User talk:Schwede66

Welcome

User:Schwede66	User talk:Schwede66	User:Schwede66/Sandbox	User:Schwede66/Contributions	User:Schwede66/Rowing	User:Schwede66/DYK	User:Schwede66/Tools
User	Talk	Sandbox	General articles	Rowing articles	DYK	Tools

Please add items to the bottom of this page. I will normally reply on this page to any conversation started here. There is no need to post DYK follow-ups here, as I watchlist DYK nomination forms where I leave comments.

Files etc

Hi! I noticed in your RfA that you might be interested in some things related to files, so I wanted to drop a line and encourage you to get involved in one of the areas I find to be a very nice diversion from the stressful administrative work on enwiki. OTRS is always in need of volunteers, especially to handle tickets related to image permissions. Let me know if you're open to the idea, and I'll provide more information. Administrators are especially invaluable as OTRS agents because they can view deleted files, and it's clear you're soon to be one. I've been engaging in a sort of shadowing/training program for new agents recently, so I'm happy to help walk you through an introduction to permissions tickets if you decide you're interested in that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I've dealt with OTRS volunteers a lot over the years and yes, that's an area where I'd be happy to help out. Let the RfA run its course first, though. Schwede66 22:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. Any time you can spare for OTRS would be valued whether or not you pass RfA, of course. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy 2017!

Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks, Rosie. Same to you. And thank you for your glowing report card at RfA. Schwede66 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Jack501

Hi there. I came to inform you that I undid your edit to this user's talk page. {{admin help}} is for requesting help from a single admin. The problem you noticed in this user's editing is not one that can be decided by a single admin at this place. If they are a sock as DrKay suspects, WP:SPI is the right place. Otherwise, use WP:ANI or another noticeboard, not only because requests from {{admin help}} are oftentimes not noticed for a long time and thus are not useful when immediate action is required. NB: Since I have no knowledge of the kind of edits you objected to, I did not take any action. Regards SoWhy 20:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: The notification was in regards to the talk page warnings under the same heading, and the diff showed that the editor is continuing with those edits despite the warnings. I would have thought that a "single admin" can deal with that; the previous admin had given the last warning. I'm unaware of any sock investigations (and yes, several admins would be involved with that, I suppose). Please let me know whether you will deal with it; no point posting at ANI in that case. Schwede66 20:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the warnings but I can't see a clear policy breach that would warrant an immediate block without any discussion or consensus. As such, I prefer to err on the side of caution and let the rest of the community weigh in. Problematic edits can always be reverted. I have been out of the game for too long to be familiar with the specific problems you noticed but as I said, feel free to use ANI to request some action. Possibly I'm wrong and some other admin will take care of it immediately. Regards SoWhy 20:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; have drawn it to DrKay's attention (who appears to be online). Schwede66 20:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Bike Auckland

If you have some time at some stage to spend to update the Bike Auckland page, that would be appreciated. I did update the name, and add the new logo but am a bit hesitant to do yet more myself, for reason which I am sure you are aware. Not urgent but maybe if you get around to it some day... Ingolfson (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Why don't you stick a few refs to use onto the talk page, and I'll come along and deal with it? Have watchlisted the article. Schwede66 08:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Schwede66!

Happy New Year!

Schwede66,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, Donner60. All the best to you as well. Schwede66 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Schwede66!

Happy New Year!

Schwede66,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Rubbish computer. Have a good 2017, too. Schwede66 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Implosion of Radio Network House

Hi Schwede66. I've tagged a statement in the lead of Implosion of Radio Network House as the wording is challengable, and is not supported by sources as written. I've left a note on the talkpage. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@SilkTork: That article hasn't received much attention from other editors, so thank you - I shall have a look. Schwede66 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Will do, thanks for the advice Racingmanager (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Porter

Thanks for the comment. The father of the house matter came from some research done a decade ago - but it may take a bit to resuscitate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaw99 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

William Field Porter has been dead a long time, so I suppose there is no hurry. :) Schwede66 03:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

hey

hi. may the force be with you!--Wyatt2049 | (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ps, i soppourted you in the RFA. Hope you win. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Schwede66 18:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

W.H. Oliver

It is not vandalism to remove a wikilink that does not exist. Suggest you create the story for this high school if it means so much to your article. Rogermx (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rogermx: You are correct—your action did not constitute vandalism—but also note that I never accused you of vandalism. Reverting another editor's edit is a normal process of interacting on Wikipedia. Have you followed the link that I gave in my edit summary? Wikipedia:Red link is a useful read, and whilst I linked to a subsection, I suggest you read the whole page. Feel free to ask further clarifications. Schwede66 17:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hi Schwede66, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for both your new place on WP:RFX100 and for your near-unanimously-supported nomination! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin help pages are most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 18:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm an admin and all I get is a pint of bitter

Your T-shirt!

I can't believe I put in my notes last July "might be an okay RfA, but not great". How wrong I was. :-/ .... have fun with the mop and bucket. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Haha, yes. Makes me smile to think back to that comment (and I'm trying not to be too smug). I thought I'd say thank you to a few people and I guess posting that on my RfA page after it has closed is ok. Schwede66 18:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Successful RfA

• Congratulations on passing! —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Well deserved. I didn't !vote at your RFA so as to remain impartial after I commented in an official capacity but if I hadn't I would have supported your application unreservedly. Mkdw ^talk 19:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Nice to have you join the rather small pool of Kiwi admins.-gadfium 19:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gadfium. I guess it's been a long enough apprenticeship. Regarding your RfA query, no, we have never met in person, but maybe we should when we have the opportunity. Who are the other Kiwi admins; is there a list somewhere? I know of Moriori and Grutness. Who else is on the team? Schwede66 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Good Olfactory is the only other active one as far as I recall. User:Davidcannon, User:Master Thief Garrett and Robin Patterson are intermittently active and rarely if ever use the tools. User:Nick-D is an Australian who is well-informed about NZ.-gadfium 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There's also User:Brian and User:Tristanb who are not very active.-gadfium 03:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gadfium. That's not too many active users then! Schwede66 03:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Congrats! Always good to have another Kiwi here. I'm still around but less active now days Brian | (Talk) 07:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats and good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations Schwede66! Good luck! J947 21:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations, my friend, and welcome to the mop and bucket brigade! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations also from me Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations. Have fun with the tools! -- Shudde ^talk 10:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• A belated congratulations, and thanks for your efforts to maintain and improve the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

congrats

Congradulations on adminship. Good luck being an adminWyatt2049 | (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I thought it appropriate to say a few thank yous. First up, it was Anna Frodesiak's (misplaced) notice that prompted me to put my name forward at the optional RfA candidate poll. I got a good prodding from Ritchie333 (nothing wrong with that!), and Kudpung had some useful general advice for the eventual RfA process. They eventually became my nominators and they skilfully guided me through that process. But before anything else could happen, I thought it wise to tidy up a prior account with the Arbitration Committee, and quite a few of their members offered good advice. Once the RfA proper had started, the community was rather supportive of my application, and it's clear from some of the comments that quite a few editors did quite a bit of digging before commenting. Thank you everyone for investing the time to do some background research and then comment. Some of the comments I thoroughly enjoyed. Thank you to those members who put questions to me (Lourdes, Leaky caldron, and Ottawahitech); that's an important part of the process. I wouldn't have minded a few more questions, though.

But now it's done, and it's up to me to live up to the expectations of the community. I shall give it my best shot. And when I fall short, please don't hesitate to let me know. Schwede66 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations, not only for getting the mop, but also for demonstrating that not even a serial opposer could find anything to conjure up. If you are going to launch into much routine admin work and forensics, there is a bunch of extremely useful scripts here that I personally find indispensable. I didn't write them, but kudos to the people who did. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was waiting for them, Kudpung. But they didn't show. Thanks for your scripts. I see it contains User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js and I've already got that one, but it stopped working a couple of weeks back. Well, it does work, but only very intermittently. There are a few other things that have struggled in the last fortnight (e.g. Twinkle loads sporadically only; 'User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js' is mostly down), and the 'Cite' link has fallen off my toolbar. Is there a server problem at the Wikimedia end, or is it just my account? If the latter, where would I go to ask for help? Schwede66 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I just tried the prose size script and it worked. J947 22:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The best place to ask is the script author - if they are still around. I think most of the ones in my js file are working - at least, if any are not it would be just two or three I rarely use or which have since been supplanted by core software features or better scripts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Schwede66, if prosesize isn't working, try DYKcheck. It counts prose, but it also gives a bit of extra information. I've never had trouble with it. And congratulations on your new mop! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BlueMoonset – that's exactly what I'm doing, and thankfully DYKcheck is working reliably. But I wonder whether there's something going on that does need fixing, given so so many of my gadgets are struggling. Not having the cite tool is a major drawback for a content creator like me... Schwede66 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Congratulations on the successful and well-deserved outcome to your RFA. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Congratulations on becoming Wikipedia's newest administrator! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA! Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – almost ten long, sordid, why-didn't-I-find-a-better-hobby years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable. I'm sure you've done it already.) Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.) Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for? Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. Katietalk 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.

Thanks, Katie - that's much appreciated. Yes, I do have an admin question. I prodded an article in July 2016 and it got deleted; the subject was close to the notability threshold but wasn't quite there yet. She subsequently received a lot of media attention and did rather well in the 2016 Auckland mayoral election, and I commented at some point that by then, she would meet notability criteria. The article has just been recreated. My query is: should I offer the previously deleted version as an article in draft space, so that the useful bits from half a year ago could be added to the new version? Schwede66 22:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), I think you should, even though I aren't an admin. J947 22:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. You can certainly do the draft space thing, but I'd do a history merge. Go get the good stuff out of the deleted version, add it to the article, then do the history merge. The first time you do a histmerge is the hardest. It really is straightforward, but if you have trouble with the technical side, let me know and I'll do it. :-) Katie^talk 23:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Ok, I've dug out the old content and transferred everything that is useful to the new article. Looking at history merge, I guess my case is similar to a 'manual case' that is 'easy'; the special page is not available to my case. The difference, if I understand it right, is that I now need to do the following:

1. Delete the current version.
2. Restore the previously deleted version.
3. Restore the current version.

Correct? Schwede66 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete the article. When you go to restore it (click on 'restore X deleted edits?'), the history of both versions will be there. Simply restore (you don't need to check any boxes with a complete restoration) with a rationale of 'history merge' or some such, and magic happens. :-) Katie^talk 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Magic indeed! Thanks, Katie. Schwede66 00:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, Admiral Admin

Woo! Whee!

Congratulations. You'll do fine. Your first DYK promotion to Queue was done correctly. There is no mistake that cannot be corrected. Don't worry. Get the mop moving. Here's a couple of helpful links, if you didn't already have them:

• DYK Admin instructions
• Admin dashboard

Happy mopping. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Maile. I didn't think that I would break things beyond recovery, but thought it best to ask for a check since not all the instructions were straightforward to follow. Good to hear that I got it right. Schwede66 23:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious

good sports

Thank you for quality articles such as Barrhill, New Zealand, for sports articles, for adding infoboxes, for serving as an admin, adding new energy to DYK, after you provided 200 articles yourself, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Such lovely words. Much appreciated. Thanks, Gerda. It's nice to reconnect. Schwede66 10:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Congrats on becoming Wikipedia's newest admin!! EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A lot of new admins this year! If you fancy coffee over tea, then allow me to roll up my sleeves and serve up a pipin' cup of 'joe, made from only the finest coffee beans, ground with a hand-powered coffee grinder, filtered through a real French press, and served with the love only a true barista can provide... Okay, so I'm not actually a barista, but I do make my own coffee at home, and I hope you enjoy this cup as much as I enjoyed making it! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphan usage

Schwede66, why did you put an orphan tag on the Electoral history of Arnold Nordmeyer article? Other articles link to it. I have undid that edit. J947 05:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't me; it was suggested by AWB and all I did is hit the save button (so, yes, it was me). But when I look, it seems AWB got it right. What other articles link to it from mainspace already as far as you can make out? Schwede66 05:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. There are heaps: Arnold Nordmeyer, Walter Nash, Norman Kirk, three New Zealand electorates, Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, Saul Goldsmith, and a lot more. J947 06:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Those articles link to Arnold Nordmeyer, but not to Electoral history of Arnold Nordmeyer. Schwede66 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that's because of the page move. J947 06:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. When you move a page, the process automatically leaves a redirect behind. I suggest you put a "see also" section on the Arnold Nordmeyer article that points to the electoral history article, and then it's no longer an orphan. Schwede66

Thanks. J947 06:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done! J947 06:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, in your edit above, you didn't date your comment. J947 06:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that happens when you use three tildes instead of four. Schwede66 06:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Why don't you use the four tilde symbol below the editing area? That's what I do. J947 06:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I had never even noticed that! Good idea. Schwede66 06:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that you've edited for close to seven and a half years yet never noticed that! J947 06:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Schwede, I just dropped by to say congrats on the "promotion". But also, wow, I had never noticed that button either!! Mattlore (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your contributions to the DYK project as an administrator. It's a role that's needed, and you've shown a willingness to learn and contribute to the project that shows you'll continue to be a boon. Congrats on the tools, you've clearly been using them well, and thanks for the work! Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the accolades. Much appreciated. Schwede66 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hi there, I sent you an email on behalf of the Signpost. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: Happy to help. Have you got a word count in mind? Schwede66 05:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Brevity is always appreciative, but we will be quoting rather than reproducing in full, so take what you need. Go Phightins! 16:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: I haven't had an acknowledgement that you noticed the ping when I wrote the piece as requested. Could you please let me know that you've seen the draft?

Date ranges on electoral history articles

You should have a look at all the electoral history of NZ politicians articles as they don't use endashes. Also, how do you do an endash? J947 18:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a button in the edit window; a little to the left of the signature button :) The two dashes there are endash (left) and emdash. Schwede66 18:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember once seeing a emdash under the editing area, which I thought was an endash, only to find out it was an emdash. J947 18:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. J947 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK subpage parameters for DYKmake

Schwede66, if the entry in the Credits section of the prep or queue does not have a "View nom subpage" link next to it when it's a DYKmake (DYKnoms do not have this link), then the subpage field is necessary and should be added, as you did earlier today. If the name of the article in the DYKmake exactly matches the Template page name of the nomination, then the subpage field isn't necessary; otherwise, it is. Multi-article hooks will need subpage parameters for all or all but one of the nominations, depending on how the template page is named. Let me know if you have any questions about this. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, BlueMoonset. That's how I remembered it, but I thought I'd check with those in the know, just to make sure that everyone gets their credit when credit is due. Schwede66 22:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

Schwede66, can you please reassess Town of Dunedin by-election, 1859? I have just expanded it and nominated it for DYK. J947 23:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that William John Dyer is noteworthy enough for his own article? J947 00:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that having a main (as opposed to child) entry in Guy Scholefield's 1940 Dictionary of New Zealand Biography establishes notability. I see that Dyer is listed on page 224. Schwede66 01:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise that he had an entry in that book! What about we each create a userspace page for him then merge our copies together into an article? J947 01:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope; that sounds like doubling up. You start an article and I'm happy to chip in when you tell me that you are done. Schwede66 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. J947 01:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. J947 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You say above that Dyer is on page 224 of the 1940 Dictionary of the New Zealand Biography. However, when you expanded Dyer's article you cited page 220. Why is that? J947 22:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

One or the other is wrong; feel free to fix. 1940 DNZB is online. Schwede66 23:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It was page 224. See here. I have changed the article accordingly. J947 23:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have just nominated Dyer for DYK, giving credit to you as well. J947 01:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thought you might. J947 19:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes. The two results tables showed different info... Schwede66 19:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded the article about the April 1865 Bruce by-election. Henry Clapcott was a candidate and the candidate that demanded a poll. However, the results only show the two other candidates, Dyer and Arthur John Burns. Do you know why? Also, Clapcott has an entry in the 1940 DNZB. Can you please reassess the article as well? J947 02:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you think is needed in the April 1865 Bruce by-election article to get it to B-class? J947 00:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Prep 6

Hi, I helped build Prep 6, and I was wondering why you made this swap? As it is, there were far more non-bios than bios in the set, and your swap also added a second nature hook. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Yoninah, nothing personal and sorry to upset the balance; it was due to this request. Better add to the discussion there to keep it all in one place if you have further thoughts. Schwede66 17:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nelson boo-boo

Oopsy...this gaffe arose out of using my Nelson paper stub as a template, then getting hauled away by the spouse before completion... Thanks for fixing. Bjenks (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bjenks Haha, my spouse sometimes 'causes' those issues, too. Schwede66 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we're crossing edits

Schwede66, I was just moving the Prep 3 lead hook to Prep 6, but I see you've moved in the Prep 1 hook instead. Do be sure to shift around Prep 6, so you don't have two bios as the first two hooks. I hadn't saved any of my moves after removing the Prep 6 lead and getting it back into the special occasion section (which included exiling the koboni hook to Prep 4), and will leave everything to you so I don't interfere with anything you're doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset Sorry for that. How does Prep 6 look now? Schwede66 08:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you; I got off my computer right after posting the above. Looking at Queue 6 now, it looks fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I thought that must have happened. Schwede66 17:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not Facebook

Please desist from using Wikipedia as a social media site, as you have done at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. A bit of humour is all very well but this discussion has been closed a few times. As an admin you should be setting an example of how to use project talk pages properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, if I had not left the early post in the thread, I would have reminded you of 3RR, but felt that I wasn't uninvolved. Lucky for you. Schwede66 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-familiarise yourself with WP:ADMINACCT before making such threats. Please use your position to set an example, not to pander to the whims of those who use encyclopedia talk pages as a chat forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I’m a little bit puzzled why you feel you need to remind me of accountability for admins. With regards to the Extremely disappointed thread, I was the second editor to respond in a light-hearted manner to a light-hearted post. That response was my only post. I chose not to further involve myself in the discussion, and I’m unsure why you see reason to post on my talk page about that.

What I did observe, though, is that you closed the discussion several times: first here, and then after being reverted by various [one] editors, you reverted once, twice, a third, and even a fourth time. I chose not to post about your violation of WP:3RR on your talk page because I had left an early comment in that thread and thus did not think that I was uninvolved, and I thus considered that it was not my place to point this out to you. I consider me choosing not to post on your talk page about 3RR was lucky for you because there are certainly editors who have your talk page on their watchlist, just waiting for the opportunity to have a block imposed on you. But either way, choosing to not remind you of policy isn’t a threat.

In my book, you undertaking four reverts on the same thread is even worse than a simple 3RR violation, as I would perceive it as inflammatory behaviour. No doubt you will remember that ArbCom found in October 2016 that you had engaged in "inflammatory behavior". I expect from you that you do not engage in behaviour that ArbCom recorded as fact in its decision. Schwede66 08:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I note you omitted that the reverts of my edits were a clearer violation of 3RR. Interesting. I also note that you acted unilaterally and against consensus when removing the link from what you and one other editor deemed to be a low quality article in a DYK hook. This was despite being requested to restore it and then being requested to make similar delinking edits in three subsequent sets. Which for some reason you refused to do. Perhaps you have your reasons but the behaviour is way below that expected of an admin. You are accountable and should respond when requested to do so. Your refusal to do so is a clear violation of WP:ADMINACCT. You should also remind others that talkpages are not chat forums, and to set an example yourself of encouraging such chat off project pages and, if absolutely necessary, onto talk pages. Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

And to the facts. The closures were not reverted by "various editors", they were reverted by a single editor. I was far from alone in noting this juvenile discourse was unnecessary and should have been ended by a responsible admin (e.g. ":Please, continue! Always fun to see people belittling a living person for personal amusement. Glad BLP has a humor and disagree with politics exception!", e.g. "I'm one of those people that doesn't get the joke. Wikipedia welcomes your edits but there are other venues for your off-topic discussion"). The sooner you remember what the community has charged you to do, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I’ve gone back through the diffs and yes – you are right – all other reverts were from just one editor. I had not noticed that while that was going on, thus my statement above was inaccurate (and I’ve struck it out), and I apologise for that. Having considered the issue further, I’ve decided to report your actions to AN3 in light of the October 2016 ArbCom findings about your behaviour, so that this goes on record.

If you wish me to respond to the link removal issue, please say so and I will do so on the DYK talk page at the relevant discussion. Schwede66 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit late to be conciliatory when you're doing your best to get be banned from the site, so do as you please. Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that you've been an administrator for a few days. Congratulations. I don't think we've met before. With the benefit of 9+ years of adminship behind me, might I make a couple of comments? (1) Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance is worth reading. Saying to one person involved in a dispute that he's in breach of 3RR but you're only going to report the other party isn't impressive, since the EW noticeboard looks at the behaviour of all parties. (2) When the dispute died down hours and hours ago (after I stepped in), what is the point of reporting anyone? Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive, after all. As the heading at WP:ANEW says "This page is for reporting active edit warriors" - note the word "active". Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 20:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your congrats, Bencherlite. I've certainly seen your name around, and the Editor Interaction Analyser reminds me where: at DYK (I'm pretty sure you were already active there when I was actively submitting DYKs until a few years ago), and WikiProject Rowing. Given that I've had the tools for less than a month, there's most certainly heaps to learn, and any feedback put to me in line with good WP etiquette is gratefully received. I don't think that one ever stops learning, so taking in feedback isn't something that will (or should) cease over time. Regarding the above, I hear what you say – thank you. Regarding the heading that you quote, the fuller version is "active edit warriors and recent violations" (emphasis as per the original) and I did read that carefully before I posted there. What is your understanding of "recent"? Schwede66 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure Bencherlite will enlighten you as to his thoughts. But in the meantime, do consider the fact that you set out to (a) ignore me when I requested you make comparable changes at DYK (b) target me and not another editor who had made four reverts (c) warn the other editor that he may be spoken about but yet you did nothing. Not a good start for adminship I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"Recent" is a fact-specific situation. I'm not going to give hypothetical examples. This particular situation, though, had gone past the point of being a "recent" one. Bencherlite^Talk 20:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)