User:Elvey/sandbox

Hmm…

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&type=upload

First upload ever logged was F4 speedied by Fastily - why? User talk:Fredrik#File source problem with File:Mini_Christmas_tree.png but User talk:Scbarry#Merry Christmas.21.

testing

testing. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

1 was smooth.

2 was smooth.

3 was smooth.

4 was smooth.

Let's try leaving the editor idle for a while longer. ...

5 Wasn't smooth. OK so > 1 minute < 34 minutes.

6: I forget.

7: not smooth. so < 11 minutes.

8: 6:38-41: not smooth. so < ~ 3 min

9: 1.5 mins: smooth.

10: a bit over 2 minutes.: smooth

11: a bit over 2 minutes, with use of other tabs: smooth

12: a bit over 3 minutes: smooth! So inconsistent?

13: a bit over 4 minutes: smooth! (with save in another window, also smooth)

14: several (~15) minutes: smooth! (with smooth save in another window)

15: 7:15-8:30:not smooth.

more testing

16: 8:30-next day. 8:52-9:48 Just disabled http2 : smooth. Seems to fix.

17: 9:48-next day: got Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try saving your changes again. ... message

18: 8:36 - 8:49: smooth (with no activity in other en tabs for > 10 mins)

19: untested

Expansion of Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Archives

These should have search box(es)!

Fixed:

Search all Graphics Lab subpages, including the following archives:

Photography workshop requests archives
	Earlier Image workshops: 2006 2007 2008 September 2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Map workshop requests archives
	Earlier Image workshops: 2006 2007 2008 September 2009 pre-2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Graphics Lab Archive (all pre-October 2009, before the three current Workshops existed)
	Completed requests from the former workshops (Images to improve & Image workshop) were archived regularly: 2006 2007 2008 2009

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steel1943

Wow, the stupidity is phenomenal - I'll just leave now. Tempting though it is to respond to the trolling:

Well, isn't that special. We have Drmies swearing you have answered the question, and you swearing you do no <sic> have an answer. I propose a duel to the death between the two of you to determine who's right.--Elvey^(t•c) 07:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's the stupidest argument I've seen in a while. No, that's wilful misinterpretation. I'm just saying the FT violated WP:FORUMSHOP. O, and Drmies seems to have scurried off, and refused to reply.

PMID citation tests

Annoying unnecessary new syntax:

ToO, Feist and File:Chart_-_Female_Genital_Mutilation_by_country_by_age_range_at_cutting.png

(here) I think File:Chart_-_Female_Genital_Mutilation_by_country_by_age_range_at_cutting.png is PD because facts are not copyrightable, and the presentation does not meet the Threshold of originality (see here and Feist v. Rural and Sweat of the brow#US copyright law)}}

but it's been removed from Female_Genital_Mutilation. I don't want to edit war, but I know my stuff when it comes to copyright. Like File:Hawksbill_turtle_range_map.png. User:Raul654? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 09:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin answering as if someone else- Dirk Beetstra speaks as if Stifle

I've got one admin speaking as if s/he's another admin [1] here. Not sure what to make of it.--Elvey (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

FreedomPop byzantine return process

Deceptively, the policy states:

"to return Equipment, please submit an Equipment return request using our online Support feature, specify the reason for the return, and include the model and MAC number and we will issue a Return Material Authorization (RMA) number to accompany your authorized return, which will also tell you where to ship the Equipment."

Looking up the MAC can be a challenge. But they don't do what they say they will when a proper equipment return request is submitted. They send an email a day later saying that return requests must be made by phone. When called, reaching someone is often impossible, per comments posted to the TIME article. They try to get you not to cancel, and refuse to provide the promised security deposit… <to be continued>…

Foo

special notification WP:Notifications/FAQ special:notifications

Oh, No! Please stop the Asch conformity experiments! I deem this to be harassment, and a demonstration of bad faith.

Dougweller: Your recent posts indicate you still don't understand how many reverts it takes to violate 2RR or how many reverts it takes to violate 3RR. As recently as 6 March, you have falsely accused me of violating ("exceeding") 2RR (diff) You make this false accusation even after I warned you, and you responded with evidence of just a 1RR violation([2]) What part(s) of "That's why my two reverts (which is more than one revert only) didn't violate 2RR or even come close to violating 3RR." do you disagree with or not understand? (diff). You claim that diff) you do not understand my confusion. There, you claim,"I'm not even sure if you are still saying you didn't even make 2 reverts or that you did". WP:3RR states, "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts". What part of that do you not understand? If you understand it, why do you keep making false accusations against me? --Elvey (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Math

$h=\mathrm {hash} (m)\,$ (just about unreadable - the default)

<math>h=\mathrm{hash}(m)\,\pagecolor{Blue}</math> (looks great! with the addition of "\pagecolor{Blue}")

(For guidance: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Help:Displaying_a_formula&action=edit&section=34)

<math>h=\mathrm{hash}(m)\,\pagecolor{NavyBlue}</math> (looks OK)

<math>h=\mathrm{hash}(m)\,\pagecolor{black}</math> (invisible - completely unreadable)

<math>h=\mathrm{hash}(m)\,\pagecolor{BlueGreen}</math> (looks awful)

<math style="background:black">\pagecolor{Black}\color{Yellow}\text{Yellow}</math> (looks bad)

2 changes to:

<math style="background:blue">\pagecolor{Blue}\color{Yellow}\text{Yellow}</math> (looks OK)

Bar

Bl test

Clicking Expand citations does nothing; let's try

Echo chamber

(responses to trolling)

Indeed. The primary editor should be able to lock the article and the talk page down and make their article in total seclusion. As the primary editor™, how do I do that? "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."?? What kind of a retarded idea is that??  :-) </sarcasm>--Elvey^(t•c) 01:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Where do I read about the policies that allow a primary editor to lock the article and the talk page down and make their article in total seclusion? As the primary editor™, how would I do that? Also, how would I edit this from the main page: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.", as it's obviously incorrect? And, where's the policy page I can link to, to remind pesky editors that the primary editor merits deference? I want to link to it!--Elvey^(t•c) 03:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that after 3 weeks you've so graciously allowed such a fact into an image that I see has since been removed from the article, and into a (collapsed) table in the article. :-~. Now there's some indication in the article that the prevalence of FGM in Eritra for women aged 15–49 reflects only a small fraction of practice changes in recent years, and I hope we will soon have in there that most FGM in Eritrea is of infants <1 year old, so it'll be >15 years 'till they reach 15, and would be included in the table of prevalence in 15-49 year-olds. I hope for some hint that, while millions of Eritreans experienced FGM and must live with it, the practice is close to being wiped out there. There is still no hint of the UNICEF-published statistics that show its prevalence among young (<1 or <5) girls. It did briefly indicate that ~86% of FGM in Eritrea occurs by that age, but that information has been removed. Although the best evidence available in MEDRS sources suggest that the odds that a girl born today in Eritrea will be subjected to FGM is about 4%, the article doesn't present enough information for readers to have any idea that that's the case. I'm not sure why it took 3 weeks and 64.4 bazillion edits and talk posts to get this far, or why my efforts to add the best evidence available in MEDRS sources has been so strongly resisted. --Elvey^(t•c) 04:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Test for flagging racist NPOV violations

{{subst:Ds/alert|topic=r-i}} results in:

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Investigation - draft - pending further analysis

Do you mind taking a look at this? It was originally opened by what seems to have been a puppet, but I think it's worth looking at again. I independently concluded a SPI was warranted; see discussion here. BBb23's claim that edits seconds apart are very hard for one person to do strikes me as easily falsifiable. I could explain how to in a sentence, but ... WP:BEANS... I don't know the "correct way" to reopen an SPI when the possible master has changed. Your help would greatly be appreciated. Bbb23 said that I should reopen the SPI if I felt it was best. Whether there's socking or not, an investigation should clear the air.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/intersect-contribs/index.php?project=enwiki&user1=Middayexpress&user2=AcidSnow&sort=2 shows an over 800-article overlap, and writing style, similar arguments, attempts to remove the same particular content from the same page, and focus on the same niche areas show concordance. It's not a sure home run, and they're not horribly disruptive but seems appropriate to take a swing. There's a lot of tag-team behavior. I wonder if the users are meat puppets. I see the users talking to themselves extensively on their own talk pages, and not always agreeing, so if it's sock puppetry, it's a severe case, and I'd never open an investigation if it wasn't for the info from the tools. I wonder if their behavior shows a shift pre/post initial SPI; if you have tools that would show that, please use 'em. The Editor Interaction Analyzer evidence is not good. No wonder the user went wild when I mentioned tag-teaming.

Thanks for help on my last RFCU. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) (I reposted this (i.e. reverted my own self-revert) because, among other things the one is edit warring in article space while the other is discussing things on the talk page.)

I don't care enough to stick my neck out

If I could, I would encourage this user to make a clean start - but the rules don't allow a WP:CLEANSTART. Bbb23 has made a counterfactual claim that this a confirmed sock. As I said above, fact check: User talk:zzPonyo has blocked User:Vetrisimino0 as an extremely likely, bordering Confirmed sock of Hiyob346, not a  Confirmed sock. If what makes the unblock requests abusive is that they're from a confirmed sock, they aren't. It seems my comment fell on deaf ears; the repetition of this counterfactual claim makes it seem look extremely likely that it was not read. As I said, this user has been open to the constructive criticism I provided at Talk:Eritrea; what's the way forward for this user if they're not actually a sock? UTRS? Fat chance if people keep misrepresenting the user to be a confirmed sock. So I guess if they are a sock, the best option is to request an unblock of the Hyob account. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

But it's frustrating that the user is now blocked from making any further efforts to make Eritrea less biased by, e.g. including an image of Faytinga; it rewards those who exhibited bias.

Simultaneous use of chillers and evap coolers - thoughts

I am unconvinced: "[C]onventional air conditioners should not be operated simultaneously with direct evaporative coolers, because air conditioners dehumidify while evaporative coolers humidify, and the two systems will work in opposition. source. It doesn't make sense to me. I found more detailed explanations here, on p.33, 34: "Direct EAC's should not be used to concurrently cool rooms that use refrigerated air conditioners." and "Refrigerated air conditioners can extract moisture from the air, while EAC's add moisture to the air. The result of mixing these two air streams is that the refrigeration capacity will be used to dehumidify the air instead of lowering the dry-bulb temperature, and comfort cooling capacity will be decreased." I get that the "air conditioners dehumidify while evaporative coolers humidify" and ~equivalent "refrigerated air conditioners can extract moisture from the air, while EAC's add moisture to the air." But I'm not convinced they're working at cross purposes. Chillers dehumidify, which makes the air seem cooler, as well as making it actually cooler, while evaporative coolers cool the air, and as a side effect, humidify. I'd expect the refrigeration capacity would dehumidify the air AND lower the dry-bulb temperature.

Thinking about this from an entropy standpoint : they're both pulling energy ... Ah, it starts to make sense if I think of starting with a system running (underpowered) AC and adding evap, or if I think of starting with a system running evap and adding (underpowered) AC to try to get it to be even cooler: some of the chiller-cooled air is going to be exhausted to make room for the eval-cooled air. But if the exhaust is well-located (at a high point, since heat rises, and far from the chiller output) I don't think this would be that much of a problem. Certainly Chillers and IECs (Indirect Evaporative Coolers) do work well together - I see engineered systems available from coolerado, stulz-ats and others that combine these two cooling methods - Chillers and IECs ...

introducing incorrect information at WP:ANRFC

At the time of your edit, the vote was 14:3, not 14:2. I think a strike, correction and apology from you for that are in order. Don't you?--Elvey^(t•c) 20:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Content of File talk:Geraldine F. "Geri" Thompson.jpg

Contested deletion

This file should not be deleted because... see deletion/restoration history. Tagged with {{keeplocal}}. I requested, "Please restore." Please restore it! --Elvey^(t•c) 20:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there an RFC that shows that the consensus supporting the keeplocal template no longer exists?--Elvey^(t•c) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What the?? NO! Clear comments there from User: Nikkimaria, User:65.94.76.126, User:SpinningSpark, User:RexxS (!), User:Vanisaac(!!), User:King of Hearts, User:Carrite(Vendetta, indeed. !3) and even heavy participation from Stefan2 who speedied this. What the??? indeed. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't keep local file information pages for Commons files. If you want the file undeleted, you should request undeletion somewhere (WP:REFUND?) and then tag the undeleted file with {{keep local}}, but you shouldn't create a local file information page for a Commons file with just a {{keep local}}. The file is currently only hosted on Commons (although maybe there is a deleted copy on Wikipedia somewhere). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We do. But you'll just keep on ignoring the THREE TfDs on keeplocal 'till someone forces you not to. You say, "maybe there is a deleted copy???" Please AGF. --Elvey^(t•c) 23:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC

OK, so

1. I note that there have been THREE TfDs on keeplocal that have all failed. And not just failed, but failed by a wide qualitative and quantitative margin.
2. I note that an English Wikipedia policy is defined as "a widely accepted standard"
3. it's CLEAR to me that based on 1 and 2, it cannot be policy that files tagged with {{keeplocal}} can be speedied.

Therefore, I propose we deal with this by shortening F2 to what is actually a widely accepted standard:

Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain significant superfluous and blatant non-metadata information.

It seems Stefan2 has been on a rampage, trying to speedy a ton of other stuff on the same basis. What to do about that?--Elvey^(t•c) 23:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

!Votes

Before we start voting or calling for comments, any tweaks? Note: I've opened a discussion on deleting the Db-fpcfail tag this was tagged with.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

deleted out of process

What the fuck? It's been deleted out of process.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Conduct Dispute with BBB23

{{helpme}}

I just posted the following to BBB23's talk page and he promptly removed it without responding. What options are there, short of ANI and other than leaving it unresolved, for resolving this conduct dispute when BBB23 refuses to discuss the issue?

You threatened me. Be more civil, in dealing with perceived incivility, please.

I don't know what you mean, calling this uncivil. From WP:CIVIL:

Dealing with incivility

1. First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification.
2. Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better. (Note: if an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you.)
3. Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offense was unintended.
4. Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors are not mind-readers. ("That made me feel..." is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than "Your post was...")
5. Ask them to strike out an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally, if they have not already done so by this point.

I don't see any evidence any of these steps were followed. Apropos #2, above, this was provocative, not civil. As you (justifiably) want me to be civil, I urge that you model it. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)