Jump to content

User talk:Andrewa/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 23

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.

Toolbar

The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.
  • In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
    • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
    • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
    • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
  • Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

  • Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
  • Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
  • Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eastern Standard Time (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Eastern Standard Time (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine. Since you had some involvement with the Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Whakaari/White Island article title RM notice

You recently participated in a discussion on the title of the Whakaari/White Island article. I have made a formal WP:RM request at Talk:Whakaari/White Island if you care to weigh in. —  AjaxSmack  17:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Bluesman cropped.jpg

Notice

The file File:Bluesman cropped.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Bluesman cropped.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bluesman cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Screenshot showing what the Reply tool looks like
This early version of the Reply tool automatically signs and indents comments.

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

Reply tool improved with edit tool buttons
In a future update, the team plans to test a tool for easily linking to another user's name, a rich-text editing option, and other tools.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

  • On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
  • The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
    • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
    • a rich-text visual editing option, and
    • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Chomskybot" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chomskybot. Since you had some involvement with the Chomskybot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Your Participation in an AFD

Dear Andrewa, Would like you to invite to an [| AFD Discussion]. There is targeted internet slandering going on respectable people, so every piece of evidence and references from official Govt. circulars to reputed news articles are being discounted and made fun of. There attempts to bias the discussion by an individual. Would appreciate if you could please take a look at give a neutral point of view.

Regards, Anu231 (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: Deepak Rao deletion discussion

It appears that most of the following was copied from here. Andrewa (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Andrewa:,

Regarding the deletion articles in question, since I see Anu231 requested you to look at it, I would like to add some content for you to view as the user has been canvassing regarding this topic. The following is the discussion I had with Abecedare on the topic, as Abecedare was the first person that Anu231 contacted in their efforts. I do not ask you to agree with me, I just want to provide this information for you to view as Anu231 has already addressed you regarding this topic with their version of events.

Thank you.

below is the delete page for Deepak Rao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deepak_Rao

also of note is the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_commando_combat_system_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof.Dr.Deepak_Rao_%26_Dr._Seema_Rao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Commando_Combat_System#Advanced_Commando_Combat_System,_Prof._Dr._Deepak_Rao_&_Dr._Seema_Rao


and here is the previous discussion on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta

In which Mr. Deepak Rao himself or his associates use 4 different accounts to try to protest the deletion. You will see something interesting if you go over those four profiles - namely, even the ones that have been around since 2013 have above 90% of their posts related to Mr. Deepak Rao. Additionally, if you read the articles and examine the sources, there is nothing left of substance once you remove non-credible sources or self-created sources.

You can read the below thread on Mr. Deepak Rao's claims, as well as reasons for how they can not be true. He alleges such claims as:


  1. being a doctor from Harvard with an M.D. and PhD
  2. Having a law degree from Yale
  3. Having another law degree from the UK
  4. Having a PhD in crisis prevention from Indiana
  5. Having a BJJ black belt (takes 10-12 years on average) from a nonexistent black belt at a nonexistent school in France, proven false with a quick fact check with the IBJJF senior referees as well as with the 2 associations he also claimed to have a black belt certificate from
  6. Having a suspicious black belt in JKD that was somehow issued after Richard Bustillo's death, by Richard Bustillo himself
  7. Having a 6th degree Judo black belt
  8. Being commended by the Queen of England
  9. Having every force from the FBI to the CIA to the Special Forces all use his training manuals (not true, I had never even heard of his system before, and I have trained many soldiers)
  10. being able to duck live bullets at will

And many other claims. I was not calling him a Charlatan as an insult, but as a statement of fact. He unquestionable is "a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill". Dangerously so, in fact, as he is training people to have confidence in completely made up skills, and is actually performing medicine on people who believe him to have advanced medical credentials, when the Indian Medical Board website shows him to just have a 3 year medical degree. A far cry from a dual M.D. and PhD from Harvard.

I would like to request your unbaiased review of the matter, and would invite you to leave your thoughts and comments on the delete page. Given the facts of the matter, I would also like to request that you revert the description of the deletion reason.

Thank you for your attention and time!

V/R BasicsOnly (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@BasicsOnly: I am already aware of some of the related AFD discussions and will comment at the current AFD once I have looked into the subject's notability on my own. In the meantime, could you point me to where he has claimed to be for eg, "doctor from Harvard with an M.D. and PhD", or have a law degree from Yale or UK? Abecedare (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I'm happy to hear that you will look into this. To be clear, I'm not asking you to do what I say or agree with me, I just think this topic deserves a close look because simply looking with a neutral predisposition clearly shows that he is making everything up anyways. I'm happy to provide sources, please look at the sources below for information on his claims. One challenge with finding said claims is that you will need to use something like wayback machine as he has gone into full damage control mode at this point and is closing everything up. For example, this is his current web page for his BJJ website (he has MANY websites for different claims and hats he adopts), whereas THIS has many of his martial arts claims (judo rank claim, BJJ claim, claims to teach "Kickboxing, Karate, Taekwondo, Hapkido, Judo, Boxing, Wrestling, Isreali Krav Maga, BJJ, Wing Chun, Shaolin Kung Fu, Ninja, Brazilian Jiu Jutsu / Jitsu, Jiu Jutsu, jeet Kune Do JKD, Filipino Philipino Martial arts, Kali, Arnis, Escrima, Silat, Capoeira, Self Defense Defence for Women & Ladies").
Likewise when we go to another of his websites here we don't see the same claims such as the law degree and harvard M.D that we see here where he alleges the following
Quote
Indian Army Brand Ambassador. 1 of 5 Indians to get Presidents Rank Award Since 1947. Pioneer Modern CQB Training for Elite Commando Units. Helped Train Anti Terror Squads of 12 States. Hon Major TABN, Parachute Regiment.

Scientist. Researched & Authored 10 Books on Political Science, Pragmatic Philosophy & Non Interventional Medicine. Invented Rao Reflex Shooting System. World Peace Awardee. Motivational Keynote Speaker on use of Military / Battle protocol for Management.

Harvard Qualified Doctor. No Intervention Physician. Doctorates In Law, Alt Med & Philosophy. Follower Of Zen Buddhism. Sensei /Master Of Mumbai Zen Dojo/Group.

8th Deg Blackbelt in Military UAC. President of UCCA, Academy of Professional Black Belt Instructors. II Generation Bruce Lee Descendant. First Indian Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Blackbelt under Gracie. MMA BJJ National Coach for Russia, Germany & Arizona. Director & Film Maker

He is Harvard Medical School qualified Doctor. He is an expert on Zen with study of Religion, again from Harvard University. He is a published author of 10 books. His books have gone to FBI, INTERPOL & Buckingham Palace. He is a Motivational Keynote Speaker & perhaps the topmost in the field of Military Talks.


ALSO - if you click download biodata, you get the following claims:

"Major Deepak Rao is a Medical doctor who has studied Pharmacology or Drug Therapy from Harvard Medical School as well as Naturotherapy from Alternative Medicine. He has a PhD in Military Science, a PhD in Law from UK, a PhD in Zen Buddhism. He has also studied Religious Literacy from Harvard. He is a published author of 10 books on military, political science, medicine and philosophy. He is a multidimensional personality being a Commando Trainer, Doctor, Author, SCUBA Instructor, Combat Driver, MMA Coach, Worlds highest Instructor in Bruce Lee's art JKD who learnt under Bruce Lee’s 75 year old student Grand Master Richard Bustillo. He has a 8th degree Blackbelt in Unarmed Combat making him the senior most in the country.

He is a popular motivational speaker known for Battle philosophy for corporate management, Sun Tzu Art of war for business & Zen philosophy for peaceful life. Major Deepak Rao got World Peace Award in 2008. He has over 1000 commendations till date from President, Prime Ministers, Army Chiefs, Naval Chief, Paramilitary heads, DGP. Internationally he has received appreciation from Robert Muller then FBI Chief, Ronald Noble then INTERPOL Secretary general and Her Majesty, the Queen of England!"

This is just from two of his sites. On others such as Drdeepakrao.com, etc. you see other claims such as a Yale law degree. It's all entirely inconsistent. He doesn't even keep his claims in line with each other. you can read much more about that in this thread.
I invite you to look at them at your leisure. It's a very interesting read.
V/R
BasicsOnly (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedare:Also an interesting short video to watch on the topic
V/R
BasicsOnly (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@BasicOnly: Thanks for the answer. I guess Rao is following the wikipedia discussion and has now blocked the archiving of his website. In anycase, we can always assess the available sources we'll need to build any article upon. Will do so and comment at the AFD by tomorrow. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

BasicsOnly (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for clarification

BasicsOnly, this edit is obviously a paste of signed comments from another page, and you linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Rao but it doesn't seem to be that simple. So, where exactly were these comments first made? Andrewa (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Andrewa Hi! I'm not sure I 100% understand your question. If you are asking where this discussion first occured, the answer would be on Abecedare's Talk Page as I mentioned in the copied text. It was an extensive response, so I attempted to copy it over as it has a lot of background information as well as source links for given claims. If you are asking about where the start of the deletion discussion is located, that would be at Deepak Rao's Talk Page. If I misunderstood the question, please let me know and I'm happy to clarify! I'm sorry if I bothered you with this, by the way. I just saw that Anu231 was writing a lot of Admins to canvass for the prevention of the AfD proposal, and I wanted to make sure everyone had a bit of the background information.

Warm regards, BasicsOnly (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking specifically where the comments signed by others that you have added above were made by them. I'm assuming you got them from somewhere rather than made them up, so where? You provided several links, and I followed one and it didn't lead anywhere useful.
It seems a simple and reasonable request to me. Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrewa: If you are referring to the comments signed above by Abecedare, then yes, those are made by Abecedare and can be found here. If you are talking about the claims made by Mr. Deepak Rao, then those are much harder to find as he has now delisted his site from waybackmachine, and has changed his site removing most of the content and making all of his YouTube videos private because he is aware that he has been found out. However, in this video here at 1:13 you can see a screen capture of part of one of his websites including some of his claims. Also here at 5:26 on you see another prolonged screen capture of another of his websites, which goes up and down the website detailing many of his claims, including his M.D from Harvard, UK Law PhD, etc. I can find more sources as well if you'd like.
If you still have any questions, please let me know and I'm happy to answer them for you.
Warm regards,
BasicsOnly (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrewa: also this one of his sites hasn't been delisted from Archive.org (Waybackmachine) yet, so you can still see a few of the claims there. This website does not cover the Harvard M.D. claim, but does contain the U.K. Law PhD claim, and an M.D. when he only has a 3 year medical degree. BasicsOnly (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I think I see the problem. When I said "comments signed by others" I meant comments made in Wikipedia and signed by the contributor making them. There are times when it is legitimate to copy the signature of another user from one page to another, talk page archiving being an obvious example, but the page on which this signature originally appeared should always be obvious, otherwise you run the risk of misrepresenting them however unintentionally.
I'll cut to the chase.
  • The only signature other than your own that you have copied above is that of Abecedare, is that correct? Or are there others I have missed?
  • These comments (signed on Wikipedia) were all posted to that users talk page (one of the links you posted above), is that correct?
It is, as I have said, a very simple and I think reasonable request. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Yes, sure, you can see that by clicking here as I wrote before. BasicsOnly (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
OK... then I think I should archive the discussion that you copied from here and just provide that permalink. It doesn't belong anywhere else IMO. Andrewa (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrewa: sure, feel free to do as you like - the purpose was just to inform, not to coerce any particular action on your part.
Warm regards,
BasicsOnly (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Languages

This strikes me as a technical issue. I recently removed the REDIRECT from Giovanni Battista Federico Vallega, replacing the redirect with a basic biography. But I should also be able to link this entry to other languages with entries for this fellow. Why am I not given that option in the usual place on the left beneath print/export? Does WP still think this is a redirect? Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

And suddenly it’s no longer a problem. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This puzzled me too. I would guess that the bots at WikiData were just a bit overloaded. I often find other language articles that link to us but we not back to them, or vice versa. They also seem to be fixed in time. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #2 – Quick updates

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Mockup of the new reply feature, showing new editing tools
The new features include a toolbar. What do you think should be in the toolbar?

This edition of the Editing newsletter includes information the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, an effort to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. The central project page is on MediaWiki.org.

– Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond the Sea Championship

Hello, I would like to response to your comment on the talk section of Beyond the Sea Championship where you said "If there is to be a separate article on the tag team contest, create it before this one". Well, I did. A few months ago actually I created the Beyond the Sea Tag Team Championship. I don't understand the whole discussion about it to be honest. SeosiWrestling (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point, and a shame it wasn't made in the RM discussion before it was closed.
Instead arguments were proposed that were completely irrelevant in terms of English Wikipedia's article naming policy. These were a distraction and a waste of time, and agree we've ended up with a bad solution, but that's at least partly because of these poor arguments. Agree that if we are to have two articles, then the one on the single contest should be renamed.
But the other way to go of course is to merge the two articles. Just because the promoter's website has separate pages doesn't mean we should. One way forward would be to discuss a merge, and if that idea is rejected then that would be a valid reason to reconsider the RM.
On the other hand, if we got a rough consensus to merge, no move would be necessary. Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3

On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop.

Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:

  • The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
  • More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
  • Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
  • The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
  • Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
  • On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
  • In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

unwanted notifications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewa/Unwanted_notifications

It's happened again to me over at (https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%E1%BA%A3o_lu%E1%BA%ADn_Th%C3%A0nh_vi%C3%AAn:Rhialto). It seems to have been triggered by me visiting that wiki for the first time. Trying to tell them that I can't read that notice seems to have resulted in me getting a tempban from editing my own page to tell them. Rhialto (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Rhialto, they're back. See https://mk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D1%81%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Andrewa&oldid=4196375 for the one I got. Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Update: It appears to be a ban of undefinite duration. Google isn't the best at translating Vietnamese apparently. I wasn't planning on editing the wiki content there, but allowing a long-standing wikipedian to post a note on theri own page that they can't read the language of the notices would seem to be reasonable behaviour unworthy of a ban. Rhialto (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Very interesting. Wikipedia is not entirely consistent on this. There is even a sense in which neither Wikipedia policy nor even Wikipedia exist.
To quote the first of those links (as it currently exists), Originally, rules on the non-English editions of Wikipedia were based on a translation of the rules for the English Wikipedia. They have since diverged to some extent. [1]
The various language Wikipedias are described there as editions. But that suggests some common body. There is none. The only common body is the Wikimedia community, and it exercises minimal control over the various Wikipedias.
In terms of English Wikipedia policy, your user page is not your own. All pages belong to the project. That may be the same at other Wikipedias. Who is to tell, and how?
It raises some interesting questions. Presumably all Wikipedias are required to respect copyright and BLP policies and some others. But are they? Those are English Wikipedia pages. They can be changed by any consensus of the English Wikipedia community without reference to the wider Wikimedia community. Similarly, commons:Commons:Copyright_rules can for example be changed by the Wikimedia commons community without reference to the Wikimedia community or to us here at English Wikipedia. Food for thought?
If Vietnamese Wikipedia want to ban you indefinitely, or treat you (or anyone else, be they living, dead, Wikipedian or complete stranger) in any other way they may please (and they may even decide that in any way they may please... wp:consensus is also an English Wikipedia policy, not a Wikimedia one), there may not be much to stop them.
Ideally, at least some English Wikipedia policy pages would link to Wikimedia policy pages. There are Wikimedia policies that are binding on all Wikimedia projects including the various Wikipedias. But finding them is not as easy as it might be. See Meta:Policies_and_guidelines for a start.
It occurs to me that the ability to create a userid that is portable across all Wikimedia projects, and particularly one that creates for me a presence in projects for which I cannot even read the script let alone the language, is a double edged sword, and not as innocuous as I and many others had assumed.
Watch this space. But patiently. This may take a while. Or if you find anything interesting yourself, please report back here or email me. Andrewa (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I have also looked at Wikipedia:Embassy and Wikipedia:Local Embassy but there appear to be no ambassadors for Vietnamese there. However Category:User vi-N lists 142 native speakers of Vietnamese who have declared that fact on English Wikipedia. So one of these may be willing to help. Or Meta:Wikimedia_Embassy#V has some promising links. Andrewa (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Portals tasks requests: presented in the newsletter below...

Hi Andrewa The Chimpz wikipedia page photo is from 2005 and has an old member in it. How can the band update their wikipedia page image to a recent one? Cheers Phil Taylor. Owner of their record label Rock Solid Talent Entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip H Taylor (talk • contribs) 09:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Also on their talk page you asked for proof of the label as their label. if you look on their website that is listed on their wikipedia page they have Rock Solid Talent Entertainment listed on their home page as their record label- The record label is on their official website listed on the bands wikipedia 

article http://thechimpz.com/

German Christians RM close

When you closed the move for German Christians, it left hundreds of incoming links incorrectly pointing to the wrong target (Special:WhatLinksHere/German_Christians). Fixing the incoming links to point to the right place is required of the closer in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite right! Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Primary topic page moves to be precise.
If you check or fix any of them please just remove the entry from User:Andrewa/sandbox (just to save doubling up on the effort).
On second thought I found that list more trouble than it was worth and am just using this link instead. Only a few to go. Andrewa (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
There probably is a way to automate it but not in my field of expertise. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure of List of religions and spiritual traditions... thoughts welcome. Andrewa (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Whew! 34 occurrences in that article. Overlinked? Arguably. Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Make that 35. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Only five here but two of them in successive paragraphs. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Archive pages and talk pages should not IMO be changed to reflect the move. But perhaps a hatnote should be added to the article for the benefit of those who follow these mislinkings? I don't think there is a suitable template for this at present. Perhaps there should be. Andrewa (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is becoming obvious is that there is a lot of text repeated in many of these articles. I must wonder whether some of it is insidious copyvios. That is, copying text from one article to another without leaving any attribution trail. Food for thought? Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Egli-Figuren appears to be correctly linked to the new redirect. I think that is the first I have found. Andrewa (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Finished I think. Only two articles now link, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=German+Christians&namespace=0

one of which is the legitimate redir to section hatnote and the other seems to also be a correct linking. Andrewa (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #4

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The number of comments posted with the Reply Tool from March through June 2020. People used the Reply Tool to post over 7,400 comments with the tool.

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

  • More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
  • Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
  • Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[2]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

New requirements for user signatures

  • The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
  • Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.

Next: New discussion tool

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Operation Demetrius

Please reconsider your close of the move request at Talk:Operation Demetrius#Requested move 9 August 2020. I believe the arguments against movement were weak, and were wholly refuted.

The first was This article is already reasonably large without moving it to an article that would add more information to it. I pointed out WP:SIZERULE and that if the readable prose is less than 40K a split isn't justified and that the article has 20K of prose, therefore theoretical potential future size alone is not an argument against moving the article especially as I have not stated I intend to more than double the current size.

The second was this page is about the operation that occurred in 1971 and This page is about Operation Demetrius though from a single purpose account when it has been demonstrated quite clearly the article goes significantly beyond a two-day military operation in August 1971, as do all the references when discussing this topic. This is also a completely circular argument, arguing that the article should retain its current title as it matches the content, when the argument is that the article already goes way beyond the two-day operation in August 1971 and should be retitled and slightly reframed in order to focus on the topic of internment.

I ask you to please reconsider. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, thank you for the opportunity to comment further.
I don't agree that the arguments were wholly refuted. I agree that the arguments against the move were not particularly strong, but I think that yours were weaker still. Stating them repeatedly as you did does not make them stronger.
Nor is the fact that one of the opponents to the move is an SPA relevant. Their arguments seem OK. They've only been here for a few months. Give them a chance.
The other opponent is of course a long established editor with many interests.
The current topic Operation Demetrius is a good one, and if off-topic material has been added to the article (and I'm not even convinced that it has been) without first obtaining consensus to broaden its scope that does not justify a move. I would suggest that you create a new, broader article either as a draft or in the article space. We can then consider whether the current article should be merged into that article (or vice versa) or whether the new article is even perhaps a good topic in its own right.
I am not at all confident that this merge proposal will gain consensus, but that is my suggestion for the way forward. At worst, assuming sources justify this second article we will end up with two articles on good topics.
The other possibility I suppose is to seek consensus to broaden the scope of the existing article, but that seems unlikely to succeed, based on the RM discussion.
Another possibility of course is to accept the opinions of others that this article should cover both topics, and have your proposed title redirect to a section on the background to the operation. That is probably what I would recommend as the next step, except that I'm assuming from the above that you don't want to do it. Best. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am aware one of the editor's is long established. However that doesn't change the fact his argument is not supported by WP:SIZERULE, since the article only has 20K of prose. He made no other argument other than about size, so I felt it was reasonable to disregard that.
The other argument is circular, and a barrier to article improvement. Internment lasted until December 1975, so the topic covers much more than a two-day military operation in August 1971. For example by mid-December 1971 1,590 people had been arrested, compared to the 342 arrested during Operation Demetrius), of which 620 were detained (out of 1,981 over the whole period of internment. However I am sure any attempts to expand the article will be blocked with the argument of "this article is about Operation Demetrius" while simultaneously saying it doesn't need to be moved as "this article is about Operation Demetrius", thus preventing a move to an article title that would allow a well-rounded article to be written on the subject of internment.
However I feel that path of least resistance is to simply write a new article at the correct title that is much bigger and better than the existing article, and will render its continued existence to be pointless. FDW777 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Whether the existing article is pointless is another thing! Operation Demetrius does sound to me like a good topic in its own right, but could be a section of the article you propose. Perhaps they will be merged, perhaps not. We are a collaboration, and not perfect, see wp:creed#2. Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Hello! Could you look at the page move discussion at Talk:Aamer Sarfraz and consider closing or relisting it? --Editor FIN (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hi, if you can please may you make the Wikipedia Page Ariana Grande fully protected due to excessive vandalism from multiple accounts as well as a certain user who keeps vandalizing even though they were warned multiple times. Please help by making the page fully protected Randomperson7893457 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Ariana Grande. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems to have been dealt with, see here. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewa/Archive_18&oldid=987114604"