User talk:Andrewa/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andrewa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

Left behind

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

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

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)

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)

As I have said at the AFD [1], I'm not acting as an admin there.

I was acting as an admin in closing the latest RM [2]. 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wow, Andrewa, kul. I signed, btw. Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you

Hi Andrew - Apologies for inundating you with messages. Looks like the deletion was stopped. I imagine you looked into this and deemed it noteworthy and removed the deletion. Again, thank you very much for you guidance. AimeeRhodes (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Message volume is not a problem, but I still don't know which article you mean, and I'm still concerned that it may be facing deletion. Please provide a link to the article, it doesn't seem to be one you have edited.. Andrewa (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is Corero Network Security; someone removed the prod. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Follow Up

Hi Andrew, Erik --

Thanks, you are right Erik -- it is Corero Network Security. The deletion was removed, not by me. You are both very helpful. This is not easy to navigate.

Thanks again. AimeeRhodes (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Up for deletion

Hi Andrew - I hope you had a nice weekend. Sorry to belabor this subject but I just saw that the Corero Network Security page is again up for deletion. Did the links I provide, based on your experience, constitute enough third party validation per Wikipedia's guidelines? If so, do you recommend that they be posted to avert the deletion? Thank you in advance for your assistance. 16:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AimeeRhodes (talk • contribs)

Two things you should do.

Firstly, improve the article. As it is [3], it's a company history timeline and a list of people. There's nothing there to suggest that these people or the company are notable.

I'm afraid I haven't had time to look at the links you provided, and may not have until too late. So I'll have to leave most of the work to you.

Seventy employees providing software products is borderline at best. The article needs to focus on what this company has done that sets it apart from the many similar non-notable companies who'd like to advertise in Wikipedia, and back this assessment up from independent, verifiable sources.

So weed out the (news) articles which just quote or paraphrase the company's press releases and just leave in any references that are citeable independent assessments. Journals, experts, even columnists who are themselves notable enough to already have their own Wikipedia articles are best. If there aren't any, then probably the company doesn't warrant an article, and the deletion proposal should stand.

Secondly, assuming the article can be put into a state where it's worth keeping, respond at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corero Network Security. Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording of WP:AT

Hi. I noticed your comment at Talk:Defrocking#Requested move. You said that our article titling policy needs serious re-working. I'm curious: What in particular do you find inadequate about it? Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts, from a fellow RM regular. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ten string harp guitar.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ten string harp guitar.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 30, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

User:Saman in the machine/Skydrift

Thanks, that extra ~ will get you every time. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Saman in the machine: Hi! Sorry, this is greek for me. What should I do / change to get approval and move for my article? What should I do with that "extra ~"? I don't really understand. Should I talk to you, or talk to Vegaswikian regarding this topic? Is my user page talk watched by you, or Vegaswikian, so should i move my questions there, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saman in the machine (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:6 star rank

You may want to participate in current discussions on Talk:6 star rank. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Etix

A tag has been placed on Etix, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sons of Zadok gibberish

I'm sorry, you're absolutely right of course, but I thought I'd already been through that article correcting the typos/grammar/Chabad-lish. At first I thought it was Google Translate of he.wikipedia, but evidently not. Look again in an hour or so. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You won the title discussion, anyway; I didn't feel I could close it myself but another admin agreed so it happened [4]. Good luck with the grammar etc! Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power/nuclear energy

There is a discussion about usage of nuclear power v nuclear energy. As an experienced editor in this field you are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

I see from my talk user page that you left me my first message - a welcome one on 21 January 2005! Much has passed under the bridge since then - but we're both still here contributing! Kind regards $Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...)$ 11:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work in cleaning up for the fixes to article titles: much appreciated. $Tony (talk)$ 07:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Schumann Hochschule

Thanks for supporting the move, but please explain your comment, I may have a language problem: I didn't say official name, but original name. I see that the English translation which is used at present as the article name does not describe the institution well nor is it used on their own (official) website. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your post [5] read in part Original name in German, "Hochschule" is not a college, the official English name is different from this translation (my emphasis), did it not? Andrewa (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that did not suggest to move to that "official" English name, or did it? It looked to me like "Robert Schumann School of Music and Media". Looking again, for contact they just say "Robert Schumann Hochschule", so after all that may be the better name, without hyphens? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder about that. I'd prefer it without the hyphens, I just assumed you had some reason for proposing them. Andrewa (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Created a new article and requesting feedback and advice

Requesting feedback and advice on the article I have created. I am a graphic novel enthusiast and am naturally happy about high quality graphic novels starting up in India. This article is about a particularly good and popular Indian graphic comic/novel and would appreciate feedback, suggestions and advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varunr/Level10_Comics Varunr (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Having a look... it would be an orphan [6] [7] at present but that isn't necessarily a show-stopper.

I see that you've also posted to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 October 14, that's good. And that you're getting some feedback at User talk:Varunr#Re:Created a new Wiki and requesting feedback and User talk:Varunr#Level 10 Comics article and responding to it.

I notice the draft article mentions creator-owned titles, I wonder whether that is another name for vanity press? It seems a related concept.

The above notes are mostly for my own reference, but feel free to reply if you find it helpful. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Andrew. Thanks for your feedback and suggestions. Yes, about nothing linking in to the article is because it isn't moved into the Wikipedia main-space yet. Once I do, is when the linking will start happening.

I will find out about the similarities between vanity press and creator-owned titles and will incorporate changes accordingly. Thanks for bringing this to my notice.

Varunr (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Andrew. I found out about vanity press and creator-owned and they are not the same. With creator owned, the publishing company pays the creator a licensing fee to publish (digitally or print) his or her comics. The point of creator owned is that the rights to the property rest with the creator, not with the publishing company. Varunr (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Shell( )sort

Would you reconsider your oppose vote at the requested move discussion for Shell( )sort given my finding here? Cheers, —Ruud 15:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Andrewa/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Neutron Moderator

Your contributions are not bad. I`m german english not perfect. Some corrections and additions from you correct old hydrocarbons as moderator about 2003 added early so far I know not used. CH4 changes to 14CT4 radioactive and explosive. New but deleted wighout doubting content by Syrthiss/Materialscientist. He high pressured dense at danger away without danger. 11BN boron nitride with isotope 11B moderation about graphite but not burning melting point 2967° stable and dense without SiC layer up to 2800° in inert gas, not going radioactive, not soluble in water breakthrough material for pebble bed HTR and others. Can you do something for moving inside neutron capture with confirmation ? All Rights Reserved Kay Uwe Böhm kayuweboehm(at)yahoo.de must be referenced. O2/N2/Li can moderate also ! (H+D+T)2 as gas pressurized dense ideal moderator but not security !

Kay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.141.101 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... the All Rights Reserved Kay Uwe Böhm is a worry. The page from which you submitted this read in part By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. It may not be too much of a problem, as text can be copyrighted but not information as such, but it does seem to indicate that the language problem is pretty severe, and IANAL but it's posssible you could claim that you didn't understand the above and ask us to remove the text of your contribution. And I'd be happy to do that.

This appears to be some suggested edits to the neutron moderator article, possibly from an expert in the field, and possibly from one of the many hobbyists with various axes to grind. The PBMR as been extensively hyped by some of these, and much early HTGCR work was done in Germany, see AVR reactor and THTR-300, which fits either way. I'll have a look. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The mystery thickens, this contributor appears to have been previously but very recently active as a registered contributor here [8] and may have a page about them on German Wikipedia [9]. If that's the same person, he's an actor [10]. Andrewa (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Phil Manning vs Phil Manning

I've just created Phil Manning for the musician and see that an existing Phil Manning page is about an Australian footballer. I believe a disambiguation page should be created with that name and that the latter article should be renamed as Phil Manning. Before proceeding down this path, I thought I'd seek your advice as you indicate on your page that you wanted to create a new Phil Manning page and gave the musician's website for his bio.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree the Phil Manning should be a two-way DAB. Neither is the primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on James I

The reason I struck the "vote" was because I did not want anyone to say that the consensus was not valid. This title change discussion has been going on a long time and I did not want it blown. If you or anyone knows the guideline which covers this, I would like to know where it is for further reference. Just wanted you to know. Mugginsx (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you didn't agree with what was said. That's not a valid reason, and as I said in my comment, this behaviour is disruptive. I've never blocked anyone, but continue like that and someone else will.

Agree that the discussion has gone on a long time, and is not going well. Your actions have just made it worse IMO. Andrewa (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I AGREED with the editor. Please read the facts before passing judgment. Please state what you mean when you say I made matters worse. If you think the "vote" should be unstruck, then please do so, or I will contact an uninvolved Administrator if you wish. That might be better. Mugginsx (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my comments unhelpful. I think you misunderstand what I said. My opinion remains that the strikeout was unhelpful.

For me to reverse the strikeout would just make an already tangled tale worse. If you still see the strikeout as helpful, and my very gentle warning as nonsense, then just disregard my comments. I have tried. I'm wrong sometimes. Let's move on.

If you feel that my comments are sufficiently uncalled for as to wish to consult an uninvolved administrator or to take the matter to WP:DR, then do so. But I'm hopeful that they'll say that you are just wasting everyone's time. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you are completely misunderstanding my meaning. I was not the editor who lastly struck the vote. I thought perhaps the guidelines might show that an "unvoting" administrator might be more "appropriate" not better. You thought I struck the vote because I was "opposed" to it. You have no doubt checked and saw that you were incorrect in that assumption. I, like you, want the process to be untainted. If I acted in error, I was not alone. We have all learned now not to do that now after reading your message. I agree, WP:DR would be absurd. Mugginsx (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what are you trying to prove? I can't see where I claimed or assumed that you were alone or that you were the editor who lastly struck the vote, or even why it would matter if I had. And you've made several other claims that seem to be similar: Both false and irrelevant. But I see no point in listing them.

Wikipedia is not a debating society. Let's move on. Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Saint_Dismas#Requested_move

Hi, relisted, and admin requests discussion of St Anselm's alternative recommendation to move: PASTE Relisted Mike Cline (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC) please continue and weigh in on this discussion relative a specific move to Good thief Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC) END OF PASTE In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

You are listed here as interested in Sydney meetups, so I thought I'd let you know about one on this Saturday at 5pm at the Alexandria Hotel. Details here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November_2011. It would be great to see you. --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andrewa. You have new messages at Talk:Bullet-proof glass.
Message added 15:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus 15:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Trem.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Trem.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Looking at Talk:Córdoba Province (Argentina)#Requested move, I notice that you are one of the most active contributors in that discussion. You've also engaged at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/March#First-level administrative subdivisions for countries. I was checking WP:RM to see if there was some old case that I could close, and I noticed this one. If we just go by what is currently stated in the discussion, my guess is that the move request would fail with no consensus. One problem which I see is that, even on a DAB page like Colón Department, you can see both the comma style and the parenthesis style in use. It's especially fun that there are two different Colón Departments even within Argentina! So if this move request goes through, would you suggest that others should go around fixing up other names of South American geographical subdivisions?

We seem to have five issues:

Should this move request be carried out?
Should first-level geographic names be converted to the comma style wherever they may be?
Should inconsistent DAB pages be converted to use the same style internally? (e.g. the one for Colón Department).
Should the guideline be changed to recommend parentheses for first level subdivisions?
If this request passes should it be considered a precedent, or should there be individual move requests for every country?

Thanks for any ideas you may have. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My view is that this move should be carried out, but that it should not be seen as a sweeping precedent. If there's no consensus, then we should take account that this RM is reversing a previous, undiscussed move, which itself reversed a successful RM, which did achieve a stong consensus 3:0 in favour. There was obviously no consensus for the undiscussed move, so IMO the previous consensus decision should stand.

As you say, I've chosen to be involved in the discussion, so obviously I can't now close it myself.

The point you raise regarding DAB pages is a good one. For the moment I'd leave them as inconsistent, and involve WikiProject Disambiguation to see whether they have any views on it. Andrewa (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cymbal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jin Dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, I should have linked to Jin Dynasty (1115–1234). Fixed! Andrewa (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Drum kit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spanner, Woodblock and Jimmy Nicol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The messages are very helpful. These ones are now fixed. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Trigger (drums), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Drumming and Tom-tom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Green Party of Albert/Alberta Greens

It has been requested that Alberta Greens be moved back to Green Party of Alberta. Since you participated in the previous discussion, you may wish to participate in this one aswell. Regards,--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's worse than that, it's been moved and reverted. Oh boy. Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had a prior run in with User:Me-123567-Me in the past, on the Kristina Calhoun (leader of the YK Green Party) AfD (I had voted keep). After it was deleted he/she took it to DRV, where the deletion was maintained (I endorsed the deletion aswell). Me-123567-Me then tried to delete the redirect by speedy deletion (for which it was not eligable). Me-123567-Me is not a really new user (since 2006 with over 4,000 edits, not super active, but been around a while), but their MO seems to be when a discussion doesn't go their way, rather than accept the decision, relist it (as in here), protest it (via DRV), or sulk (by trying to delete a valid redirect). I don't think Me-123567-Me is working for the Green Party, simply a supporter (both in Alberta and Ontario as listed on their user page) who likes to edit their articles, not the worst COI that I have ever seen.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Andrewa,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Percussion

Hello, I'm interested in musical instruments, especially percussion (now learning rhythmic percussion and xylophone). I have added many entries in English and Spanish wikis. --Opus88888 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. Is there any way in which the WikiProject could help you? Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Percussion

Hi there, I think we might be well served to try to come up with some reasonably good ideas for this article on Maracas. It may seem a random choice, but it might be easier to promote activity if we start on Stubs. I would say most editors have no contribution they feel they can make to help promote a GA to FA, or even a B Class... Just my thoughts Philip.t.day talk 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's even a stub, depite the stub template... it seems a reasonable short article to me. More refs needed. Why not take it further and go for requested articles? I was astounded to find we had no Roy Burns article up until recently.

Wikipedia:Requested articles/music#Instruments has at least one drum-related article. Andrewa (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good plan! Philip.t.day talk 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Rim mount, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RIMS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This particular link is deliberate, as the correct article is a redlink and likely to remain so for a while at the current level of activity on related articles. The DAB at least provides one line of information, which if created as an article would be a dicdef and deletable. The article should be created in time, but perhaps not soon. Andrewa (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cymbal stand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wingnut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Please do not revert my userspace without cause

I note a little edit war [11] [12] of not one but two users removing the above, and neither of them even having the decency to comment here as to why they both apparently chose to ignore the polite request at the top of the page. I will ask them politely to explain themselves. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have offered an apology on my user talk page. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 06:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Replies from both on their talk pages, a gracious apology from Barts1a [13] and a curt referral to WP:ANI from Salvio giuliano [14], who has similarly replied to another similar complaint. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)