User:Grandiose/archive8

Your admin nomination further questions
Hi there and good luck on your nomination for adminship! I voted in your favor with great pleasure, but felt like should drop in your talk page, to advise that you might want to respond the two last questions (should you not have seen them yet). Your response might clarify and prevent unnecessary "oppose". Thanks and best of luck again! --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your RfA
By successfuly passing RfA, you become the first self-nom to pass at first try in almost two years! Congratulations. — ΛΧΣ  21  00:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In ~2 years.. wow. This must have restored some people's faith in RfA.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  00:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I noted the self-nomination with interest, too, and supported your candidacy, and I'm thrilled that it (seems to have) passed (pending Bureaucratic decisions). I've seen your work - keep up the good job!  I'd like to to be admin, sometime, but definitely feel that I lack the content creation skills to do so (not to mention people who would nominate a WikiGnome).  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on passing your RfA! I suggest taking a look at the new admin school to get used to your new tools, and at some point reviewing the comments left on your RfA.  If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or other admins at locations such as the Administrators' noticeboard.  Warofdreams talk 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the club! Have a uniform; keep it clean, I expect to see you wearing it next Oxford meetup. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Grandiose! Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. ;-) Liz Let's Talk 17:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Impressed with your article creation. Congratulations. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I apparently forgot to support, though... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good job! Enjoy having every edit put under your opponents' microscope forever! :P PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Waiting to see you in action.  A m i t  웃  03:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a poor internet connection last week missed your RFA, but congrats from me also. When you've had a little practice with the tools and discovered what a faff it is finding the right block rationale, checkout my monobook.js. Some kind person put some code there for me that gives a dropdown menu for blocking and includes the templates.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

NFCR
I think you goofed. Werieth (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment
I'm interested to know why you removed the gallery formatting at Ulster Defence Regiment. Would you be kind enough to enlighten me? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Declaring font families is disapproved by WP:FONTFAMILY: Font families should not be explicitly defined in the CSS of an article. On one hand, this interferes with Wikipedia's flexibility. On the other hand, it is impossible to foresee what fonts will be installed on a user's computer. The choice of a particular font could also interfere with accessibility where a user has a particular default.
 * Per WP:COLOR, "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible."; white-on green is not AAA level and clearly this is feasible since the colour serves no purpose.
 * In the case of the font-size, I was merely unaware of why non-standard formatting was being used which might disrupt the display on particular screen sizes. (Ping User:SonofSetanta) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Further I found MOS which provides further guidance that arbitrary changes to styles should be avoided. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So really what you're saying is that it's all down to your opinion versus mine? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made three references to the Manual of Style which is determined by consensus and not personal preference - it's designed to avoid disputes over personal preference, indeed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But not binding. It should really have been discussed on the talk page so that you and I could both explore the implications of WP:MOS together.  Fortunately in this case it means nothing because the peer report recommends the removal of the galleries and that would mean the loss of colour in any case. So no harm done. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes if you disagreed with the change you could have reverted and per wp:BRD, if you two still disagreed it would then be appropriate to go to the article talkpage. You weren't suggesting that Grandiose should have discussed a change on the talkpage before making it were you? That isn't how things work round here.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  03:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The thought never crossed my mind. I was curious as to why he removed the colour from the galleries. Now I realise it is a matter of opinion as already stated and doesn't really matter as the galleries have to come out anyway as per peer review. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Television
Hi - was that you I saw on BBC Two this evening? (n.b. per WP:OUTING the name of the person and the TV show are omitted) -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Very observant, RedRose; it was indeed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it!

Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Blackpool demos
I've put a further rationale for the para being condensed in Talk:Disappearance of Charlene Downes,please give your rejoinder. As it is i think you are giving too much space to detailing a political dispute between views that are almost identical and on one extreme of opinion on the case._Overagainst (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
 * , a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
 * , another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
 * , 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
 * , a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
 * , the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
 * , who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
 * , a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
 * 1) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:, , , , , , ,. Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Preview Special:MyPage/common.js
The code should be executed when you preview Special:MyPage/common.js, so you don't have to save and then click edit to see the effect. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I realised that one myself half-way through... Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your discussion closures
I see you've recently become an admin and have taken to closing discussions. This reads very much as a WP:SUPERVOTE as opposed to a proper closure. While I'm not really concerned with how it ended up being closed, the way you closed it is problematic. In the future it would be beneficial for a closure to be based on a consensus formed from the discussion, rather than your own opinion on the matter, which should not play any part in how you close a discussion. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 15:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It will always be an argument based on the criteria that wins the day and I felt it sufficient that all the points raised in the discussion were considered in the closure and that the closure was in line with the criteria rather than some other set of principles or arguments. I guess the reference to AfD votes in the essay is apt. If there was an alternative tone to be adopted, though, then I'll try to take on any comments. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I should add that I mean the above only up to a point. All the arguments I used were arguments presented in the discussion - perhaps I should make that clearer. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion should not decide a closure of any kind, whether it be at NFCC or elsewhere. Why would Non-free content review not be based on consensus, did you read the instructions on how to close those discussions? Was there something there that gave you the impression that the discussions were not based on consensus? Discussions are closed based on consensus, not a single admin's opinion of the matter. If you want to give your opinion in a discussion, give it. If you want to close a discussion, close it. You can't do both, because that just discredits the closure and creates problems and gives anyone who disagrees with the outcome cause to render the closure moot. It doesn't matter if you shared the opinion with others, your role in closing a discussion is to assess consensus and close as appropriate, nothing more. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 15:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that my opinion led to a closure, but, rather taking into account the factors given at WP:CONSENSUS, then a decision has to be taken about how best to proceed. Taking the lead of WP:CONSENSUS as a guide, 'Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms.' - there has to be a measure of evaluation whether the reasons given align with policy considerations and what reasons have emerged as the consensus. In the context of NFCC, the consequences of no consensus are also not as clear as in some areas. I've altered my rationale (before your comment here) to reflect this better. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When you close based on things such as "the file as it currently stands is, to my mind, within 3b", that is your opinion, not an assessment of the discussion. That you agree with one part of the discussion does not make that part a consensus, and when it's closed for that reason it gives the closure a week footing the stand on, and gives anyone that disagrees with it cause to question it and discuss the merits of closing it, when defeats the entire point of closing a discussion.  I'm not seeing a consensus to keep the image in the article, nor is there a consensus that it meets WP:NFCC.  A discussion at NFCC review can close as "no consensus", I don't know how "the consequences of no consensus are also not as clear"; the instructions give a template that spells out exactly what that means and what happens. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right about my language on 3b. I didn't mean it as my opinion but rather what to my mind emerged from the discussion. I'll change that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you closed it based solely on your opinion, only that it looks that way, and when you say Because WP:NFCC closures are not really matters of consensus" and then refactor it after it's been responded to, it also brings into question any close you gave based on that rationale. I promise I'm not trying to be accusatory or anything, and I fully recognize that this is a closure that doesn't really matter in any real way and I don't really care how it's closed, but when you close a discussion people are going to notice, and there are a lot of editors who get pretty invested in the outcome for whatever reason and they'll look for any little thing to render it moot if they disagree with the way it closed, so I just wanted to point these things out now so that they can be avoided later (especially if you close some kind of contentious subject, ouch). - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 16:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (undent) You're right, I should have been way more careful with my language. Obviously editing the rationale isn't perfect, but I felt it was best to do at the current moment. Do you think if I'd written the current rationale* straight away it would be open to these objections? *Just for clarity, my views haven't changed on what emerged from the discussion although the language has. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd avoid saying "I am endorsing", since that makes it sound like you're supporting a viewpoint as opposed to closing it and assessing the discussion. I don't completely agree with some of the points, but that just comes with the territory of editing Wikipedia, and wouldn't really be cause to question a WP:SUPERVOTE type thing (though I'd imagine there would still be people who would try).  But no, I tried to look at it from a completely "how would I try to discredit this admin's close" point of view, (not that I was trying to do that in any way) and the "I am endorsing" statement is the only thing I could find with the current wording.  - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 16:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow up on Featured picture candidates/Male C. elegans anatomy
Hi, I read your comments on my illustration of a male C. elegans nematode, and responded to the critique you offered by altering the image accordingly (thank you for the feedback) but so far have not seen a "support" vote from you on the image and am wondering if maybe you just forgot about it (?). Am contacting you now to ask you to check out the revised image and see if it meets your standards. Thanks! KDS 4444 Talk  06:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Next Oxford meetup
Hi, I see that Michaelmas Term begins Sunday 13 October. You'll probably be busy that day; shall I schedule the next Oxford meetup for Sunday 20 October or would a different date be better? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've created Meetup/Oxford/9 with no date, and a discussion page at m:Talk:Meetup/Oxford/9. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification


Hi Grandiose,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Map of Cathedral Peak Granodiorite.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 18, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-10-18. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Typo in File:Thirty Years War involvement graph.svg
Hello Grandiose, in your uploaded chart is a tiny typo. The country "Bradenburg" should be listed as "Brandenburg". Could you fix this whenever you have some time please? (I have no knowledge in Inkscape myself, so i better keep my hands off). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to use Inkscape... a plain text editor will do it. Use the editor's text search facility for find the incorrect word - it's in the element Bradenburg - retype it and save. Unfortunately, I'm unwilling to do this because my editors are Microsoft and insist on converting all the LF characters into CRLF pairs, which adds an extra 847 bytes to the file size. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done it. Redrose64 is correct to say that usually text will appear in the SVG file directly, but it may not always do so. Where it does not even simple typos can be fiddly to correct. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Didn't know that about .SVG - completely foreign format for me :). GermanJoe (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Heraldry by country template discussion
There is an ongoing discussion regarding inclusion/exclusion at Template talk:Heraldry by country. Please feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts. Cheers! Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 00:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Russia's Heraldic Council
Hello. When you wrote the article Russian heraldry, you wrote "[t]he Heraldic Council (translated various ways)". Would you know what Russian name it is translated from? It would be nice to have the Russian name in the article on the Heraldic Council. Arms Jones (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES
I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles
I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Grandiose,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Map of the Battle of Tinian (1944).svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 24, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-07-24. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Review
Your name was recommended to me when I asked on IRC, if there was someone that was an expert on WP:BLP interaction with English laws. It would thusly be appreciated if you could review the following article (and it's associated talk page) Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York, making any changes or comment you feel are appropriate, if any. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Help!
Hello I noticed you were an adimistrator, I need a favor. Can you delete a page for me? This one >> The Adventure Begins (Thomas & Friends). The correct article and title is a redirect I made Thomas & Friends: The Adventure Begins. --ACase0000 (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Never Mind, I just redirected the old article to the new one. Sorry to bother you! --ACase0000 (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Grandiose hasn't edited in over five months. If you need something deleting, please use one of the request methods described at WP:DELETE, rather than asking specific administrators. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I did know. I am sorry! --ACase0000 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)