them. And it's a difficult counter-attack to counter, however blatant the offence may be. An unjustified appeal to NPA is certainly itself a personal attack. So who is to judge?
One answer is to take every infringement of WP:NPA to WP:DR. I sometimes think we should, but it's not the current practice and would be seen as over the top I think. But I'm fairly careful after these experiences, and try to be conservative in accusing people of personal attacks, and careful of the wording of my warnings. So I still hope that I have not infringed any behavioural guideline, and I think you'll find several places where you have. Andrewa (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would explain how you feel this issue should be addressed. Should there be one formal, clearly summarized Village Pump style proposal at Tree of Life for everyone to vote on, with invitations to vote posted to every sub-project? Or is this what you mean by: "Your response seems to be that this proposal should be above WP:consensus as well"? Per WP:CONLIMITED: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policy than on other kinds of pages. Substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page first, and sufficient time should be allowed for thorough discussion before being implemented." So please explain how you would like to go about this so that I can make sure that we are on the same page.
And sorry that I'm long-winded. I truly wish I wasn't.– VisionHolder « talk » 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first advice is patience. I do confess that I have seen impatience rewarded on occasions by our imperfect system, but it's not a tactic I'm good at so I avoid it. Or perhaps that's why I'm no good at it. But my feeling is that this will take quite a lot more time, and if we're to achieve anything it will require a lot more patience. And I feel that suits my skill set, which is one reason I'm spending so much time on it.
And of course there's a risk it will come to nothing even in the long term. Life is risk. Andrewa (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is going to take time. My initial thoughts were to leave clearly established guidelines (like those at WP:BIRDS and WP:PRIMATES) alone and simply settle on a standard for everyone else in limbo. If something were to be approved, that would give us at least a year of clean-up work. After a while, we could attempt a formal standardization for all groups, but only long after the dust has settled. Granted, it runs the risk of overturning whatever decision was made with the first vote, but as you said, life is risk. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sleeping on that, and having a look at some relevant guidelines and practices.
At a lower level than species, we have Category:Dog breeds, Category:Cat breeds, Category:Cattle breeds (see also List of cattle breeds), Category:Chicken breeds (see also List of chicken breeds, Category:Duck breeds (see also List of duck breeds), Category:Goat breeds, Category:Goose breeds (see also List of goose breeds), Category:Horse breeds, Category:Pig breeds, Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds, Category:Rabbit breeds, Category:Sheep breeds, Category:Turkey breeds, and List of guinea pig breeds.
In each case, the overwhelmingly common practice is for the breed name be capitalised, except for the common species name where it forms part of the article title, which is most commonly uncapitalised (and rightly so IMO, it isn't really part of the breed name).
Category:Water buffalo breeds doesn't seem to provide any relevant cases, the breed names are all single words. Many of these categories also have subcategories which I have not checked, nor have I looked for any formal naming convention covering breeds or varieties.
Interesting? If a breed name is a proper noun, why not a species name? Andrewa (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories of Category:Cultivars might also be interesting, just to see the pattern there. Andrewa (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The primary groups that use uppercase (from what I recall) are birds, butterflies, and domestic animal breeds. (We mostly talk about birds because it's the biggest group and it makes the discussion easier.) I don't know the history of the breed projects or what they based their decision off of. It could have been many sources, a single (popular source), or editor opinion. ... I hate to reference other encyclopedias, but it should be noted that Britannica uses lower case for breeds as well as birds: cocker-spaniel For the bigger picture, it might be worthwhile to compare the policies of every major encyclopedia, and check which case they use and whether or not they are consistent. They are our competitors, and the biggest names will be the most established. Normally I'm a fan of initiative and individuality, but given the deadlock we're in, highlighting the industry standard might offer some guidance. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant guidelines:

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Common name capitalization reads in full Many of the WikiProjects listed above have defined standards for the capitalization of common names, which should be used when discussing the groups they focus on. There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced overall. Disappointingly, there seems to be no list of these many lower level guidelines.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles provides an excellent rationale for capitalisation, applicable to all species not just birds, but the scope of the guideline is of course restricted to bird article titles, and there's an explicit disclaimer to that effect in the guideline. The acceptance of capitalisation for bird species RM discussions is almost always based either on following the guideline and/or on WP:common name, which is also quoted in the guideline but not as a rationale for capitalisation. The rationale for capitalisation given in the guideline is far more rarely quoted in bird article RMs.

I suppose I just have to wade through the list of Tree of Life daughter Wikiprojects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Scope and descendant projects to find these many relevant guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Relevant guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply there. I'm monitoring both threads. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on article name

Hello. You are invited to take part in a 'Gordion knot vote' with three options on the future title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance of AFL player statistics

I just stumbled upon the page of an AFL player which uses a template [9] which includes player stats which hadn't been updated in the case of this particular player for some years...

And I got to thinking... is this really a good thing to have? The template is used by over 1500 AFL player articles [10] so who is going to update all those statistics?

Hmmm.... Andrewa (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your very old page move

Sorry, I didn't look carefully at the time into Talk:Chukokkala. You mentioned "so many pages link to them". I am afraid you were probably misled by "what links here": since at that moment it was a new page, I suspect all links were to various bot-generated new page logs. In fact, this typo (Chuokkala) is an implausible search term, and I would like to ask you to delete it and its talk page. Thank you. Lom Konkreta (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste page moves

I stumbled upon a hornet's nest of cut-and-paste moves performed by User:Ratipok on May 16, 2011:

All of these out of process moves were made to change the article titles to a non-English form using diacritics (contrary to WP:ENGLISH). None of the new names are verified by any sources. These articles should all be restored to their original article titles. Do you have any suggestions on how best to handle this situation? Dolovis (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Two issues here, the process and the justification. Whether adding the diacritics in such cases is justified is a hot topic at present as you are well aware.
But the process should be repaired ASAP. Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves seems relevant, but it's something I have rarely done. I'll look further as I have time. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified that the last Ziga Pavlin is a cut-and-paste exactly as claimed above [11] [12]. Andrewa (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heads-ups posted at User talk:Ratipok#Cut-and-paste moves and User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Multiple cut-and paste moves. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dolovis, please don't try to repair cut and paste moves by reverting them, it just makes the histories more complex. Please instead add a {{histmerge}} or something. Thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for the warning. I didnt know that and I will watch for it in the future. As for the other articles that I used the same method. I did it with most of the players of the Slovenia men's national ice hockey team that participated in the IIHF WC in Bratislava this year (majority of the articles were created in May 2011). The reason I did it was because the articles titles didnt use prefixes (ex. Ziga Jeglic is the title - the players name is in fact Žiga Jeglič). I know this is an English Wikipedia, but I believe that personal names should be spelled correctly. Especially since they in fact are spelled correctly for most of the other ice hockey players, including superstars such as Anže Kopitar, Jaromír Jágr, Teemu Selänne etc., yet there seems to be no problem with them. Ratipok (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reverts should be done to the verifiable WP:COMMONNAME form and not to the non-English form. User:Djsasso has now become involved and has " Done" Ales Kranjc, but to his preferred non-English form using diacritics. This should also be corrected as such change contrary to WP:VERIFY should not be done without a discussion. Dolovis (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am correcting them to the version that the user intended as is proper. If you want to dispute them go ahead, I am tired of going around in circles with you. I would point out since you changed your comment that its not contrary to verify as verify says " In practice you do not need to attribute everything." Since the spelling of a name is not likely to be challenged since its exceedingly easy to verify the spelling in either version you prefer you generally don't have to source it. The whole reason people asked you to hold a centralized discussion was so you would stop flooding requested moves with these requests over and over when its clear opinions are split. I would recommend you just treat it like engvar and leave it in whatever version you see it like most of us do. -DJSasso (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a persons name must be verifiable, and it is always a person's commonly used name that we use. It is Gordie Howe not Gordon Howe, even though that later is the "correct" spelling. The version these articles were in was the commonly used English form with no diacritics, so by your own logic that is where these articles should remain. Dolovis (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I don't find the removal of them or the addition of them to be a different form in terms of common name. They are still the same recognizable form of the name. Now if you change letters like changing the on to ie in Gordon and Gordie that is completely different and I agree. However a reader is not going to confuse a E with an accent and one without. As far as my logic goes, I don't care if others move them. But when I see people going to war about them for no particular reason then I do make sure the go through the process. Otherwise I rarely edit them or rarely care about them. I never change them on my own, only revert them when I see people editing against the consensus. If I see them without I leave them. If I see them with them I leave them. Like many people have told you and like the diacritics guideline says you should not over dramatize them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso, you have been warned that your moves to the non-English form are controversial, yet you continue to use your admin powers to push your point (as you did yet again with Bostjan Golicic to Boštjan Goličič). You have an obvious COI on this issue, and I request that you immediately stop reverting these articles to their non-English form. Dolovis (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat I am fixing copy paste moves to the version the mover intended. If you wish to object to them go ahead. I am supposed to fix them to the version the original copy paster was trying to move them to. I am also following a consensus which already exists on topic as you have been shown. So it is up to you to change that consensus as has been asked of you. -DJSasso (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The unchanged and clear policy is found at WP:COMMONNAME, WP:EN and WP:VERIFY. And yet there you go again with again with Damjan Dervaric to Damjan Dervarič, Please stop. What you are doing is not supported by any process or policy. 23:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes and as the majority of people at that discussion have told you. Is that these moves are supported by all three of those policies you are quoting. -DJSasso (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. These moves are both controversial and undiscussed. Andrewa (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have marked above who did each move, by examining their edit histories. In all of them, the move was a plain move. The deleted version (the original edits of page A, if page B was moved to A) was short and was around half made of redirects (and some were only redirects). If these old versions of A had no effect on the editing histories of B (including of A after B was moved to A), then these pages better stay as plain moves without undeleting any of these deleted edits; note that these deleted edits are WP:parallel histories to the non-deleted currently visible histories of A (which was in B before). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The effect of these edits has been to circumvent policy and process to move the above article to non-verified, non-English article names without a discussion or consensus. Who will put this right? Dolovis (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No policy was circumvented. Anyone is allowed to move a page, as you have been told before. You are free to then object to the move and follow the process of BRD that you so well know. Atleast one of the moves above was actually undoing a move that you had done... That being said I still think you should just let the issue go as most people including those who agree with you have suggested. You are harping on about something that doesn't really affect anything except get people into heated discussions. There are redirects for people who don't use them...the search still finds them with or without...people can still read them as the accent over an e for example does not suddenly make it unreadable as an e. Why you are suddenly so anti diacritics is beyond me when it wasn't so long ago you were creating the articles with them...only reason I can see you suddenly object is because I believe they should be there and you like to oppose anything I do. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Dolovis, you have brought this diacritics issue to the naming conventions talk page where no decision has been made. Until then, the consensus on diacritics for ice hockey articles remains pro-diacritics, and this is how articles must be titled. Unless a different decision than the current consensus is reached at naming conventions, you are being disruptive, not DJSasso. You can't keep ignoring discussion to prove some sort of WP:POINT. It's not helping your cause to consistently accuse users of being against policy, when it's really you who is ignoring established consensus to prove a point. – Nurmsook! talk... 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with most of this. There is no consensus on diacritics, nor have I found any evidence that there ever was. A link to it would be most helpful if you do find it, but similar requests in related discussions have brought many promises and no delivery. There's a half-baked attempt at a convention on a Wikiproject page, and no evidence that it was discussed at all, let alone the links from WP:AT which genuine conventions have. The claim that the consensus on diacritics for ice hockey articles remains pro-diacritics is sweeping and appears quite frankly ridiculous. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...and no evidence that it was discussed at all". I can tell you haven't looked too far into the history of this topic at WP:HOCKEY. [13], [14], [15], and of course the documented compromise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format#Diacritics. Now, I'm not for or against either which way you go about diacritics. I'm trying to point out what is fact. I'm trying to point out the aggressive approach of Dolovis who has appropriately gone and started a discussion, but then has been going around requesting moves (ie: [16], [17], [18]—not to mention the edits the user is making removing diacritics) while the discussion is on-going. As an administrator, I am interested to know your stance on such actions. Last time I checked, it was widely accepted on Wikipedia not to make changes while a topic was under discussion. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links! The problem is, this particular issue is perennially under discussion, with no end in sight, so deferring action until it reaches consensus is not IMO an option. As a fellow admin, I'm interested in any insights you may have on how to handle this!
Eventually, I fear that one of the combatants will step over the line and be censured in such a way that we lose at least one valuable editor. I have seen it happen too often.
One possibility is to try to interest others in the discussion, perhaps by proposing that the documented compromise be accepted as a naming convention and included in the template used at WP:AT to link to such things. But I think it would need some work before it has any chance of acceptance there, at least to the point of having a heading, dedicated to the naming convention, for the template to link to. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might also like to comment as to whether [19] in view of Talk:Matej Hocevar#Requested move is permissable. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to go and comment on all of these move requests, but I really don't have the time to engage in these useless disputes. My whole beef with the situation is that they are all on-going DURING a discussion on the issue. And, as you mentioned "this particular issue is perennially under discussion, with no end in sight, so deferring action until it reaches consensus is not IMO an option". This is exactly what I am getting at. The fine folks at WP:HOCKEY acknowledged that this was the case, and for that reason a compromise was reached. Dolovis is now deliberately being disruptive by requesting page moves, and re-hashing a perennially unsolvable issue. I don't have a problem with him bringing it to the talk page at naming conventions, but to be taking all of these actions while that discussion is on-going is disruptive: there's no other way to put it. Especially considering all of his actions are AGAINST the established compromise that was reached BECAUSE this issue is so perennially under discussion. Honestly, you've probably just been following Dolovis since this discussion, but his activities over the past year are really pushing me in the direction of gathering my evidence and going to RfC. You just can't be so blatantly disruptive (other users on the Wiki have acknowledged this too) time and time again. – Nurmsook! talk... 16:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have brought my name into this matter, I will remind you that it was User:Ratipok who performed the above cut-and-paste moves, and it has been User:Djsasso and User:Darwinek who have been completing these out of process moves, over my concerns and objections, while the discussion is on-going. It is my opinion that these articles should not have been moved in the first place. Meanwhile, Darwinek has been moving articles throughout the discussion at WP:EN, and he has moved hundreds of them, even ignoring clear requests for discussion highlighted at many of these articles. It is the out-of-process moves that are disruptive to Wikipedia; not my request that process be followed in these matters. Dolovis (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Formby "Sr." disambiguation

Following your comments on the George Formby talkpage, anything you'd like to add here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Universe (disambiguation)

Good call on making the disambiguation page for the term "Transformers Universe". As you may have seen by now, I moved the page from Transformers Universe (disambiguation) to Transformers Universe. Transformers Universe used to redirect to Transformers: Universe, but it didn't seem like that was the primary topic for the term, and in that case, the disambiguation page gets the privilege of existing simply at "Term", with no "(disambiguation)" needed. I don't think there's anything further to be done, and you probably could have gleaned what I did from the edit summaries, but I just wanted to let you know. -- Natalya 18:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Universe/Transformers Online

What have you done to the Transformers Universe/Transformers Online articles? You've apparently mixed and matched bits of both articles and ended up with an infobox for an article that is completely unrelated, as well as apparently deleted all of my work apart from the infobox. Pliigi (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have acted on the best evidence available. It's easily reverted. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Transformers Online. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left behind

Talk:Richard Reid (shoe bomber) got left behind after the move. Marcus Qwertyus 02:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fixed. Andrewa (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to your status as an admin, sir <smiles>

I simply believe that it plain and simple that bogus accusations of WP:POINT (namely, the characterization of my having filed the Camel toe AfD as an illicit campaign) OUGHT to be brought to the appropriate forum and sorted out, to avoid such false accusations from being bandied about as a bullying tactic to stifle debate--since, of course, by any reading at all of best wp:EDITing practices on Wikipedia, what most definately is helpful to the project is to debate various interpretations of the guidelines offered in good faith, as, of course, it is exactly just these types of debates that establlish what the current editing consensus on Wikipedia should be thought to be. Further, 'tis the vio of Assuming Good Faith and the clogging up of discussions with commentary about other editors that is not in line with WP's most basic policies. (I also posted on this question here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Why_is_it_OK_to_.22emptily.22_accuse_good_faith_AfD.27s_as.2C_quote.2C_pointy.2C_unquote.28.3F.3F.3F.3F.21.21.3F.3F.3F.29.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your taking this issue to the admin noticeboard. My advice was simply to stop raising RMs and AFDs.
I certainly did not intend to accuse you of violating AGF, but I note several other opinions that you have, and I think you should note them too. This goes beyond healthy discussion. A counter-claim that your accusers are themselves violating AGF is counterproductive IMO. Far better to let others come to this conclusion for themselves.
All the best. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said at the AFD [20], I'm not acting as an admin there.

I was acting as an admin in closing the latest RM [21]. Although no admin powers were required, it's clearly a controversial request so non-admin closure would not have been appropriate. In hindsight I still think that a good decision, the RM hadn't a chance and we needed to move on. But my assessment of rough consensus is in hindsight borderline, and I wouldn't have been happy to close it as no consensus, although that would have had the same practical result.

By my subsequent involvement I have quite knowingly disqualified myself from further admin action in this dispute. I hope this is a good decision too. We will see. Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think the synopsis below is reasonably serviceable, and your analysis resulting therefrom spot on, in most ways. (However, as a minor quibble, I believe that I've only started a single requested move discussion as well as a single AfD and not two of each.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone a bit quiet now since my last comment at ANI. Hopefully... Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little synopsis

As I see it, you don't think Wikipedia should have an article on camel toe, and so you have in a short period of time raised two RMs and two AFDs to try to either change the topic to something else or delete the article completely. All four have failed, and there is no suggestion that any of them had any chance of success. There's a clear consensus that the topic should stay.

You've had a fifth try by flagging the article as a dicdef, which it clearly is not.

In the process, others have accused you of various violations of Wikipedia guidelines, and you've responded in kind. I don't propose to try to judge any of these individually, just to say that in my view some and not all charges are valid on both sides, nearly all and perhaps all so far are trivial, and that's typical for this sort of dispute.

And there's a very real danger of more serious transgressions on both sides if the dispute continues.

My strong advice is to simply drop it. Your appeal to the admin noticeboard seems likely to fail. Let that be the end of it.

Or better still, remove the ridiculous dicdef tag. Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note above that user:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden denies having raised the first RM and AFD, and I admit I have not checked this either way, but they don't deny that they have raised the second in each case. I don't think it affects the situation materially, and they don't seem to think it does either. Happy for others to check it if they have the time (please give diffs). Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, as a paraphrase of the old legal saw, "If the guidelines are on your side, lay out your argument according to a detailed examination of the guidelines; if the editing histories are on your side, lay out the applicable diffs; but if neither are on your side, confuse the matter by attacking your disputant's motives and character." Indeed, sir, I have absolutelly no idea where anyone got the impression I have posted more than one AfD and one RM on this topic. The record plainly shows, after another editor moved most of Camel toe to Wiktionary, in good faith I posted an AfD--my first and only one ever on this topic--on June 18: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camel_toe_(2nd_nomination)--and that prior to this Wikitionary entry having been expanded, I had suggested alternate rubrics for the slang term camel toe via an RM--likewise my one and only, ever--here: Talk:Camel_toe#Requested move. To draw an analogy from the essay wp:Don't revert due to "no consensus" [first paragraph of essay's lede]:

"Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is 'no consensus' for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to 'first discuss'. Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus."' "[¶ ... ¶ ... ¶ ...]"

--in this case, we have a wolfpack of editors alleging me to have been conducting some kind of campaign due to my personal preferences and therefore having been guilty of violating wp:POINT. If that makes for a so-called consensus, despite there being no detailed explanation backing up this claim, then such consensus is meaningless. That's why we have ANI. These points (pardon the pun) should have been hashed out there and not on the discussion pages themselves IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on most counts I'm afraid.
I'll accept that you've posted only one AFD and one RM, although I still suspect that these were repeats of earlier ones raised by others and with no chance of success. I stand by my description of your activities as a campaign, and my advice to stop it.
Administrators have no special authority, just a few extra tools that can be dangerous if abused, and so we are expected and trusted to observe policies and guidelines a bit more strictly than the average user when using them. And that's all. ANI is to request use of these tools, and the page makes this quite clear. You have made no such request, as has been very gently pointed out by several other editors there.
Discussions such as you have started there are tolerated but they're not on-topic.
The essays you quote are just that: Essays, not guidelines, and should be quoted with caution as the {{essay}} template on each makes clear. You evidently agree with some of the points made (and they make some excellent and helpful points, which is why we keep them), but that doesn't make them valid or binding on anyone else. For example, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus seems to me to be contrary to WP:consensus, which is a basic policy and has far greater authority.
I encourage you to continue this discussion here if you wish, but plead for some caution. I'm not going to block you or raise an RFC, but others may. Describing others as a wolfpack is just likely to escalate the dispute, and is arguably a personal attack. This page is public, it belongs to the project (like all Wikipedia pages) not just to me, and anything you post on this page can be used in future actions against you.
What do you hope to achieve? You have no chance of removing the Camel toe page at this time, and IMO there is no chance that you will be exonerated at this time either. You are just digging the hole deeper and deeper, and if you don't stop it's likely that you will be blocked or even banned eventually. That would be very sad, but I have seen it happen.
You may notice I'm a Christian, and I'm also probably something of a prude. I'd personally prefer that photos of wardrobe failures displaying private parts weren't on the Internet at all, let alone in Wikipedia. I'm personally convinced that we'd all be better off if they were simply removed, and I guess you are too. But we must be both realistic and respectful of other views.
Consensus can change. But meantime, find something better to do. Please. I hope it will be in Wikipedia, but a wikibreak is another option, and far preferable to continuing. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and others have some idea that I care deeply about whether camel toe is one WP or not. I don't. I simply AfD'd it because I understood the guidelines that way.
Anyway, my ANI is what it is. I take it under advisement that you consider it ill-conceived.
Thank you. Please also note that I am not the only one. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the bit about my allegedly filing related AfD's: it makes me very, very tired and weary feeling to feel I must explain to you that although another editor did not file any recent AfD for "Camel toe," there was indeed a very recent AfD for the male versions of camel toe, which was successful in its being removed. And--although, again, I do not believe this germane to the subject at hand--I (as did many others, although it was not unanimous) voted to delete "Moose knuckle." Cheers. As for morality, I'm no saint but believe in some measure of, I dunno, "brahmacharya-"type of ascetism, perhaps? although I don't practice it very well! I'm not Christian at all...well, maybe in a Unitarian-Universalististic sense, in that I think Jesus (as he is understood as a historical figure, at least) taught a lot of very appealing things. --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sorry to make you feel weary. Thanks for the information regarding the AfD, although again a diff or wikilink would have been nice... If everyone could be persuaded to provide these consistently, some of these problems would be avoided.
I assume you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose knuckle. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 2#Mooseknuckle & Moose knuckle → Cameltoe and recently Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 16#Mooseknuckle, in both cases resulting in keep verdicts and in that sense the last one overturned the AFD, which could have returned a redirect verdict but didn't. Both Mooseknuckle and Moose knuckle are now redirects to Camel toe.
The only previous AFD of this article that I can see is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameltoe, and at 2007 it's hardly recent so I got that wrong (as did others). It was closed by a non-admin in the face of overwhelmng consensus to keep; The other interesting thing about this is that the original rationale was This is a dictionary definition of a neologism.... but the nominator later annotated this ignore that bit please, I seem to have made a mistake describing it as such in view of the discussion. The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camel toe (2nd nomination) has now also closed, closing admin commented I see no substantial, policy-based reasons for deletion, and the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the article.
And I can't see a previous RM, so perhaps I got that wrong too. On the other hand it seems that the dicdef claim was a repeat of a long-dead claim, which I had not noticed.
I'm also a bit weary of this discussion, and I'm afraid the central argument stands. But perhaps if you wish to continue it, you'd do a bit of the searching, and report your results? Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the older RfD link, Andrewa. I included it on the Talk:Moose knuckle page.

Hey, regarding the underlying content (or perhaps I should say process) issues, though, one thing I did do a little research on was how common of a practice it is for pages that have been closed as Delete to then become redirects; and it turns out that when the wp:REDIRECT guidelines would call for there being a redirect, the same are regularly created at pages that were deleted by AfD (where I suppose these issues may or may not have been fully addressed in the discussion, after all). E/g, the AfD for the article "Malia Obama" was closed as a Speedy delete by user:Avraham on 2 May 2008 and was also turned by user:JoshuaZ into a redirect to the "Family of Barack Obama" article on the very same day. As another example, I went to the deletion log page for exactly a month ago (June 2) and the second AfD listed is for "Patrick Smith (columnist)," which was deleted on 11 June by user:Lankiveil and turned into a redirect to "Salon.com" on the same day by user:Off2riorob.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Have a look at User:Andrewa/creed if you haven't already... particularly the entry on being bold (five paragraphs from the bottom). It's one I take very much to heart.
Redirects have two main purposes. One of course is navigation; The other is to prevent or at least reduce innocent recreation of pages deleted by consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Andrewa, kul. I signed, btw. Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magneto

The split [1] [2] just yesterday was IMO completely unjustifiable in view of the ongoing controversy above.

You mean the rename for Magneto (comics)? I fail to see the relevance. If the primary topic is to be this week's blockbuster movie, then so be it.
The split [ 1 ][ 2 ] just yesterday was IMO completely unjustifiable in view of the ongoing controversy above is the quote. Neither link points to Magneto (comics) or its talk page.
Probably the neatest and fairest solution is to revert in due course to the versions before it occurred,
i.e. before Magneto (generator) existed. Fine, it has already been deleted once. You're an admin, please delete it again. use {{db-u1}} if you wish.
which is a shame in view of the amount of very competent work that has been done in the process
Not an option I'm afraid. Admins are particularly expected to set an example and follow the rules where we can, so we'll go through the processes. And we may end up keeping the split, and I hope we'll keep most of your excellent prose in any case, in which case we need to keep the edit history too to protect your copyright. Them's the rules.
I apologise for that greatest of wikicrimes, writing competent content. Just delete the damned thing if it offends your and your policies so much. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, writing competent content is not a wikicrime. But refusing to collaborate may just be an unforgivable sin, not because we'll ban you for it, but because you'll find the place so unrewarding you'll eventually leave one way or the other.
You have a lot to contribute, so that would be a shame. But you don't own the articles you edit, nor even the content you have contributed (not even to your user pages, and this isn't one of those so the db-u1 template isn't an option). You've given away some (non-exclusive) rights to it. Hence the warning on the edit box If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
And we're serious. Sorry if that wasn't clear. We did try. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might also point out that your work, while excellent (and that in the literal sense of above average to the point where very little surpasses it) is not perfect. Specifically, your choice of title for magneto (generator) seems a little odd, see my latest post to Talk:Magneto#Content forks. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake: {{db-g7}}
Thankyou for your suggestion that I leave wikipedia. I also note that Wtshymanski's has once again been ignored by admins (ignore it long enough, then it can be closed as stale - result!). He sees this as carte blanche to continue as before, encouraged by his admin support.
I also see that you're asking for assistance on fixing Armature (electrical engineering)‎. Why on earth would you expect there to be anyone with any competence left to address it? Maybe you could ask Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want you to leave Wikipedia, just the opposite, I want you to stay. It would be good for Wikipedia, and at the risk of seeming arrogant, good for you.
But collaboration is not an option. It's the essence of the project.
There's some overhead associated with this, and not everyone everyone with expertise is able put up with it. But those of us who do find it very rewarding. I hope you'll give it another go. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

Hi Andrew - Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope you can provide advice regarding a company name change (Corero) that has led to a proposed deletion. I read the company notability guidelines and the company, now publicly held, appears to meet them in terms of 'significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (Forbes, Network World, SC Magazine, USA Today, New England Cable News TV clip etc).' However, the editors may not feel this is the case depending on their specific criteria.

That said, the company made the error, purely accidentally as they did not realize updating their profile was not permitted, of updating the page with factual not promotional information. They then reached out to Wikipedia via a discussion board to move the page to the new company name. Is there a way within Wikipedia's guidelines to demonstrate based on the third party sources and 'significant coverage' to show that the page deserves not to be deleted? Again, the company now understands that editing the page is in contravention to Wikipedia guidelines and would not do so moving forward. If you could advise me on how to move forward to avoid deletion, if that is possible, I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance. AimeeRhodes (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the actual article name(s) (now deleted I gather) and I'll be glad to have a look. As I said on your talk page, I can't find deleted articles easily without this, but as an admin I can find and view them if I know the names, even after deletion.
I did see your note re answering on my own talk page, but wanted to flag on your talk page that you are entitled to some extra consideration as a new contributor, probably more than you're getting so far. Others are more likely to see this point made there rather than here. Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change Follow Up

Thank you very much Andrew for your quick and helpful response. Following are the links that include Corero/Top Layer: Stock Market Wire (Corero confident after transformational first half) http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/4176915/Corero-confident-after-transformational-first-half.html SC Magazine (IT managers still rely on firewalls, yet fail to rework security strategies) http://www.scmagazineuk.com/it-managers-still-rely-on-firewalls-yet-fail-to-rework-security-strategies/article/206201/ Wall Street Journal(Scareware and How to Avoid It) http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/06/24/scareware-and-how-to-avoid-it/ Network World Magazine (Corero (Top Layer)enhances DDoS defense to stop new types of attacks http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/techexec/2011/061711bestpractices.html Forbes (DDoS coming to a network near you) http://blogs.forbes.com/richardstiennon/2011/06/15/ddos-coming-to-a-network-near-you/ Gartner Magic Quadrant for Network Intrusion Prevention 2010 (Top Layer named a Visionary) http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-gartner-magic-quadrant-network-ips.pdf

I am uncertain if this suffices in terms of notability. If you think it does and there is a process that needs to be followed to prevent the deletion please do let me know. In any case, thank you very much for your assistance. Best, AimeeRhodes (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewa&oldid=438337821"