User talk:Andrew Davidson

Dark blues
If you think this article about a blues genre doesn't belong in Wikipedia, by all means second the prod or flag it under some speedy deletion criteria I've overlooked, maybe even move it to a disambiguated title, but redirecting it to an alternate meaning of the term is not an appropriate way to get rid of it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree as the redirection is a sensible way of resolving the issue. The prod tag suggests and encourages such constructive edits.  It also states emphatically, "If this template is removed, do not replace it."  Please revert. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought it was fair to IAR there, as it seemed perverse to remove a prod template from an article that both you and I thought should probably be deleted, but sure. I'll leave it to you establish talk page consensus for an immediate redirect. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dark blues

Black Destroyer
After you mentioned it ... I thought it worthwhile to do this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you might. I may return to the topic but I have a variety of leads to follow.  Only The Shadow knows ... Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Black Destroyer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

History of science fiction
Since you mention it I thought I'd link to History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950, which is currently at FAC; no need to review it (it seems to have sufficient support) but I thought you might be interested. Most of the magazines linked in the article have also been brought to GA or FA standard. If you can find improvements to those articles as you did for Marvel Science Stories, that would be great! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added it to my watchlist and will take a look in my copious free time. Note that there was a series of van Vogt stories going through DYK recently and so I started the "Black Destroyer", which was notable as the story that started the Golden Age.  I like that you can often find such classics online now, like here.  One of my favourites is Sheckley's 1955 story, "Cordle to Onion to Carrot".  It's not quite SF but it helps in understanding Wikipedia... Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's quite a coincidence -- I was thinking about that story on my morning commute; I've always liked that one. "Aspects of Langranak" and "Pas de Trois of the Chef and the Waiter and the Customer" are my two favourites of his; the first is beautifully self-referential about sf, and sad, in its way, and both stories are about the relationship between reality and perception in a way that few other writers have ever managed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I recall reading the second one but the first doesn't stick in my mind. I'll track it down again – it seems to be in print so Forbidden Planet (right) should have a copy. Thanks for the recommendation. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

F&SF
Hi Andrew, a gentle nudge about this; no worries, if you do not have the time at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nudges are needed as my to-do list is bottomless here. Having dinner now but will have a rummage tomorrow.  More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm getting warm as I found a box with a good run of F&SF and other magazines from the early seventies. The earliest issue of F&SF I've found so far is September 1960, when it had a British edition which cost two shillings.  That contains a story by my namesake, Avram Davidson – "The Sixth Season".  The difficulty is resisting the temptation to reread such buried treasures.  I've brought out a few old issues of New Worlds too, as someone else is working on that.  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've gotten involved in a nasty dispute below, so there's no rush, but I thought I'd give you another quick reminder. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 86 issue is simple stuff compared to the F&SF challenge because I can access good sources for it without leaving my seat. I'll take another dip in the box room and see what I find.  In the meantime, I'm wondering why this stuff hasn't been archived in digital form yet.  The Internet Archive seems to just have a few bits and pieces and F&SF itself only offers back issues back to the 90s.  I've got access to the BL but they only seem to have the British edition.  CUSFS had a large library of magazines when I was there in the seventies.  I'll give more thought to such other resources too. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's appreciated. I think digitization of old magazines has been very piecemeal; there's some fairly obscure fanzines that are very easily found, and fairly well-known magazines that aren't. I found many issues of both F&SF and Asimov's on various archival sites, but not the ones I wanted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've found three runs of F&SF from various decades so far but not the late 1970s yet. As I feared, it's hard work like a sliding block puzzle as they're in boxes rather than shelved.  As I'm not sure I've got the issue in question, I'm not going to focus on this so please don't wait on me.  Making another online search, I find that Books from the Crypt have copies for as little as $2.  Shipping to the UK seems expensive but I suppose it would be a lot cheaper for you. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I do appreciate the effort, and yes, they seem quite affordable. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Self Defence Against Fresh Fruit
I was thinking of sending this to AfD on the grounds it's got no reliable sources present, I can't find any of substance in a search except for this passing mention, and is basically a plot summary + trivia. However, I do remember Articles for deletion/The Bishop (Monty Python) so I thought I'd ask you first to see if I'd missed anything, and in fact there is a salvageable article hiding in this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The page was already at AFD where the result was a unanimous Keep. The absence of sources is not an adequate reason to nominate for deletion because such sources can be readily found and, in any case, there are sensible alternatives to deletion.  I have plenty more pressing topics while you might attend to our Chuck Berry content – pages like "You Can't Catch Me", which also don't have any sources.  Don't make me release the tiger.  Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * such sources can be readily found ... which brings me to my favourite AfD put-down at the moment. Now look, Mr Damson, er, Davidson, I've added a bunch (a bunch? supposing he's got a pointed stick?) of sources for "You Can't Catch Me" (why nobody else found the 15 minutes to do this in the last 7 years is beyond me), so throw me some ones for "Fresh Fruit" and I'll do the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The page is read on average about once every hour. But people don't add sources because doing so is difficult and, per WP:BLUE, they don't see any need for them.  I might add some to the page but am wary that it's a trap, "... just pull the lever and the 16-ton weight will fall on top of him."  Did you know that this was the first time that they used this prop?  I have a source which confirms this in detail but will need some more goading to risk charging at you with it... Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ethical Society
I took a picture of today's lecture. I hope you can use this. Kelly is a great help in this sharing endeavor. Clinton (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent – many thanks to you and Kelly for that. I usually take lots of snaps at such events but it was so hectic that I didn't think to arrange for someone to take any pictures or do it myself.  That's a big favour I owe you, so please feel free to ask if you need any assistance with any of your endeavours here. Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It advised about the 'Ethical encyclopedia' talk in the last 'Upcoming events at Conway Hall' email, but it didn't say the talk was by the legendary Colonel. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is just the start. I'll now be writing it up as a paper for the Ethical Record so you can read it there.  We're getting some good crossover with that society and the London wikimeet so others may be doing talks too – for example, Leutha is lined up to do a talk about positivism.  You should do one too –  food poverty – the sharing economy?  Please share your thoughts with those hungry for knowledge... Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Wellcome Electricity
Hello. Good to meet at Wellcome. Henrietta999 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help today, Andrew. I shall definitely be in touch in the future! Henrietta999 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Be seeing you. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Henrietta last edited Wikipedia in 2020 but continues to lecture elsewhere such as Neville Hall. She is chair of Jesmond Heritage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Constance Wood
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

2,603 views.

DYK nomination of Hilda Lyon
Hello! Your submission of Hilda Lyon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

15,496 views.

Queen Victoria's journals
Colonel (it still seems wrong to call you Andrew!), I am developing an article in my user sandbox and it is making use of Victoria's journals online. That is how I came across Queen Victoria's journals. As its creator, did you get a notification that it has been newly linked to, or will that only happen when I move my draft to mainspace? I'm just curious – I aim to keep a low profile in draft, trying to avoid unwanted attention. By the way, I still have fond memories of Dog and Duck, St George's Fields, as it has quite properly become, and its hilarious AFD. Long, long ago in wikitime. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I get lots of link notifications as I've written hundreds of articles but I've checked and your Glassalt draft doesn't seem to have triggered one yet.  I think you're unwise to leave work for so long in your sandbox.  If you should fall ill or otherwise be indisposed for a few months you might find that it has been deleted – there are fanatics combing through drafts and amazingly there is now a policy of deleting them after six months.  My policy is to get work into mainspace as quickly as possible to avoid such deletionist disruption.   This also avoids the waste of effort if someone else should work on the topic independently.


 * Queen Victoria's journals was started at an event at the Bodleian Library which helped to put them online. As a sequel, I started Queen Victoria's pets.  There's some other Victoriana that I'd like to cover but need to visit the V&A to track it down and get some pictures.  But there is another Victorian topic that I've been meaning to cover for some time and I'll take my own advice and get it started in mainspace before I forget.  It's another place in Scotland...


 * By the way, I saw a reference to Longcat recently – any relation? That got deleted here but I'll keep any eye out for sources.


 * Warden (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. I create rather few articles (apart from stubby ones) and they take me a long time. I'll do a practical experiment with notifications using my alternate account. I'm intrigued by your clues about a new Victoria topic. I'll ponder on what it might be. I've been reading around what she did in Scotland – she got around there (here, that is) quite a lot and the trains were a great invention. She also had the benefit of ponies, a yacht, and a whole load of servants. Thincat (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ... and no, I'd never heard of Longcat but I'll see if there's a suitable free image for my user page! Thincat (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Kim Cobb
Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

1,296 views

DYK for Roma Agrawal
Hello! Your submission of Roma Agrawal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

10,234 views

DYK for Abbie Hutty
Hello! Your submission of Abbie Hutty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Warofdreams talk 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

8,813 views

WP:EAGER
Hello Andrew: Thanks for your ongoing work to improve Wikipedia. Per your editing interests, you may be interested in the new WP:EAGER, an essay I created today. Cheers, North America1000 18:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Northfield Allotments
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

4,062 views

DYK for St Stephen's Church, Ealing
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC) 6,804 views

CREEP
Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_invoking_SCHOOLOUTCOMES_at_AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded there. I doubt that the discussion will be productive but it will provide a topical example for the coming discussion about the Future of Wikipedia.  Andrew D. (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly reference WP:CREEP in your numerous comments on policy, RfCs etc. Recent examples include the AN discussion concerning SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the RfC regarding Wikidata. Why do you always phrase it as if CREEP is some sort of policy when in fact it is little more than an essay? It seems to me at best disingenuous and at worst downright misrepresentation. Bearing in mind that you very clearly did not read before jumping to conclusions in the AN thread, I wonder if you have actually read WP:CREEP. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read it. It says that it's an explanatory supplement and this fine distinction is itself a good example of excessive rules creep.  I saw some discussion recently about the huge number of policies and TLAs – they gave the amusing example of WP:LOO.  DYK alone has 62 explicitly numbered supplemental rules.  See also Parkinson's law. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At DYK, its long list of rules has been reorganised and now the veterans complain that they can't find them any more. But WP:IAR is still policy and WP:CREEP is still an explanatory essay.  And Parkinson's law is still a good guide to the evolution of Wikipedia.  Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Columbine cup
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusionism
Hey, I thought it was a bit of a coincidence that someone whose user page declared them a member of that WikiProject would show up at that discussion when I had not notified anyone of it, and was going to ask you about that until I noticed that you were also a semi-regular at the Village Pump, so mystery solved. But while checking for that I noticed we'd actually interacted several times before. Sorry for not remembering you, but honestly looking back at some of those AFDs your !votes seem a little questionable. I consider myself to be a mild inclusionist (as I said in thw VP reply to you I think a true "deletionist" would probably happily target a lot of my recent work as being on obscure non-notable topics that no one in the English-speaking world, even top scholars, has ever heard of), but I don't think we should have POVFORKs or articles that exist solely to push fringe theories (I say this as someone who basically started their Wikipedia career being accused of creating a POVFORK to push a fringe theory, so I'm hardly biased), and I think most people who would self-identify as inclusionists would say the same.

Here you referred to a thoroughly discredited Victorian hypothesis as "disputed" but "notable" in a merge !vote that eventually led to the list being merged into the article on the discredited Victorian hypothesis, which is reasonable, but it doesn't look like you did due diligence in checking whether the theory the page was promoting was considered fringe.

Here you started with a textbook OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and then started claiming that blatant works of historical fiction "seem fine" as sources.

And just last night you presented a "Buddhist concept" that no dictionaries or encyclopedias of Buddhism discuss as such.

In both of the above cases it seems like you didn't actually click the links provided or do the necessary legwork before !voting keep based on a philosophy that all pages must be kept as much as possible, without regard for the specific circumstances of the articles/topics in question (since in both cases the topics were already better covered elsewhere on English Wikipedia, and the lists in question were mainly non-NPOV WP:SYNTH forks). I don't know if you are still doing this at AFDs, as I am not a regular there either way, but could you please be a bit more careful in the future?

(Note that this is not a criticism of your general practice as an editor. In the above editorinteract search I noticed you and I had crossed paths elsewhere and both been in the same minority that I still think was very much in the right, although I'd rather not publicly disclose what that was. Just noting it here so you don't get the impression that I came here to attack you or that I think you're a "bad dude", at least not in the "save the President" sense.)

Also sorry for the length.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome and it's good to hear that you're an inclusionist too. But I didn't follow your reference to "Save the President" – is it this meme?  I used to play the occasional arcade game but I'd never heard of Bad Dudes Vs. DragonNinja before.  The one I liked best was Gauntlet which had an unusual collaborative format, in which you'd team up with strangers to complete the task.  Rather like Wikipedia, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're on the money -- I figured if you didn't get it (and it's hardly aybabiquitous) Googling "save the president" would get it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh. I completely missed this. You really need to read over WP:NOT and stop defending fringe theory articles based on your personal anti-"deletionism" policy. This is just the places where you interacted with me, and I've hardly opened an AFD in years, at least not where I meant for the page to be deleted rather than simply opening a community discussion while being essentially neutral whether the pages should be kept/merged/redirected; I'm really wondering what a more thorough search of your AFD !votes when your involvement, which was based on personal preference and a misreading of sources like the above examples, led to a "no consensus" decision would show up. Are you just going to continue to dodge the question? Do you regret saying that "tanka prose" was an actual ancient Japanese phenomenon, that the "spirit of mottainai" is a "Buddhist concept" (which claim, I'm becoming increasingly convinced, is tied to this guy's use of the word in a book meant to promote his wood construction business), that the mythicist "list of dying and rising gods" was worth keeping/merging despite everything in it needing to be rewritten and verified in reliable modern sources anyway, etc. or not? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * BTW, I would like you to apologize for, and retract, the groundless accusations against me you made here. I was very clear from the beginning that I had not been nursing a grudge for years -- I hadn't even noticed what happened in that AFD after I retired the alt account that opened it, until last week (and if I was really still holding a grudge for anything it would not be that the article survived AFD but that one of the "keep" !votes was advocating for a JoshuSasori sock, which I assume is not standard ARS operating procedure). Anyway, accusations of misbehaviour made without evidence are personal attacks, and are prohibited on English Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that Hijiri88 has been nursing a grudge for years. It is quite clear that Hijiri88's activity is current and is in the nature of a spike rather than being prolonged.  The point is that the issue that he was complaining about happened 5 years ago and so is water under the bridge.  What's good is that we now seem to be moving on and discussing more current issues. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the above correction of your previous false accusation, but it would sound more sincere if you didn't deny you had made the false accusation in the first place. It may be water under the bridge for everyone who actually !voted "keep" in the AFD five years ago, but you didn't -- you showed up out of the blue a few days ago and said that I had wrong to post an article on a "Buddhist concept" (one I clearly didn't understand) to AFD and those who had !voted me down were right. (You still have not admitted you were wrong to call what in contemporary usage is more of a marketing term than anything deeper a "Buddhist concept", mind you; nor have you recognized that it's just a common Japanese word for "wasteful".) And (again) I wasn't aware that the AFD had not ended in "delete" until this week, because of the off-wiki harassment that forced me to retire that account. (The full history of how I happened across it is here.) I only just this week noticed that an AFD I had opened in good faith (not because I "am a deletionist", a point on which I note you have been very slow to correct your many comrades) and garnered some support (it was 3-1 in favour of deleting before the canvassing), was canvassed and steamrolled right before the one-week mark, then a non-admin showed up and completely botched the close -- and as a result five years later the article is still a mess. And ARS is still doing this -- with Swamp monster, you posted a "This article is at AFD -- you know what to do..." canvassing message after auto-!voting "keep" yourself, two more ARS members showed up and did the same, and all of you have been refusing compromise solutions, alternatives to the false "keep-delete" dichotomy, and requests to do the heavy lifting of fixing the article, even though fixing broken articles to save them from AFD is supposed to be the modus operandi of ARS. This all happened in the last two days; it is not water under the bridge from five years ago. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Joan Benesh
Hello! Your submission of Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeking advice; Anno Domini
Hello there. I'm an experienced editor who's mainly familiar with article creation and editing, and a bit confused when admin issues are raised, having rarely if ever come into the kind of conflict requiring admin warnings. I've just gone through what (for me) was a rather disturbing experience after trying to edit a page, but I can't see any policies that clearly apply to my problem. I noticed your neutral comments on the Dorothy Tarrant discussion I recently participated in, and since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about the matters I need help with, I thought I might seek your advice. It's alright to decline to get involved, although if you could at least point me in the right direction I would appreciate it very much.

Yesterday I tried to place a usage note qualifying the statement on the "Anno Domini" article that "BC comes after the year". I'd wanted to do this for some time, as I'd noticed in older reference material (which, as a classics scholar I tend to use a lot) it often preceded the year. I wasn't able to find anything about this in style guides, so I looked for encyclopedic references, and found the same practice in older editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Not sure just how strongly I'd need to support what was meant to be just a usage note, I wrote it identifying the EB and another standard reference work that uses this style, but as I wasn't satisfied with what seemed like a general reference, in my edit summary I mentioned that I was going to take it to the talk page for further advice and opinion.

No sooner than I had started writing out a note explaining the issue and asking for help, than my edit was reverted by one of that page's guardians. I reverted the deletion of my note, with a further edit summary, "please wait until I've finished posting on the talk page," but it was immediately reverted again, with the rather unfriendly note, "talk first, then post, maybe". So I finished posting my explanation of the note and my question about the sourcing, which I thought might at least be enough to justify the note until better sources could be located, and then reposted the note again. At that point, civility seemed to take over, and there was a reply to my talk page message by the editor in question. I thought that all of the points raised could be easily addressed by obtaining specific examples from the sources I mentioned, and perhaps additional examples from other sources, so I spent a few hours gathering some and setting forth what I hoped was a cogent argument from various sources.

However, before I could finish posting this, the note was deleted a third time by a new editor, asserting that "not a single reliable source" supported it, and a comment on the talk page claiming that the note violated WP:SYNTH. I strongly disagreed, since observing that something was one way and is now another, if both are properly supported by reliable sources, necessarily means that it must have changed, and the idea that it's unacceptable to say so due to WP:SYNTH is just absurd; IMO the question was verifiability, not synthesis. Did the sources I'd mentioned in the original note, and then on the talk page, show what I said they did? I thought it seemed beyond question that they did, but I went ahead and finished my post detailing specific instances and responding to the first editor's concerns.

As I was posting, and before I'd done anything else with the article itself, I received a warning on my talk page from the second editor involved, stating that I was engaged in an edit war by undoing other editors' contributions to Wikipedia without seeking consensus on the talk page, and was in danger of being blocked from editing Wikipedia for violation of the three-revert rule. Since I hadn't removed anyone else's contributions, and had only reverted twice, and had initiated the talk page discussion before the other editor had even gotten involved, I was shocked to be warned that I was in danger of being blocked from editing Wikipedia—something which I don't recall ever having been told before, despite having been involved in much more contentious discussions in the past.

What made the situation still more frustrating was the fact that the editor giving me this warning seemed to be an interested party, and had posted no similar warning on the talk page of the editor who had aggressively reverted the note as I was already taking the matter to the talk page. And, while I'm not sure if this is an issue, although it seems like it should be, the editor threatening to have me blocked from editing Wikipedia for edit warring isn't even an admin! Well, I finished my evidentiary post on the article talk page, then replied to the warning, saying point-by-point why I thought it was unjustified and improper. And then I went back to the article, looked at the note that had been deleted three times, and decided to revise what I was saying to a much shorter note, 1) avoiding the synthesis issue, and 2) cite clearly and directly to a number of reliable sources demonstrating that the usage had been different in the past (but without asserting that it had changed since then, since that was what apparently constituted "synthesis").

That was immediately reverted, instead of what seemed to me would have been the ideal solution (either helping me find better sources for something that abundant evidence clearly demonstrated was true, or tagging it with CN or Better Source tags), and the following description of my note added to my talk page: "I suggest that tagging as disputed, unsourced, and unimportant would be overkill; but all three tags would be justified". Now, by this point it's clear to me that collaborative editing seems to be out of the question; whatever I write and however I phrase it, no matter what I cite to, is simply being deleted as I add it, with no help whatever from the guardians of the article's purity; I pointed this out on the talk page, but since I didn't want to be blocked for edit warring I declined to make another attempt on the note itself, as I had no idea what I could come up with that would satisfy them.

I spent a restless night without nearly enough sleep, and still don't know how to respond. As far as I know, there's been no direct violation of a rule I could report; this doesn't seem to rise to the level of an administrator incident as far as I understand the concept (which is not very well); mediation also seems to be a step above the current level of the dispute; and a third-party opinion seems to be ruled out since there are three editors involved, and I'm not sure how to find someone neutral who'd want to get involved, but who'd be able to evaluate the evidence. Basically I'm at sixes and sevens when it comes to what to do here. So my bright idea was to find an admin who isn't connected with the discussion, but whom I might have bumped into from time to time, who could either have a quick look, or at least tell me what I ought to do next. Hopefully other than just abandoning the field, although that may just be my only option at this stage. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Editors on Wikipedia can be quite fractious, stubborn and vexatious about any issue on Wikipedia – see WP:LAME for an amusing list of examples. Issues of style like this are especially likely to give trouble and you will find that the archives for our Manual of Style are full of intense battles.  Anyway, my advice is to take it easy.  An RfC may be the best way forward, was done at the Dorothy Tarrant page.  They typically stay open for 30 days and so will take some time to arrive at a conclusion.  I'll take a look myself when I get a moment.  More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Meteor III (yacht)
This is my latest yacht article that I created.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC) This is a case where my Newspaper.com subscription really came in handy. The Wikipedia library is a good place to get some excellent subscriptions.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Indian castes
~ Winged Blades Godric 06:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * These overblown templates claim that I have recently edited List of General Caste in Sikhism. This claim is false as I have never edited that page.  What's going here is harassment – "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing."  This seems to be part of pattern in which Winged Blades of Godric makes personal attacks on me.  For the record, it's worth noting that these seem to date from an incident at WP:NOT when I reverted their attempt to change policy without consensus.  Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they relate to your silliness at the AfD for the linked article. They are also valid notifications based on your intentions expressed there. You really do need to stop wikilawyering and wasting yet more of everyone's time before someone decides to topic ban you - a decision that I would happily support. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the number of years that you have edited WP, (a few of them with a sockpuppet), you ought to know that issuance of DS notifications, in the very exact manner I've done, are mandatory per ArbCom requirements.If you wish to seek an exemption for regulars from the templating, ARCA is that-way.And please provide diffs for makes personal attacks on me or retract your baseless accusations.And, for the record, it may be prudential to note, that despite your hyperbolic edits, the RFC was re-closed with the same result days later, resulting in the creation of the same policy.Cheers! ~ Winged Blades Godric 12:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In that first incident at WP:NOT, WBoG made the edit summary  "Cut out the attitude...".  This seems to be a personal attack because it suggests that I have an "attitude" – what the OED describes as "Aggressive or uncooperative behaviour; a resentful or antagonistic manner."   My position is that I was reverting a change made with inadequate consensus – a fairly standard action per WP:BRD.  Now, in WBoG's post above he makes reference to "a sockpuppet".  This seems to be an irrelevant slur or smear.  My alternate accounts are respectable per WP:VALIDALT which states "For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets."  WBoG should please avoid such hostile language as it may be considered to be casting aspersions.  Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to explain this? Or your memory is a bit hazy on the aspects?! ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again WBoG makes a personal attack, suggesting that my memory is poor. I do, of course, recall the incident quite well.  The admin who blocked me was desysopped for their improper action. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * KWW was desyssoped for a host of reasons that included one bad block on CW but not the one I linked to.I think that you can do better than stating something roughly equivalent to--All blocks by desysopped admins are universally bad. ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Kww was censured for his block of CW in 2012. He was then desysopped for his block of my AD account in 2013. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sup, AD. Just a refresher, yes the admin was desysopped—but only because they were WP:INVOLVED. And in the course of your unblock request you agree[d] to retire Colonel Warden, something you patently have not done. Two things, then, come to mind. Firstly, that if another admin had blocked you, they would not have been desysopped, and secondly, that you lied in order to be unblocked another refresher: I will retire the Colonel Warden account and you expect this to be minimal). Cheers. Happy editing!  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I gather that "Serial Number 54129" used to edit as "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi". I'm still not sure why that name was changed but the point is that we should AGF in such cases and suppose that the change was made for good reasons.  WBoG should avoid casting aspersions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, fascinating isn't it; you see what I did there though—change my username, rather than operate multiple accounts?  :)     ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs to support the WP:BLANK comments you made in the AFD. --Neil N  talk to me 16:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Neil N  talk to me 16:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Slightly economical with the truth, though. You end that sequence of diffs with that's where we are now, omitting a shedload of changes over three years that include reverts back to the blanked state by, , , , etc. Given your encyclopaedic knowledge of encyclopaedic policy, do you not have a concern that so many regular contributors thought WP:BURDEN more important that WP:BLANK? One clue might lie in your ability to comprehend caste wars. Then again, never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh? - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a summary rather than a recapitulation of the entire edit history of the page and the point was to highlight the blanking not the edit-warring. The other point worth summarising from the edit history is that I have not edited the page in question myself.  The statement made above by WBoG in his harassing template is therefore false and has still not been retracted.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a disingenuous summary that presses home your ill-considered point that I was being disruptive at that article. As I say, several other people followed in the same vein. On the other hand, you have a history of poor behaviour at caste AfDs - there is even User_talk:Andrew_Davidson above - and, frankly, if no admin is prepared to exercise their discretion here (or are sufficiently uninvolved to do so) then I think the next step is likely to be WP:AE. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sitush stated in the AfD that "your mention of BLANK above is the first time ever I have seen it". If it helps, I am quite happy to accept that Sitush made their actions in good faith, not being aware of the WP:BLANK guideline.  My point about disruption is that such actions tend to disrupt development of the article by removing all the content and so providing no sensible structure for further improvement.  It appears that Sitush is now editing the page in question in a more restrained way and so the issue seems adequately resolved. Andrew D. (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is not resolved. You are once again trying to side-step things. I specifically said that I was giving you a chance to develop the article, as you suggested you might. But as it stands now it is no better than it was when you misled people at the first AfD using the same irrelevant sources that you are now claiming should once again ensure that the article is kept at the current AfD. BLANK is a guideline, despite your apparent disingenuousness in positing it as a policy, and you have been made aware that your argument for PRESERVE holds no water. Are you seriously suggesting that we should keep information that is wrong just because a topic might be notable? It is bollocks and you know it. This matter is going to WP:AE unless you agree not to become involved in caste-related matters because you are utterly incompetent in the topic area. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I state clearly in the para above that WP:BLANK is a guideline. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter or that it can be freely ignored.  WP:PRESERVE is full policy being a shortcut to our editing policy, which I cited in the previous AfD.  That policy explains our general method and makes many points.  Among them, it explains that we contribute in different ways, "each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help."  In this case, I have brought several sources to the table and am the only editor to do so.  The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies is not irrelevant because it contains significant material about the role of caste in Sikh society.  It is from a respectable university press and was published fairly recently.  To reject such sources seems to set an impossible standard. How on earth does Sitush suppose we can develop our content if we can't have a reasonable discussion about such material. Andrew D. (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Squirming again, trying to back away from past deeds. BLANK was first mentioned by you at the AfD and that is where I announced that I had not seen it before. It was me who had to note that it was a guideline, rather than the policy that you implied, causing you to scramble around to find PRESERVE, which does not even support your point anyway. See you at AE. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And how dense can you be regarding Oxford? Caste in Sikhism is discussed at Sikhism etc; the source does not discuss "general castes" in Sikhism, which does not mean "all castes", as has been explained to you previously. Honestly, I am astonished that you persist in highlighting your incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sikhism actually contains a list of Sikh castes including the mercantile Arora caste which I provided in the AfD as a specific example. The Dalit castes are identified specifically and so the whole is consistent with my vision for this content.  My position is that there are reasonable alternatives to deletion.  For example, we might merge the page in question with List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism and, while the material is still small, have it in the Sikhism section.  As and when the content expands, the material could be split into a page such as Castes in Sikhism as suggested by Cesdeva.  This is the point and guidance of the policy WP:PRESERVE -- that we develop and improve the content by such means, not by deletion and blanking. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the very bog-standard and in no way harassing template says "for pages related to South Asian social groups, such as List of General Caste in Sikhism, which you have recently edited.", i.e. "pages related", and one doesn't have to take a giant leap of faith to imagine that editing an AFD about such an article falls under "pages related" to such a topic. There's nothing false, and nothing to retract. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That template provides a link to the page that one has supposedly edited. If the AfD was meant then that should be the link.  Is he now going to officiously warn everyone who participates in that AfD?  Will he now drop these templates on the talk pages of TRM and SN54129 for participating in this discussion about the matter? Andrew D. (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Won't it be good if you drop the wiki-lawyering stuff and instead move on to answer the query posed to you at the AFD and/or improve the article?! And, I never knew that if I choose to drop the sanctions-notice on a part. editor's t/p, I must follow it up by dropping them on the t/p(s) of all related editors. ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is to pay attention to DS, and the warning is just to let you know that your edits will be subject to Arbcom's scrutiny, whether you believe the templates or your editing are valid or not. It's a favour to you to help you from getting blocked over something simple.  I'd be thankful rather than rail against it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a case at Arbitration Enforcement that concerns you. Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded there. Andrew D. (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Andrew dont be fearful of mean wolfs. they are teamtagging and gameing system. Just ignore  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.74.77 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, out of curiosity, what are you planning on doing with User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes? You asked Sandstein to undelete and userfy it so you could work on it "soon" more than five years ago, but the page has only been edited once, minor-ly, since that time. I'm considering MFDing it if you are not planning on working on it, as userfying pages that were deleted by community consensus and keeping them in your user space permanently is not helpful. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/Event admission where a similar page was easily kept. There are many demands on my time and, per WP:CHOICE and WP:DEADLINE, I am free to work on this at my own pace and priority.  But, as it happens, I have some material fresh to hand and so this is a good opportunity to make an update. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, in that MFD no one seems to have noticed that there was prior consensus to delete the page, and that you then requested the page be userfied specifically so you could do a particular task with it. The wording used by both the nominator and User:Kudpung seemed very strongly to imply that they believed it to be an article draft you created in your user space and never got around to finishing.
 * Anyway, you should get consensus before restoring a page that was deleted by community consensus (the consensus to delete had nothing apparently to do with article cleanup or anything that AGF would say you must be able to address alone); if you do in fact intend to "finish" the draft, that is definitely something to bear in mind.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew. The WP:AE discussion here has been closed with the following warning: Andrew Davidson is advised that before commenting further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted), they need to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. They are warned to only offer comments or article edits supported by directly relevant sources judged to be reliable and of high quality. Sources without recent consensus must be presented for review first. If the user intends to work on the draft User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes, which has been languishing for five years, that work is to be exempted from the restrictions mentioned, i.e. Andrew Davidson is allowed while it's still in userspace to offer weaker comments and sources there, provided this work gradually leads up to acceptable quality and sourcing, before it's offered for mainspace. Failure to comply with this warning will result in a topic ban or other sanction. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. The Women's Classical Committee has been good fun and I hope to do more for it when time permits. Andrew D. (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Naomi Parker Fraley
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks though it's The joy of all things that has done most of the work in this case. I started the page when rescuing another page about high heel policy which made a good DYK.  Having been prompted by the many incoming link notifications, I'm now thinking to nominate Nicola Thorp as a sequel as it will make a good Where Are They Now?. Andrew D. (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not neglect to add a barnstar there also :) Edaham (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I enjoy reviewing articles which are good eye openers. Living as I do in China I had no idea about how current the high heel issue is. Ludicrous that women are still being bludgeoned with forced stereotypes in developed countries! Edaham (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and barnstars. It's interesting that you live in Shanghai now.  Note that there's an interesting page about China's own Foot Emancipation Society. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

De Pace, BMG movement
Hi Andrew, I just wanted to thank you for looking over the Bernardo De Pace article. It was the first time I have been tempted to try a did you know for quite a while. I had forgotten anything I ever knew about the process and your feedback and quick response to its existence on the list was great. I just found two places to link to the BMG article you wrote. Thank you for writing it.Jacqke (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study of civil behaviour
Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you E. Whittaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewitch51 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. I have replied by email. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Tammie Jo Shults
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tammie Jo Bonnell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tammie Jo Bonnell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, it's been nearly three weeks since Cwmhiraeth pointed out that the nomination of the two articles cannot proceed with the template affixed to the Tammie Jo Shults article. As far as I can see, you have two options: work on the article to remove the excessive use of blockquotes (which, while not added by you, are nevertheless in the article, and with the template it cannot be promoted at DYK to the main page) or drop the article from the nomination (by unbolding the link, which would be a shame since it's Tammie Jo who's the focus here). Please decide what you'd like to do within the next several days and post to the nomination, so the review can continue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for activity at the article to subside and have updated it now. Andrew D. (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 26,176 views. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 13,505 views. Andrew D. (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for your email, Andrew. Your support is very much appreciated and will give somethought to what you said. Thanks again, Stinglehammer (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Campanino
Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

UK First Women
Thanks for creating Anita Corbin. Have you got a source for the list you added to the talk page? If "personal communication with the artist" it would be useful to say so. If anything published, it would be great to be able to link to it from a newly-created article to say that they were included. I'm looking at Sharon Nesmith who certainly ought to have an article... but must get on with some Real Life stuff first. Pam D  10:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And how come there are 103? I thought it was a list of 100! Pam  D  10:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The list was compiled in stages from online coverage. I then got a picture of the list on display at the exhibition.  I noticed the number 103 too but haven't fully reconciled the various sources.  I started articles about Becky Frater and Katy Cropper (the shepherdess that got you started on this).  I'll make some more passes through the list to check for missing links but not right now as I'm busy too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks: well done! I've created a redirect for Nan McCreadie to the article where she already got a mention. Too busy too. Pam  D  11:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Frogmore Paper Mill
I had a DYK all good to go "... that Frogmore Paper Mill is the oldest surviving mechanical paper mill in the world?" but I've missed the cut-off point by one day, unless I 5x expand it to 3.6K (over double the current size). Aaaaaargh! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * D'oh, the creator moved from draft space yesterday. Hallelujah, we're back on! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok. Note also that D9 gives you some wiggle-room. Andrew D. (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've filed it. Hopefully somebody will SNOW close the AfD soon, and that'll be that. It's not often an obvious DYK hook smacks me in the face like that! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Godfrey's Cordial
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

List of cottages in Dorset listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of cottages in Dorset. Since you had some involvement with the List of cottages in Dorset redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. » Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

La Manga club
Greetings Andrew. I'm puzzled about your recent edit on La Manga Club. I don't normally request deletions but this is one of the poorest 'articles' I've read on Wikipedia and 'delete' was the most positive thing I could say. I note, but wasn't influenced by, the fact the originator has had most other articles deleted. I don't know if you believe I failed to follow proper procedure or you really think the article is worth saving AND can be improved. If the latter then I beg to differ and think it should go to a vote. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the place as it is a notable resort and sporting facility. The article is far from the worst that I have seen and is certainly improveable.  Before starting a deletion discussion, please familiarise yourself with the deletion process WP:BEFORE.  For example, alternatives to deletion should be considered.  One sensible alternative would be merger to its location: La Manga.  I would still prefer to retain the page separately though.


 * A tussle over this would be tiresome. It would be more congenial to discuss other topics mentioned on your user page such as Fortran and Chess.  I myself started my career using Fortran at an engineering business.  That was a while ago but, more recently, I partipated in the Mind Sports Olympiad where I was pleased to meet an old acquaintance, Bill Hartston.  One of the events there was diving chess!  As you have swimming experience too, perhaps you should give it a try next year.


 * Andrew D. (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We should note that matters have moved on as an observer has escalated and is now edit-warring about it. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, thanks for a speedy reply Andrew -a tussle was unlikely if it's not an advert though contents still seem bizarre. On a different topic I've played Glenn Flear though I don't remember the result. To my shame I turned down a request for a large English white pig breeding database circa 1972 largely because our machine was optimised for maths and had a grossly inadequate memory for such a task. I might add a bit to my talk page -pity there's no reminiscences page for geriatric software engineers! JRPG (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Greetings!
Hello Andrew,

Good meeting you yesterday and learning about your interests.

Here are links to my Wikidata presentation containing the examples I showed and my user page with some of my artwork.

See you around, cm&#610;&#671;ee⎆&#964;a&#671;&#954; 02:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Doria Ragland
hi there, as you actually inserted this photo claiming it was better than nothing I am linking you to the rfc. Talk:Doria_Ragland Govindaharihari (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I see you reverted back to your photo without discussion, with an edit summary of fix image when what you realy did was change the long term stable image https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doria_Ragland&diff=929237212&oldid=928741871 I think the photo chat thread on the talkpage opposes your change. Please feel free to open a new chat, for the time being I have replaced what was the consensus in the previous chat from 18 months ago and was stable as I understand it. Thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The situation was not stable as an IP editor had changed the image link on 30 Nov. The link was then to an image at Hello magazine and that was not valid for several reasons.  As the article image was then broken and not displaying, I fixed this by changing it to a valid free image.  I made a fresh search for free images but didn't find any new ones and so changed the link to an existing version.  The more tightly cropped version which Govindaharihari has now placed is inferior in my view but that's a matter of taste and de gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara P. McCarthy
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

One-armed versus one-legged cricket
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Pictures at an Exhibition
Sorry I tried to improve your personal article. Silly mistake on my part, best to leave it going against the MoS and with horrid formatting on smaller screens. Opencooper (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * De gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think these are matters of taste betrays your ignorance. Maybe after another 15 years. Opencooper (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's one of the pictures in question. I reckon it needs to be even bigger to fully appreciate it and so let's admire it here in all its glory.

Deletion discussion for Sarah Knauss
An editor has started a deletion nomination for Sarah Knauss. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Nabi Tajima
An editor has started a deletion nomination for Nabi Tajima. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum
(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Freddie Stockdale
Thanks for reviewing Freddie Stockdale, Andrew Davidson.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"I'm not sure about she passes our notability guidelines. Please add more references."

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

&#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I just moved it back to Andrew's userspace. There's no way an article in that state should be left in the mainspace, especially by a user with a record of creating substubs with as many problems as water roux. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the source is here. Most of it is behind a paywall, but it's pretty clear Andrew picked up a copy of The Times, read an interesting obituary, and decided to sum up the subject's life in a single "X (birth-death) was a British Y" statement and throw that statement out into a Wikipedia article. It's pretty insulting to the rest of us who go looking for topics who have their own entries in paper encyclopedias but not here, carefully build articles based on what can be gathered about those topics, and only put them into the mainspace once they've reached a certain wordcount and/or have a certain number of citations of a certain number of reliable sources for you to pull stuff like this, Andrew. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Its a different philosophy, that's all. Some editors like to take ownership of a subject, hone it to perfection and then post it. This leaves very little for others to add, and can be quite intimidating. Others see value, in marking a subjects notability by adding a one line stub and letting the article develop, this allows other editors to feel valued and to develop their skills 'wiki-wiki' working co-operatively. Both are valid- both are needed.ClemRutter (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a matter of "liking", though; I don't doubt that in real life I am every bit as lazy as Andrew, and this can be seen (or in theory could be seen) in my earlier articles like the speedy-deleted "1st draft stub" of Utsunomiya Yoritsuna. I would "like" to be able to leave shitty one-sentence drafts in the mainspace and then walk away but the community hates it when I do that, and I haven't seen anything to indicate they feel differently when Andrew does it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Andrew for creating this stub which a quick Google search showed to be highly notable. I have made a start expanding it and will try to do more later. Perhaps others will help out too. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't get it; the concern is not about "notability" but about abominable, one-sentence sub-stubs being left in the mainspace. If you are content to 100% of the work of creating an article but let Andrew have the "article creation" points that's your business, but where were you when the water roux debacle happened? And where will you be the next time? The only reason I'm confident that Andrew's single sentence in this instance was not completely wrong (as everything he wrote in the water roux "article" was) is that I'm fairly confident the one source he consulted probably did say that the person was British. (I'm pretty sure in this case the page as Andrew left it was a potential A7 candidate.) I'm increasingly of the mind that Andrew should have his autopatrolled rights revoked, or be placed under an "AFC only" restriction or the like, given how often this seems to happen. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it was short but it had the essentials 1) clearly identified the subject 2) made an assertion of notability as an "opera impresario" 3) cited a reliable source. If anyone reviewing it still had doubts all they had to do was quickly Google him to see that he was notable. It took seconds. I often try to catch the obits in The Times but I missed this one and it may have remained missed if Andrew hadn't taken the trouble to get the ball rolling. The evidence for the correctness of Andrew's initial course of action is in the current article. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is no rule against having a one line stub if that line actually asserts the claim to notability, and is sourced. The fact that this has now been expanded into something reasonable demonstrates that there was value in Andrew starting this one off. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above comments make no sense. In both this case and the water roux incident, nothing was done about the article for several days after Andrew's initial problematic 1st draft stub, and then something was only done after I or WBG made a fuss about it -- you might as well thank us for bringing it to the fore. Andrew's initial one-sentence stub didn't assert a claim to notability (no indication was made that the Times obituary was more than a single line, and nothing in the line of text made the person sound particularly notable). The fact that both Amakuru's reversion of the userfication and Philafrenzy's above comment talked about whether the subject "is" notable rather than the actual complaint that the article as Andrew left it (for three days) was only one sentence that didn't make a claim to notability appears to indicate that this is more about issuing a "gotcha" to those who have a problem with Andrew's editing than actually improving the encyclopedia with good articles on notable topics. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , highly notable? You might want to recheck that. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware, "notable" in Wikipedia deletion discussions (which apparently this is...!?) means something different to what it means in everyday speech. If a quick Googling brings up enough hits to constitute "significant coverage" (a phrase whose meaning changes depending on how many editors like Andrew happen to have noticed this or that particular AFD) then the subject is "notable", and if it brings up more hits than expected it is "highly notable". The problem here is that no one was talking about notability, article deletion, or anything like that until Amakuru and Philafranzy brought them up (and also that the more "articles" I see Andrew "create" the more convinced I become that he is one of that class of users whom the community will probably decide sooner or later is not allowed unilaterally publish standalone articles in the mainspace). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The OP's concern was "I'm not sure about she (sic) passes our notability guidelines." Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Your article didn't make a claim to notability. That's what I said above. That's different from whether or not the subject is notable. WBG's first comment (and part of my last one) were about a claim to notability, but Philafrenzy and Amakuru were focused on whether the subject was notable in-and-of itself.
 * Anyway: have you gotten around to re-reading my RM rationale at Talk:Mottainai Grandma? You !voted on the RM without apparently having understood the rationale for moving the page, as you gave a WP:UE rationale when in fact the "English" title refers to a different topic (the barely notable bilingual edition of the first book), not what the article should be focused on (per the prior discussion between myself and User:Curly Turkey.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Monica Ross
Hello! Your submission of Monica Ross at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's been over 2 weeks since this notification. Are you pursuing the nomination any further or should I close it? Yoninah (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When I last checked this I thought it was back on track but, if there's more needed, I'll take a look tomorrow. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Monica Ross at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sue Jelley
FYI Someone uploaded one of your images to commons as their own image - c:File:Sue Jelley PPSWA SPF.jpg. I've tagged it for deletion, and I've copied your one to commons (and left the local copy here as requested). <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 01:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. The issue seems related to Articles for deletion/Sue Jelley PPSWA SPF. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Sustainability Initiative
Hello : An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 09:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I planted several trees recently as part of the Trees for Cities programme. I started the plogging page and will go for a pick-up run now to further improve the environment. Andrew D. (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking
The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:
 * 1) First, sign up your group here.
 * 2) Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group.  This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
 * 3) Then ask people what they think about communication processes.  We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki.  Please consider asking these five questions:
 * 4) When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
 * 5) What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
 * 6) What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
 * 7) What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
 * 8) What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
 * 9) Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group.  Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you. Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Infinity Gauntlet
Hi Andrew,

About a year ago, you read Infinity Gauntlet and reviewed it for a DYK. I've put it up for FAC, and I'd appreciate any comments you may have. The discussion is here.

Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and comment if I have anything to say. Andrew D. (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline in insect populations
Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GMOs and pesticides seem to be Kingofaces43's hobbyhorse not mine, but I shall bear this in mind. Note that there are similar strictures about climate change as a result of another case. Andrew D. (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You've already been warned multiple times, so I'll be blunt. Since you're chosen to edit war content and violate the discretionary sanctions instead, you need to undo your recent edit warring, and if I or others have to remove the content again and you reinsert, the discretionary sanctions will be enforced this time. I've been very patient with you since you're new on that front, but you've had enough warnings now. Arbs were very clear that what you are trying to do would be considered gaming and still violate 1RR, so it's time to knock it off and actually gain consensus for something like we're supposed to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Kingofaces43 has tried this line of argument before and it failed when AE found that this topic of insect decline was not within the scope of the GMO case. In any case, it's Kingofaces43 that is most out of order – repeating disruptive edits without consensus, using weak sources, misrepresenting the precedent, making threats, &c. And, let's remember what this is about.  Sources such as National Geographic explain  Why insect populations are plummeting—and why it matters.  There is clearly a notable topic here and so it's quite puzzling that Kingofaces43 is so hostile towards such reputable sources. Andrew D. (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That AE did not find that the topic was out of scope. The content specifically does involve pesticides, though some admins were initially confused by the case name thinking it only applied to GMOs, so please don't try to circumvent the DS anymore, especially the expectation that you don't edit war your content back in as means of avoiding getting talk page consensus. Also, please don't blatantly misrepresent me, especially since WP:ASPERSIONS is part of the DS. I've already told you multiple times how the topic of insect decline was already being handled at insect biodiversity and needed more fleshing out there, so to characterize me as otherwise is just getting into poor drama raising. If you're really interested in working on the content, we've already been discussing it significantly at other pages on what is actually needed for proper sourcing (which you went around during your article creation), and the diversity page is waiting for someone to actually work on it more than I gave it an initial revamp to. Kingofaces43 (talk)
 * The AE close is "The article edits in question do not fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Luquillo Experimental Forest
When you first nominated your article at DYK, I was very sceptical of a wholesale decline in insects, and I still do not like a review stating, here are the results of a small number of studies - these show that insect populations around the world are collapsing. However, I accept there are some declines and I looked into the Puerto Rico study. I wrote an article on the Luquillo Experimental Forest with this result, and I thought the hook might please you. The Puerto Rico researchers attributed their findings to a rise in temperatures over the period of 2°C and thought tropical insects might be particularly susceptible to a rise in temperature. Being cynical, I think that attributing an effect to climate change is a good way to get your research study accepted for publication. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's good to clarify the locations of these studies but I reckon that we already have an article for this one.  I shall suggest a merger at the relevant talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Decline in insect populations
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, climate change is a real thing. Just wait and see what happens when the bees continue to die off. Without pollination, food supplies will be affected: see No Bees, No Food. North America1000 13:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's an interesting topic which we can all relate to.  I suppose that there's lots more to come as more studies are done but we shall see...  Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to say hello, Andrew, a little bit about the insects in my life. I mostly follow a lazy gardener method, so have to know a little about increasing diversity. My garden rewards me with some organism I have never before as poke, pile and scatter my green 'waste' around, and because I live next to a biodiversity hotspot there is always new and extraordinary insects taking advantage of re-opened habitat. All this gets me a lot of reptiles (and, or including, birds) visiting or residing, but most remarkable of all is that I now have bats foraging overhead for insects in the evening. The highlight of my year so far, I try to count the wins and ignore the losses as best I can. Kudos for your admirable efforts on the article. cygnis insignis 03:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's good. When I used a bat detector in our local area, I found that there were more than I expected or could easily see in the twilight.  There are very few reptiles here but there are plenty of amphibians.  After a recent parkrun, I noticed that there were thousands of tadpoles in the lake there.  I must upload a picture while I remember... Andrew D. (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"incipient deletion spree"
Andrew, I expect a response to this. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to use ARS as a forum to attack other editors. I honestly don't know what kind of place it was before 14 months ago, and I don't much care to find out, but badmouthing good-faith AFD nominators who (in at least one of the cases you linked) are 100% right on the policy is not an appropriate use for it in 2019. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, you're most welcome. That poet needs more recognition and so I have made a start... Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wholesomeness listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wholesomeness. Since you had some involvement with the Wholesomeness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Golden
From what I can tell Golden is a for profit company? If so I'm not so interested in creating free content for them even if I do like elements of what's going on there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All the content you write for Wikipedia is made available "for any purpose, even commercially". So, Golden can freely take your fine articles, such as Wolf in the Snow, and republish them.  The significant differences seem to be that they will make it easier to write such content and that they won't so lightly delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I get that (and really they could find better articles of mine than Wolf in the Snow) and they are publishing under a CCSA 4 license themselves. But it feels different writing for something which is being used for a for-profit rather than non-profit motive. YMMV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Derrick Morris
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Game of Thrones
I notice you've closed the AfD at Articles for deletion/Myrcella Baratheon after the discussion was only held for fewer than four days. This is despite the discussion having not met any of the conditions for early closure. I believe the discussion still had value as, even if no pages were deleted as a result of this discussion, a course of action was being decided on to show what articles were notable and which weren't. -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  15:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion was closed per the Snowball clause. There was no consensus to delete but a general feeling that the subjects would be best considered individually.  Such further discussion should therefore take place on the separate talk pages for those articles.  More general discussion can continue at forums such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire which did not appear to have been notified. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, didn't notice the link in the pun. Thank you anyway. -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed  E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts
Hello, Andrew. I'm planning on a rewrite of decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts, and I've written up a draft of what's going to be the central section at User:A. Parrot/sandbox. The final article will cover the nature of the scripts, the pre-Rosetta efforts on hieroglyphs, and the work done after the mid-1820s, but as this is the section that addresses everything from the discovery of the Rosetta Stone to Champollion's Précis, it's the crucial one. I think I've managed a pretty careful examination of which scholar accomplished what and when, and an even-handed treatment of the priority dispute between Young and Champollion, but I'm seeking second opinions. Given that you worked on the article on the Rosetta Stone, your opinion would be valuable.

Please ignore anything contained between percent signs; I use them to denote text I'm unsure of, or notes to myself.

I've tried to write the article in British English because the only English-speaking participants in the story were British, but Americanisms have probably crept in. Feel free to correct any you find. And a final question—should Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy be called "Silvestre de Sacy", "de Sacy", or "Sacy" when referring to him by his surname? The sources I'm using can't seem to agree! A. Parrot (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "De Sacy" seems sufficient. I'll take a look at your draft and watch those pages.  I recall some recent related activity at the WCC so there may be some useful connections there. Andrew D. (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A. Parrot (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, now I feel like an idiot—the Andrew who worked on the Rosetta Stone article was Andrew Dalby, not you. I'm afraid I've always confused the two of you. (I suppose this is the advantage of usernames: more varied names mean less chance of errors like mine.) Anyway, I've given him the message I gave you. If you want to comment on the article text, feel free, but if not, I encourage you to forget my silly mistake! A. Parrot (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Eton Shirts
Hi Andrew, I just saw that you opposed the deletion of the article about Eton Shirts. Since I am trying to understand why it was proposed to be deleted in the first place I just wanted to ask you if there is anything to be done to remove the proposed deletion tag and get the article fully accepted? Or does it, according to you, work as it is without any further changes? Swe jon (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason stated was "Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT requirements of in-depth analysis in multiple media. A smattering of routine business transactions and exec transitions does not satisfy." I have rejected that proposal per WP:DEPROD and so it is done.  Other proposals of a stronger sort might be made but the article is on my watchlist now and I would continue to defend it.  The most pressing need, IMO, is some images for the article, especially historical ones.  The copyright issues can be challenging so I recommend that you study Help:Pictures. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support and your thorough answer. There is a lot of historical pictures from the 30's, 40's and 50's which could be uploaded since they, as far as I understand when I read about it, is ok from a copyright perspective? The photographer is most likely dead as well as unknown to anyone alive today, the only information available is roughly the year (or decennium) when they were created. With my COI I'm a bit unsure how to proceed with the updates of the article. Is it ok for me to upload pictures to Wiki Commons and ask someone else to add them to the article or could I even do it all the way by myself? I'm very keen not to violate the rules of the Wikipedia-community. Swe jon (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, Coming back to you on this topic. There is now some historical pictures from the 1930s available at Wiki Commons. They have recently been added to the swedish page for Eton Shirts. Since I'm keen on not overstepping any boundaries on Wikipedia (I have a declared COI) I just wanted to reach out and ask you for your advice. Should I upload the pictures or ask for help?Swe jon (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I looked at the Swedish article and have added most of the images to the English article.  I have not formatted these as a gallery because these are sometimes attacked by editors who don't like them.  Me, I like lots of pictures and it's good that we have some now.  Thanks for your contribution. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I agree with you that it's nice with pictures and will let you know if I stumble upon anything else that could be interesting for the article. I'm not even sure that the shirt on the picture is an Eton shirt so that could be a good starter. Swe jon (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, Coming back to you on this topic. There is now some new Eton pictures available on Wikimedia and I wonder, considering my COI, if you would like to help exchange the current picture showing a shirt and a tie to this picture showing a white Eton shirt? "File:Etonstore GOT 1.jpg". Since the picture is from Gothenburg Airport and the Eton store there I know for a fact that it actually is an Eton shirt. There is also a nice picture of the store ("Etonstore GOT 2.jpg") if you would prefer that one or use them both. What do you think? Best. /JonathanSwe jon (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the pictures (right) but am not convinced that they are an improvement. The shirt in the picture does not stand out so well -- partly because it is white and partly because the background is busy and in focus.  Perhaps a crop might help.  And the long shot of the store seems unsatisfactory because there's no frontage.  But I seem to recall that I took a photo of the store in South Molton Street (an article that I actually started myself) when I passed by about a year ago.  Let's see if I can find that and then we can compare.  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! The shirt is indeed white which is a bit hard for the standing out part but at the same time it is really the core product and a big part of the sales. I will reach out to the photographer though and see if he can upload a cropped version. Or can you crop it if you were to upload it? My main problem with the current picture is that it is hard to see if it is even an Eton shirt. It is also quite old. Looking forward to see your image. Swe jon (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a cropped version (right)so let's try that. I can't find a picture of the London store right now but will try again when I'm down that way. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great - thanks!Swe jon (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, hope you're well and that it's ok that I'm reaching out here. I would like to make some minor changes to the Wiki page about Eton Shirts but since I have a COI I'm not sure that it's ok? The changes are minor:
 * 1. Eton is, since a couple of years, no longer present at TsUM in Moscow so I would like to remove that.
 * 2. Secondly, Sebastian Dollinger has resigned as the Creative Director so he should be removed. Is that something you can help me with or do you think I can do it myself? Best, Swe jon (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll update the article. But we can't expect to maintain such fine details continuously as the business evolves and so the article should aim to present a historical view.  I'll consider how that might best be done. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Membership renewal


You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Tall buildings in Jersey City
If you are going to remove Prod templates en masse, at least have the courtesy to provide an explanation. Although I know it is not a requirement, WP:DEPROD states "You are strongly encouraged" to "explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." It would really help me to actually believe that you are acting in good faith if you did so. Also, if you do have legitimate reasons to remove the PROD, could you at least do so in a reasonable amount of time? (ie. not mere hours before the seven day period is about to expire)--Rusf10 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Twinkle makes it easy to propose or nominate lots of articles like this. Opposing such deletions is more laborious because it has to be done manually, without any scripted assistance.  For a bundle of that kind, with common features, it is more efficient to discuss them centrally.  As for the timing, this is unimportant because the WP:REFUND process applies regardless.  I patrol CAT:ALLPROD and that sorts the articles alphabetically, not by day.  Andrew D. (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How laborious is it to remove a PROD? All you have to do is revert and type an edit summary, seems pretty easy to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I do that and more besides but you seem to want something more. That usually happens when you escalate by starting an AfD.  It would save effort for both of us if you cut out the Prod step altogether.  Per WP:PROD, it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" and you should expect opposition in such cases. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Haine
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!
To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Maria Grzegorzewska – Help with a resource?

 * I am struggling to find a non-digital resource and thought maybe you could help me? While creating an article on Józefa Joteyko, I discovered a stub on Maria Grzegorzewska, on which the only ref link was dead. As you can see, I have now virtually finished Joteyko and Grzegorzewska, but I am looking  photographs. This thesis (images on pages 20 and 28), has some photographs which indicate they were taken from a non-digitized book Maria Grzegorzewska. Materiały z sesji naukowej-7.XI.1969 r. published in 1972. If indeed they were published in 1972 without a copyright notice, they would be usable because Polish photographs published prior to 1994 without a notice are in the PD. So, I am on a quest to find the book and basically need to know what photos are in it, the page numbers, and if it is copyrighted.
 * Supposedly, there is a copy of it at the The British Library, St. Pancras, London, NW1 2DB United Kingdom This seems to indicate that it is part of the Library "system" and can be delivered to other locations??? Ideally, if there is no copyright, any photos of Grzegorzewska in the book can be uploaded as in the PD in Poland. I am keen to have the 1913 one of her when she arrived in Belgium for the Joteyko article and a later one of her for her own article. I totally get it if you don't have time, but will be thrilled if you can make time to help. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have access to the Reading Rooms at the British Library and so can look at the book there and copy any pictures. I was there just two days ago while attending another event next door but I don't have any immediate plans to go back.  I'll give some thought to when I might go again.  Do you have a particular timetable or deadline for this work?  Andrew D. (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Drat, wish I had known. Such is life. Not particularly urgent, but I don't want to nominate either article for GA without photos. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try to fit it in in a week or two. It will also be an opportunity to consult other offline sources needed for other articles so I'll review what else is pending. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Gracias mi amigo. Very much appreciated. SusunW (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Andrew Davidson, just thought I'd check in, not pressuring you, to see if you have been able to schedule a trip to the Reading Rooms? SusunW (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally my backlog of GA nominations has cleared and I think I can get Maria Grzegorzewska ready to nominate, but I still have no photos. Any chance you are planning on going to the Reading Rooms at the British Library soon? SusunW (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have any immediate plans but will see what I can do. Let me think on't.  More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm currently in the LSE Library and have tried their catalogue but no joy yet. In the meantime, I've added an image of a statue which is a start.  More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Susan Beschta
valereee (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 8,937 hits. Andrew D. (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Anna B. Eckstein
Hello! Your submission of Anna B. Eckstein at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Enwebb (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

9,165 hits.

Birds and the bees – sourcing help please.
Hi there, I met you at the insect population decline article. You seem to be a very experienced editor and perhaps you can help me. I know that WP prefers secondary sources but it is my understanding that in certain circumstances a primary source is OK to use as long as it is used correctly. Today this source has been removed from the Neonicotinoid article Considering that it was published in such a prestigious journal I feel that it would be reasonable to include at least one or two sentences that mention the study when the alternative is to wait years and years for a review to come out. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's quite a fine level of detail so I'd want to review the overall context for the issue first. I recently noticed a report of a significant decline in bird populations in North America – see Decline of the North American avifauna and BBC coverage.  I was thinking that an article about a general decline in bird populations would be appropriate, following the pattern of the similar articles for amphibians and insects.  The most relevant page we have currently seems to be bird conservation.  I'll put these pages on my watchlist and take it from there. Andrew D. (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. If you check the neonic talk page you can see that the efforts to get any new findings into the article have been going on for years but using one reason or another -- it's too soon, it's a primary study, and it does not pass our WP:MEDRS guidelines (as though birds and bees are tiny little humans), and such, it has been a struggle.  As for using a primary study, both MastCell and WhatamIdoing say they are OK if used properly.
 * I hope you do make an article to address the decrease of the bird population. I've seen the decrease over the years and even in the last 12 years, going back to the time we bought our farm here in Maine, I'd see a small number of bats fly out of the barn every evening for the first few years but it went down to zero bats.  Same thing for mud swallows -- the barn is plastered (inside) with their nests so clearly at one time they were very numerous.  The first few years I saw a few pairs but it quickly dwindled to nothing as well.  It really is quite heartbreaking.  Gandydancer (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gage Creed (character)]
Your critique is spot on MrCleanOut (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hotel Montclair
With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Montclair, FYI: the building was demolished and replaced by apartments. Djflem (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So I gather. But the relevant principle is that notability does not expire and so this is not significant.  Most buildings are demolished at some point – see Blossom's Inn for an example which I worked on. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Dogs at polling stations
Hi Andrew, I was patrolling the new files feed and came across this image. I mainly looked at it because I love dogs, however I did notice you palces the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license on the image. The image is actually CC-BY-2.0. I updated the license so it was correct on the file. Just wanted to drop you a note to explain the change. Happy editing! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation and it's good of you to fix the issue rather than just tagging it as so many other patrollers do. Here's some further explanation.
 * The image was uploaded for a new article which I started at an election editathon. This was sponsored by Wikimedia UK and was covered by multiple journalists looking for an novel way to cover the election results from one location.  I was naturally keen to make a good impression by getting this done quickly.
 * I checked the licence when I found the image. I usually upload images via the upload file page. This has a dropdown menu for the licensing options.  It seems hard to get the selection exactly right because, for example, it only lists CC 4.0, not earlier versions.  So, I selected what seemed to be the best of available options and pressed on.
 * I was able to get the article off to a reasonable start and so it has received attention in the journalistic coverage and on social media. I have used the same image on other platforms and they typically make the process of attaching images much simpler and easier.  Wikimedia needs to keep up and so perhaps the dropdown menu can be revised to make this clearer.  I'm not sure where it is maintained though.
 * The article helped generate some light-hearted, feel-good banter at the event which was helpful as the election was naturally a sensitive, political issue. Studies have found that "dogs may provide social support, improve performance, and increase social interactions" and so "Google, Amazon, and Etsy have well-publicized policies permitting their employees to bring their dogs to work".  We need more dogs at Wikipedia too!
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew! I definitely agree Wikipedia needs more dogs :). Additionally I do think the image upload form could probably use an overhaul. Not sure if you'd be interested but perhaps we could work on getting that on the 2020 community wishlist? A bit of an interesting fact California's previous governor Jerry Brown actually used to bring his dog into the office with him a few times a week. Unfortunately Sutter passed away during the governor's term in office. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Media coverage of cats
Hi Andrew Davidson, thanks for your input regarding the above. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of cats (2nd nomination) The discussion was IMO terribly one-sided. I also believe that "tunnel thinking" by some of the others and the following of the leader kind of approach didn't help either. Your comment of "This seems to be a reasonable start on the topic and the worst case should be merger with a page such as cultural depictions of cats or cats and the Internet" was one that made a lot of sense. I accept that what I have an opinion of is not always correct. In saying that the cat media is to cat lovers a valid and important source of news for these people. To these people, "Cat News" is important as what they would hear on CBS News. Some of the strongest passions that can be invoked are ones that involve cats. Sadly I believe some people will never be able to think outside the general view that cats are furry creatures that purr and you feed them at meal time. Anyway, I have re-done & redirected The Purrington Post to Cats and the Internet. Thanks again and best wishes for the upcoming holiday season. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm currently working on articles about dogs, myself.  If you want to do more work on cats, then tiger versus lion will always provide a challenge!  Also noticed that herding cats is just a disambiguation and so maybe there's more we can do there... Andrew🐉(talk) 00:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Chalky (dog)
Perhaps you might like to explain why you deproded this useless article? <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 22:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Using https://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?pid=11522&pop=1#n4 where is the motion by Andrew Pelling regarding the death of Chalky?

Condo951795 (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have updated the article to cite the parliamentary record. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Barking
You have recently removed notability and others, such as original research, more citations needed and like from several articles (ex., , , , , , etc.) citing the essay WP:TAGBOMB. An essay is not sufficient to overturn best practices. Additionally, a single tag added to the article (as was the case here, here here, here and here) is not "bombing" it, so even the cited essay does not support your actions there. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Piotrus' edits often seem contentious and so they should not be surprised if they are reverted. What is especially puzzling is that they continue to use the prod tag in such cases when this "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".  Why do they not expect opposition in cases such as Toto (Oz)?  Piotrus prodded this and then took to AfD where it was found that there was "Not a snowball's chance in Hell that it will result in a Delete outcome".  Piotrus should please not waste time when there is much work to be done.  Right now, I have an article on the main page and so should focus on protecting that.  Someone tried to prod that article too and so we see that there is a pressing need to protect our content from inappropriate tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK Buckhound
Many thanks for the review at Template:Did you know nominations/Buckhound, it is a better article for your scrutiny. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC).
 * You're welcome. Every dog has his day and I look forward to this one's. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Nigel
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nigel the gardening dog.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not free to add my opinion. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 06:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, the result was keep. Woof! Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

One of editors at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 74 said that File:Nigel the gardening dog.jpg, which you uploaded, fails WP:NFCC. Do you concur? George Ho (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Well? I'm close to taking the image to FFD if I don't see a response soon. --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper bag
In the US home delivery newspapers are usually wrapped in a plastic bag to protect them from rain and being spread by the wind. — xaosflux  Talk 20:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And now there is a stub-article on this topic :) — xaosflux  Talk 21:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. And well done on creating the article – we're one closer to six million now. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Page moving – request for assistance
I saw, your a currently active page-mover, DolbyPedia has been moving stuff around erratically, and obviously I can't move it back so I could use your help. Most of those pages are also semi-protected so if you could help in reverting as well I would appreciate it, thanks.

I don't see any need to report this user just yet unless they remain unresponsive as they are still new. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm rather busy with the six millionth article currently and, in any case, am not sure of the details of this case. I'll take a look when I get a free moment but suggest you try some more general forum like WP:ANI if it's urgent. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Last I checked they'd stopped, I'll check back and contact an admin if it has resumed, thanks. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It resumed, but an admin is on it, so nothing further needed, thanks for the fast response. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Swietenia Puspa Lestari
A shocking deletion; there are clearly plenty of sources, albeit many not in English. In case you haven't seen, it's been parked at Draft:Swietenia Puspa Lestari. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Leonard Montefiore
Hi, thank you for the support; I just published an article about Leonard on dewiki. I used many sources, but trough an unknown, unreproducable error on the Oxford DNB I could read the whole entry without being logged in. So that's where many information come from. Best wishes -- Keks by 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the update.  I can look after the English version as I have full access to the DNB normally. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh really?! I requested a free account over their PR-email address via my wikipedia email address. Maybe they give me one :) The WDO for the right Leonard is Q75850309 --22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Keks (talk • contribs)

Hello! Your submission of Leonard G. Montefiore at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

3,385 on the day; over 6,791 over 7 days -- unusual pattern

DYK for Edda Tasiemka
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

5,141 + 113 = 5,254 hits in 12 hours

DYK nomination of Clarice Phelps
Hello! Your submission of Clarice Phelps at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ann Clarke
What were the "possibilities" with which you created this redirect? There seems no mention of an "Ann" at the target page. It's now been retargeted, but I just wondered. Pam D  13:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that the name is a common one and that the title should now become a disambiguation page. The person I meant was covered here. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. It would have been helpful if you'd included that source and a mention of her name while making the redirect, wto give us a clue. I've now added her to her husband's article and to Frozen Ark, and mentioned her at Anne McLaren, and made the redirect into a dab page... though I suspect we'd be better off if we combined Ann/Anne dab pages. Pam  D  18:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus
Add your opinion here please. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (2nd nomination) - snow close". Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Speller
Andrew Davidson, I was wondering whether you could return to your review of this nomination and see whether the sources subsequently provided by Gerda Arendt have addressed your concerns. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll take another look. Thanks for the prompt. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Clarice Phelps
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

2,865 page hits.

Simultaneous image upload!
I just uploaded to Wikipedia commons! Great minds think alike, I guess... --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I suppose we both read the article Harpur Hill Quarry which is at DYK currently.  The puzzle is why the main authors user:Auric and user:Dumelow didn't add an image but perhaps the bureaucracy and technicalities are too intimidating.  As a picture is worth 1000 words, it's well worth getting the hang of this. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

15,470 hits.

Welcome template
*Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates-- Moxy 🍁 11:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth RfA
I'll reply here so as not to leave acrimonious comments on the permanent record of an RFA that's certain to pass, but regarding your comment here, it seems to demonstrate the exact opposite of what you're saying. Taking the first ten entries at User:Andrew Davidson/Main Page Errors that relate to errors-as-promoted—that is, discounting "someone changed it after it was posted" issues where the reviewer & promoter can't be blamed—by my count CH was responsible for 50% of them (Template:Did you know nominations/Amy H. Herring, Template:Did you know nominations/Tetrakis(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)borate, Template:Did you know nominations/Ba (gastropod), Template:Did you know nominations/City of London swords & Template:Did you know nominations/Dinosaur dental histology). Sure, it's not sole responsibility—the whole point of DYK having both a reviewer and a promoter is theoretically so that everything gets double-checked so in each of these cases CH was one of two people to fail to spot the error and the other person (and of course the person who nominated it in the first place) are equally to blame—but it doesn't tally with "I'm not finding much". ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those examples seem serious nor does Cwmhiraeth stand out as especially culpable. And, whatever was done there, was done without admin tools and I doubt that being an admin would make much difference to such issues.  The admin tools will mainly matter for keeping the queues moving and the protections placed.  Anyway, we shall see... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And the consequence was ... the RfA passed and Cwmhiraeth seems have been doing fine as an admin. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

SDlinkBuilder script
I added some documentation for my script at SDlinkBuilder I also (unwisely?) renamed the script. GhostInTheMachine (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That gives me a reasonable idea of how it works and I'll try it again when I'm updating my article lists. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction page
PLS SEE Village pump (proposals).-- Moxy 🍁 11:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I had already started looking at that. IIRC, I agree with your position on this but am not sure that I have sufficient interest to go through the details.  Generally, it seems quite creepy per Parkinson's Law.  Some evidence such as A/B testing would be sensible and that's a job for the WMF. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Fever hospital
—valereee (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

2,262 views

Nomination of De Bethel cats for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article De Bethel cats is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/De Bethel cats until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Suppression of IPs of IP editors
Over at VP you mention that there may be something afoot about the WMF suppressing the addresses of IP editors. Is that being discussed somewhere where I might catch up and weigh in? Do you have a link? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Large city" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Large city. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Tiny car" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tiny car. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Leo Wetzels
Hello - you deprodded this article but there are no sources, and I cannot find any. Could you point me in the right direction for reliable sourcing please? Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided some details at the article's talk page. That's the best place to discuss the topic, so that all editors with an interest in the topic may particpate. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3 : VE stats


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)

ITN recognition for C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE)

 * The comet was visible on the main page until 20:17, 28 July 2020 – over two weeks! Is this a record? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Special purpose UK railway stations for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Special purpose UK railway stations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Special purpose UK railway stations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <b style="color:#049">YorkshireLad</b> ✿  <b style="color:#052">(talk)</b> 11:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about Joseph Henderson pilot
Hi Andrew. I appreciate your vote to keep the Joseph Henderson (pilot) page. It has been around since 2007. Let me know your thoughts on keeping it? --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I have nothing to add at this time but will continue to watch the article and discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

List of hospitals in Angola
Following an exchange with a participant, I agree that I may have closed the AfD too early. I have reopened the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of hospitals in Angola in order to generate additional comments and to tentatively reach a consensus. The article has been restored in the meantime. Thank you for your contributions! Olivier (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 novel bunyavirus outbreak
I haven't made a full response yet, but you may want to reconsider this AfD vote, there are these sources CNN, The Indian Express and a second Indian Express source. These are listed on Reliable sources/Perennial sources as reliable, an outbreak of 60 which killed 7 is certainly non-trivial and notable once it is verified which based on these sources it is. There should be even more source in the coming week. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Tolulope Arotile
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Camden College (fictional college) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Camden College (fictional college) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Camden College (fictional college) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Notifying you as the DEPRODing editor. Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Portal:BBC
Hi Andrew: I've updated Portal:BBC a bit, improving it with the use of transclusions, which provides readers with current, up-to-date information that is verbatim to article content. I write because it seems very likely that you're more knowledgeable about BBC-related topics than I, so I am respectfully asking you to provide any suggestions for articles and biography articles to expand the portal with. If you're interested, you can reply here, as I have now watchlisted your talk page. Thanks for your consideration, North America1000 05:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. A list of BBC-related recognized content exists at Portal talk:BBC § Recognized content. Some of the articles have been recently added to the portal, but not all of them. North America1000 22:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I will bear it in mind. My most recent relevant article is list of longest-running radio programmes which is headed by several BBC programmes.  The shipping forecast is a classic.


 * I have been updating another portal-like page lately: UK Wikipedians' notice board.  I just came across it and it seems half-baked so if you have any technical tips, your advice will be appreciated.


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 12:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. The list article isn't directly about the BBC, so I would probably pass on that. Shipping Forecast is interesting, but would benefit from more citations. Sorry, not to be a stickler, but I want to avoid adding articles that may be viewed as contentious as per needing more sources, not directly topically related, etc. There's lots of GA-class articles on that list on the talk page, though, which is nice. North America1000 19:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Individual
With all due respect, please stop accusing Piotrus of making "cookie-cutter nominations" simply for nominating stuff. Especially since you haven't proven that significant coverage exists on any of them. He hasn't even filed that many nominations recently, and even if he did, he has been following the deletion process to the letter (even going as far as to check for sources beforehand). If the disruption at AFD that you are contesting actually does resume, your seemingly baseless accusations will only make a genuine ArbCom case more difficult.  Dark knight  2149  22:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not clear which of the many nominations that you are talking about. The most recent one that I have engaged with is this.  I stand by my position and am not alone as nobody agrees with the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And the result of that nomination was "keep". The nominator was defiant to the end, "It is clear the consensus is to keep this. I am however not withdrawing the nom..."  Classic WP:NOTGETTINGIT.   See also induhvidual. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Cappy Burnside
I received notification about this discussion on the same day it occurred. I had some other issues to deal with and couldn’t log on and get involved.

I’ve been reading over the discussion of the deleted page “Cappy Burnside.”

The article is not about a person who had a bridge named after him. The bridge, which leads to the vital FBI CJIS Division, would not exist without him. The FBI would not be where it is or even in West Virginia, had it not been for Cappy. This is all clear in the article. At the time, the last glass factory had just closed and people were unemployed. He took his position in the local chamber of commerce to create a committee, contacted Senator Byrd when he heard that Byrd had claimed the new fingerprint center for WV. He personally (this is not an exaggeration—this is substantiated in the article) solved a multitude of problems that almost caused the FBI to pull out several times. He had the connections from his business and such to do this. I could go on and on. As I mentioned, the bridge wouldn’t be there without him. The FBI was going to end the deal immediately unless a new exit and interchange were created from I-79 directly to the FBI. Cappy took two FBI agents that morning to Charleston and met first with his friend, who then the head of the Department of Highways. Later that day, they met with them-governor Gaston Caperton, also a friend. By the end of the day, the exit and interchange was approved. Cappy designed much of it himself (that was his profession). The FBI project was saved. Other problems popped up and Cappy put out the fires. He put his own family and business on hold (having to close the business soon after).

As a result of his hard work (and the hard work of others, of course), the FBI CJIS became the primary employer for several counties. Classes were available at colleges to prepare students for high-tech jobs. Other government contractors moved in nearby. There is now an I-79 High-Tech Corridor including NASA’s recently-renamed Katherine Johnson Independent Verification & Validation Facility. Most of the top government contractors and aviation companies are here. Amazon recently considered it as a location.

Cappy had worked his adult life trying to make North Central West Virginia a better place. He finally found an opportunity to do something that would change everything. He would say everything would be different. I didn’t live here while all this was happening. I was in DC. I saw his photo in the Washington Post and realized it might be kind of important. Jesse Jackson was verbally attacking Sen. Byrd and Cappy for taking jobs from Washington. He was interviewed on “All Things Considered” I visited briefly and he showed me where things would be. I came back a year later and I saw progress. I moved out of the country and returned after a couple of years and didn’t recognize the area. People were employed. There are two developments near the FBI, White Oaks and Charlespointe. Large office buildings including MITRE (the government contractor), hotels, restaurants, and a convention center were built. These would never have been imagined before the FBI.

Cappy certainly didn’t work alone, but he was, as Don Flynn, the FBI special agent in charge of the FBI project said, the “driving force.” Flynn also said the FBI would not be there had it not been for Cappy. Hence, several references to one article that quotes Flynn.

I had promises from other people who said they’d edit and finish the article. He also played a significant role in holding West Virginia Public Radio together during a rough time. The director of WVPR said she’d get involved but, like everyone else, she’s been busy.

I realize my own connection with the article is taken into consideration. I was careful to cite everything. I also spoke with others who were involved to ensure I was being objective. I do have the advantage of having been away from the area most of my life. Cappy was always modest and never said anything about his personal efforts. I discovered this from other sources.

He passed away in August 2014. I did see in the discussion that there was some leaning in his favor. This is not an article about a bridge. The bridge is one of many honors because of his contribution. When you consider the number of people employed, the people this has brought into the state, the revenue, and the fact that several people, including the FBI SAIC said it would not have happened without him, I think he deserves notability. He created a tremendous positive economic effect and the growth continues. Construction continues.

Please help me. Reconsider the deletion. Thank you. Appl atcha (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't read all the detail above, but I can see that there was a strong vote to delete at Articles for deletion/Cappy Burnside. I have a suggestion: create a section discussing the bridge and why it was named (but just a couple of sentences max) in the article West_Virginia_Route_279, using HCR 60 as your source. You could make an incoming redirect to that section from Cappy Burnside Bridge and from Cappy Burnside (and Lester W. Burnside too). If what you add is concise, well-expressed and well-sourced it should survive in the article, with luck. Or add it to the article about the town where the bridge is, under "landmarks" or some such heading, if that seems appropriate (but not both). Good luck. Pam  D  17:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, add well sourced and concise info to FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division giving the history of the facility and Cappy's role therein? Pam  D  17:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The article has been deleted, but I do believe there was a section about the bridge. However the article wasn’t about a bridge.

It was necessary to back up everything with sources. It isn’t a linear story. The bridge was named for him posthumously (he knew it would be but was quite ill). The point of the article is his role in saving the economy of northern West Virginia. The FBI wouldn’t have moved to West Virginia had he not solved numerous serious problems. The FBI Special Agent In Charge said Cappy made the FBI happen (in that area and in WV). As a result, economic development continues to this day. He did design the bridge (and interchange). Bridges are named for people all the time. That was an honor because it leads to the FBI and anyone going to the FBI (or to the new hospital or industrial park on the other side of the bridge) will see it. But it’s a notable story—and not just local interest.

My point is, there is quite a backstory here. Perhaps that could be a separate article. But one person was the problem-solver (with a local record in community service—that’s not the point). Because of him, a depressed area became a place of jobs, an attractive place for a multitude of businesses including government contractors that are still moving here 25 years later, and so on. It hasn’t just affected the immediate area. It helped surrounding counties and people have moved there. The area was dying prior to the FBi. He is the person who contacted Sen. Byrd when he heard WV was getting the fingerprint center and worked to find an an acceptable location that eventually brought them here. That is explained in the front-page Washington Post article that is cited in the Wikipedia article.

Granted, the article needed work, but I do Wikipedia editing. I see lots of articles with far more problems that seem to remain.

All the information mentioned above is in the article. Someone was supposed to go in and finish the last sections. She clearly didn’t.

Cappy made a significant difference and was known between Clarksburg and Washington and in surrounding states. So many things are better as a result of his hard work to get this to happen (it’s all in the article).

With that said, what can I do? It’s not about the bridge.

Thank you! Appl atcha (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Appl atcha (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Eco-anxiety
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eco-anxiety is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - hako9 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The !votes at the AfD were 13 merge, 8 keep and 2 delete. The most popular merge target was an article that does not exist. Brilliant.


 * In the course of the discussion at the fringe noticeboard, shrewdly noted that, at last year's discussion of climate psychosis, the same crew decided that eco-anxiety was the preferred target.  I wonder what they will want to call it next year...


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A year later and we have COP26 and much associated coverage including:


 * BMJ – The climate crisis and the rise of eco-anxiety
 * Guardian – ‘Eco-anxiety’: fear of environmental doom weighs on young people
 * Observer – Eco-anxiety over climate crisis suffered by all ages and classes
 * Times – How to cure eco-anxiety: the world’s on fire — but do try to chill out
 * Telegraph – ‘Eco-anxiety’: The fear of environmental doom and how to overcome it


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Hamilton McWhorter III
—valereee (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI Discussion Closed
I have closed the recent ANI discussion concerning you with the following statement, Please let me know if you have any questions about this either by pinging me here or leaving a message on my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion process
Please take a moment to read WP:DEPROD, particularly the part that suggests "you are strongly encouraged" to: Removing the PROD without making any attempt to explain why, or to address the concerns listed in the PROD, unnecessarily makes more work for other editors by forcing the article to an AfD. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC) '
 * "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page".
 * "Consider improving the page to address the concerns raised".
 * The PROD process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Deletion of articles about historic native Americans is likely to be controversial and so Magnolia677 should expect opposition.  The PROD process does not provide for discussion – that's what the article's talk page and AfD is for.
 * We should also note that Magnolia677 has been using Twinkle to PROD the articles in question. That tool provides facilities to automate and simplify the process.  So far as I know, that tool does not provide comparable facilities for the converse DEPROD action.  So the suggestion that I should make lots of complex manual actions when many cases are mechanically PRODed in quick succession seems impractical.  The essential point is to register opposition in such cases so that our content is not destroyed.  See also WP:NOTREQUIRED.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A bit non-intuitive, but Twinkle's "Tag" module allows you to remove tags, including the PROD tag, and has a space for providing a summary.– SD0001  (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The policy you quote, Magnolia677, specifically states "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also..." (my emphasis). Next time, please consider asking politely for a voluntary explanation (and if none if forthcoming just accepting that decision) rather than demanding it. In particular, please stop hanging policy quotes over the editor you're harassing. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. If some users presisently, for years, don't follow best practices, which are strongly encouraged by the rules, maybe a community ban from abusing the system is in order? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As the prod process is only for "uncontroversial deletion", it mandates that it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". But Piotrus continues to nominate topics for deletion in this way even though he anticipates and expects opposition by trying to tell editors how they should oppose them.  See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE.
 * Anyway, I have been trying out the suggestion of SD0001 above by using Twinkle in such cases. Twinkle provides a pro-forma edit summary and, insofar as this is a standard facility, this seems quite reasonable and adequate.  Editors wanting more discussion are naturally free to start one and commonly do so.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd support a ban if it ever came to one. It's clear that Andrew is abusing the system and wasting everyone's time by serially removing PRODs from articles that just end up getting deleted at AfD. Then instead of doing simple things multiple people have asked him to do, like leaving a changeset comment, he makes the excuse that the PROD removed because it was "controversial" when he's the only that had a problem with it and is the only one causing controversies in AfDs. Clearly, the "controversy" part of the PROD guideline doesn't apply to a single person who does mass dePRODs having an issue with everything. That's not a controversy. None of the articles I've seen that he has removed the PROD from and that have gone to AfD have ended up being controversial. He's obviously removing PRODs, and using the controversy clause to justify it, as a way to make things harder for other users. Which I would say is an abuse of the system. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I had a question. You said in Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion that you were removing the PRODs because I didn't alert the article creator. So, if I alert the article creator will you stop removing them? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that. To clarify, I shall respond further on the nature of controversy at that discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed from looking at your contribution history that at times you terminate proposed deletions on batches of articles - one of which I had nominated - Metabolic age. IMO, some of the others were also deletion-worthy. Why the bias toward retaining articles that other editors thought were not Wikipedia-worthy? David notMD (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am a prod patroller and so review WP:PRODSORT regularly. If I see a prod which seems inappropriate then I remove it, as this is the standard way of contesting them per WP:DEPROD.  In the case of metabolic age, I immediately found some coverage of Leo Varadkar's metabolic age.  The accuracy of this metric may well be debatable but that's not an adequate reason for peremptory deletion without discussion.  The prod process is only for "uncontroversial deletion". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bangs
Hello! Your submission of Bangs at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CeeGee 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)



A tag has been placed on File:Fred and Betsy Bang 1980 hi-res.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI - Source metadata states "Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported." -  F ASTILY   03:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Bangs at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Tudor Rose, Southall
This is more or less on your doorstep, isn't it? Have you got any more sources to expand the article? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with some other old cinemas in the borough but not this one. I'll look out for sources but nothing occurs to me currently. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

86
Stop WP:HOUNDING my AfD noms, especially by listing them at ARS. This is starting to constitute WP:HARASSMENT. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's nothing personal as I peruse all the topics which flow through the AfD and ProD processes. This one caught my eye because I'm curious about maths and numbers and I suppose that you are too, so this is a shared interest.  I nominated it for rescue as I observed that there was good scope for improvement, as I have demonstrated myself, spending over an hour on the topic, making an extensive revision.  I also liked the implicit irony – that we should be discussing the cancelling of a topic about cancellation.
 * Your other recent nominations such as List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" and Predictions of the end of Wikipedia are of less interest to me and so I have not commented on them. It's just a simple matter of statistics – the more you nominate, the more you will attract attention from a variety of editors.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've come here first, because this is the latest case. Whether it's you personally, or one of the other ARS regulars, I'm caring less and less at this point.  I've nominated 8 articles at AFD since I started logging them a month ago.  Four (that's 50%) have amazingly shown up at ARS.  Other nominations have been stalked, even if not explicitly listed there.  Considering the overall rate of listing of noms at ARS, that's extremely fishy.  No, I can't hold you personally responsible for all of them, but as a group (mainly along with  and ), this is reaching harassment level.
 * And before any of you bring it up, no, my hands aren't the cleanest in the world either, but this has got to stop. The next step is probably ArbCom, and that's probably going to end badly for everyone.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If your nominations are attracting such attention then it's probably due to a lack of WP:BEFORE, just as an editor who creates lots of poor articles will find them being frequently nominated by members of the New Page Patrol. I doubt that Arbcom would be interested in this but let's consult one of them as I noticed  commenting just now in the discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

OED
You've completely outdone yourself with this edit. Are you completely unaware of what the OED is? Or how to write a decent edit summary? Or why you shouldn't remove authoritative and reliable sources? Drmies (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary; I have full access which I use often – more than once a day. In this case, I was making a general cleanup and rewrite of the article.  I naturally looked at all the existing sources and discarded those which seemed weak.  I checked the OED, making more than one search, and found that it didn't have an entry for 86; for example, this search returns "No dictionary entries found for ‘86’".  The citation to which Drmies refers contained no page number or URL and so it seemed too weak to use.  Another factor is that the article was nominated for deletion as a DICDEF and so my priority was to focus on non-dictionary sources.  I found several of these and so improved the article significantly in my view. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, I see that a similar citation has been edited in again:
 * version 1
 * version 2
 * Now I look at this detail more closely, the issue becomes clear. My searches of the OED used "86" while they have it as "eighty-six".  Now that I see the entry, I shall add the URL to the citation to assist readers wishing to verify it, as I did.  There is still an issue with this citation though.  The title is given as "eighty-six, n." when the quoted text – "to eject or debar (a person) from premises; to reject or abandon" – comes from the derivative entry of "eighty-six  v. transitive" – the verb not the noun.  The title should be changed or, better, the quote should be changed to the main entry for the noun: "In restaurants and bars, an expression indicating that the supply of an item is exhausted, or that a customer is not to be served; also, a customer to be refused service. Also transferred." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Revisiting the topic, I see that others have moved the OED detail from the lead into the body. As its distinction between the noun and verbal usages was still not given, I have expanded the entry to make this clearer. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Outcome
The result of the AfD was Keep. The matter was reported in Wired. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Calamba Medical Center
Regarding this comment, of course I read the nomination, and I explicitly said there that I considered alternatives to deletion and that a redirect was my preferred outcome of the DRV. Please remember AGF. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The purpose of DRV is to consider the close, which is what I did. If the closer now holds a different view and said so elsewhere then this further confirms that the close was invalid.  The discussion in question has now closed and the close has been reverted.  Good faith doesn't come into it; it's mainly a procedural issue.  See WP:AAGF. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD for deaths due to COVID-19 and related RfC
Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Balloon Ball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_(game) I added the references to Balloon Ball Game I hope that’s ok for you guys? Demons24 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No, your link isn't working. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to help is all Demons24 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My impression is that your contribution would be more acceptable at WikiHow. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dyna-Mite and TNT
The character Dan the Dyna-Mite is prodded (who I think maybe has potential). Just wondering if you feel the same? Jhenderson 7 7 7  12:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Golden Age is before my time but even deletionists will appreciate superheroes with names like TNT. They seem to be well-covered in reference works such as The American Superhero: Encyclopedia of Caped Crusaders in History and so deletion would certainly be controversial.  Good catch.  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Chandos Hoskyns and the 1st Cavalry Division
G'day Andrew, you would do well to drop the gratuitous snark on the AfD page, a reaction presumably caused by your deep feelings about the fact that I advanced the idea that a LTCOL who briefly commanded a battalion in combat in WWII doesn't warrant a Wikipedia page. You seriously need to get a grip. Afds are not a personal attack on you, they are winnowing process to ensure that everyone who has an article is truly notable. I accept the community decision, and do not take the article's retention as a personal affront, just as you shouldn't take an AfD of an article you think is notable as a personal affront and lash out at editors who nominate them by denigrating their work. Such comments could be interpreted as a personal attack, and could result in editor retention problems among less experienced editors. The general you refer to doesn't actually have an article, which is why he is in red. He is presumptively notable per the WP:SOLDIER essay because he was a general and commanded a division in combat (however briefly), which is why he is in red. There is almost certainly a detailed entry on him in a biographical dictionary about generals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia I have used for other biographies, but when I get to him it may turn out that significant coverage in multiple reliable sources does not exist, in which case I will remove the redlink. I sincerely hope that our future interactions will not be so aggravating for you, but any repeat of this behaviour towards me will result in a report at a drama board for personal attacks and behaviour not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Peacemaker67 seems to be talking about this AfD which followed this deprod. My intention was to winnow out these over-zealous nominations and, insofar as the outcome was Keep, it vindicates my position. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Gun serial number
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Boyan Slat


The article Boyan Slat has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not notable independently of The Ocean Cleanup. Journalistic coverage of him personally is sparse and not sustained."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FalconK (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boyan Slat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Boyan Slat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FalconK (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Partnership Council
Thanks, good move. --Carrasco (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. By keeping the title short and simple, I hope we can avoid an argument about which country name goes first! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And because Partnership Council is the official name; EU-UK Partnership Council is a non-official by which it will be mostly be referred. --Carrasco (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Demolition vehicle
Hi Andrew, I hope all is well. Can you find any sourcing for Demolition vehicle? It seems like a notable concept but I'm finding incredibly little indication that the term has ever been widely used to mean what its defined as here. I thought you might have better luck. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A vehicle used for demolition? That sounds quite specialised but I'll take a look.  More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Membership renewal of Wiki Project Med Foundation


You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2022.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01

DYK nomination of Leslie Landau
Hello! Your submission of Leslie Landau at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Navy Cross
I am disappointed to see that you have DePRODDED multiple pages of non-notable Navy Cross winners. You have seen the discussions at AFD and you know how they will all end, redirects to ships if a ship was named for them or delete. So why are you dePRODing them? Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Tell it to the Marines". These articles are typically about Navy Cross winners who have had warships named after them.  As recipients of a "significant award or honor", they are therefore notable per WP:ANYBIO.  And, in any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion.  The articles have existed for many years and have been edited by numerous experienced editors familiar with our processes.  These nominations therefore lack consensus and common sense.  The WP:PROD process says that it's only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".  Why is Mztourist PRODing these articles, in violation of these clear instructions? Andrew🐉(talk) 07:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As you know, the fact that articles have existed for years is irrelevant. I PRODed numerous pages where the subject was the recipient of one Navy Cross and often had a minor ship named after them usually in WWII, expecting no opposition. If they're dePRODed they're all being put through AFD and many experienced Users are voting for redirects to ships or deletion. None of the arguments you have raised at any of the AFDs has been accepted, so you're just drawing out the process, but so be it. I will put any page that you dePROD up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "I will put any page that you dePROD up for deletion." Really?? I am reminded of WP:STALK ? ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Lar No Stalking, just a simple statement of intention. I PRODed multiple pages, user:Andrew Davidson dePRODed them and so I (or others) will proceed to AFD all of them which is what is occurring. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle edit summaries
It is not strictly obligatory to state why you are dePRODing an article, but it is polite to do so (at a minimum in the edit summary) and helps to narrow down what the objection actually was. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My edit summary was similar in structure to Brigade Piron's:


 * "Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD."
 * "Removed Proposed deletion/dated tag: per WP:DEPROD"


 * Such summaries do not seem impolite but if BP wants more they should make representations to the developers of Twinkle, which generated them.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My rationale was explained in some detail in the nomination. You are obviously welcome to dePROD articles, but it would helpful if you explained what your rationale was, either on the edit summary or, ideally, the talk page. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:REVTALK advises us to "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content...". The rationale of the nomination is not a discussion and the DEPROD process requires that it be removed, along with the rest of the template.  The onus of starting a discussion is on the nominator per WP:BRD and this is typically done by AfD, as BP has done and where I have responded. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:REVTALK concerns content disputes which we do not have and is therefore entirely irrelevant. WP:FIES provides "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it." (bolding in the original). If you are going to do drive-by dePRODing on an article which you have never edited before, as I have said before, it would be helpful if you could explain why you think it is misplaced. Again, not obligatory but certainly constructive. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a content dispute here. In any case, whatever you call it, it is apparent that BP has a lot to say about it.  The essential point of WP:REVTALK is that such discussions should not appear in edit summaries.  Edit summaries should succinctly explain the nature of the edit.  In this case, I said that I'm removing a tag per the linked process.  If I were to say more, it would be to emphasise the procedural point that the tag should not be restored.  If I were to say yet more, it would be complain that the tag was not appropriate as it is only for uncontroversial cases.  And so on, because I have plenty to say too.  The more that is put into the edit summary, the more chance that this will encourage the other party to respond in kind and this is what WP:REVTALK is discouraging.  Edit summaries are intended for uninvolved editors such as recent changes patrollers.  They don't want or need lots of TLDR argumentation, just a succinct summary of what's being done to the page. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm thrilled you are taking so much notice of my comments. Please do take the hint. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sandy Munro


A tag has been placed on Sandy Munro, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Relishcolouredhat (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've declined this but it's pretty vulnerable to AfD in the current state. Suggest adding any further sources you have to hand. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sandy Munro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sandy Munro until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Relishcolouredhat (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

""You're causing me a lot of administrative trouble...""

- Colonel Pollock

Proposed deletion of Eudo Mason


The article Eudo Mason has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Jealousy in art
I saw your ping on the AfD. I don't think a single case is enough to get sanctioned, plus having called the topic ban once three years ago, it really should be another admin doing it this time if it is appropriate. I agree with 's point that the article is not in a particularly good shape and some editors may find it confusing to know how to proceed with improving it; however, I notice that Star M has had a go and might be able to do something with it as well. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The key point in this case is that TPH nominated a respectable, long-standing article for deletion stating that there was "Not a single source in sight". The article at that time plainly had a References section containing multiple citations.  So, this was a blatant error or falsehood.


 * Now TPH has a long history of making such errors and false claims. Their most recent topic ban appeal in 2019 was closed stating "the community seems unlikely to offer another chance after this".  So, this is not a single case – it's incorrigible recidivism.


 * As there have been numerous threads about TPH at AN and ANI, it has proved difficult to trace the history of this ban, which didn't seem to be recorded in some central place. For the record, here are some of the threads which I looked through.  They have been organised chronologically, to save time when the matter arises again.


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 2012 understanding
 * 2018 topic ban
 * 2018 topic ban query
 * 2018 topic ban appeal
 * 2019 uncivil remark
 * 2019 topic ban appeal

Sorry, missed the ping. TPH has a long and complicated history and the behavior is likely not going to change. I don't think ANI is going to get a consensus but would support a limit on his AfD activity. Related, I think, WP:BEFORE needs revisiting in conjunction with the conversation around broadening the scope of AfD to include mergers. While I know you lean more inclusionist than I do, Andrew, I think you'd agree that there is some old content that needs addressing in some form so that it's accessible to readers. Whether it's clean up, which I think we all agree this article sorely needed, or getting the article to where it makes sense, there's a lot to be done with pre 2010 articles that largely have not been maintained. Happy to join a broader conversation. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">StarM</b> 15:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd taken a look, but don't fancy taking it on frankly - really there should be much more to say on literature than the visual arts. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I ultimately think the content is going to be split, but anything beyond "get it to the point where the AfD should close as keep" isn't something I can tackle immediately either.      <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">StarM</b> 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In the last 2019 thread, where the sanction on starting XfDs was lifted, I note that basically said "okay, but this is your last chance". In the specific instance of Jealousy in Art, I note TPH used a stock Twinkle "nominated for deletion" edit summary, and I don't see anything other than very mild snark in the nomination statement, which corrects one of the issues mentioned in that thread about using sneaky edit summaries and curmudgeonly nomination statements. I appreciate what "this is your last chance" means; however, without more concrete examples of TPH making poor and / or incivil XfDs, I don't think an ANI request is necessarily going to succeed. Going back over the past year, the only XfDs I can obviously question are this, this and this. If there's enough consensus that "yes, this really was your last chance" is appropriate, then we may be able to revisit this at ANI. However, TPH is not generally a jerk and does back down from saying things like "why don't you ****ing add the ****ing sources to the ****ing article instead of just making a ****-poor keep !vote?", so he's not the sort of character you can take to ANI and sit back as they hang themselves. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, note that the AfD has been closed by the nominator as withdrawn. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK – pending noms
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A ray of sunshine for you!
For the wisdom that you bring to AfD discussions! Special thanks for the kind words in the William W. Johnstone AfD and for closing that one. You're becoming one of my favorite people on Wikipedia! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Strange Eden
I have relisted this AfD for another week, but I want to make two comments:
 * 1) If you want to cement an argument to keep an article at AfD, it is better to improve the article (as other editors have done) than to simply argue about it.
 * 2) This comment is out of line. I know you don't have the same views on notability as, but that doesn't give you the right to call him a dick. Indeed, the page you linked to says "Telling someone "don't be a jerk" is generally wrong – especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, my preferred method of making a quick improvement to an article is to add a picture as that's worth a thousand words. So, for example, for the recent case of Min of the Desert, I was pleased to find and add a good picture to that article.  While doing so, it was interesting to notice that the ship's namesake has a rather prominent attribute (right).


 * The article in question already had a good picture but I find that there's another relevant topic which was missing a picture and so have made amends there. Strange fruit for a strange Eden!


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Min (ship) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Min (ship) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenopsia
Hey,. Before properly sending it off to AfD (I've already performed WP:BEFORE, per my PROD endorsement) I just wanted to make sure that you're contesting the PROD on the article kenopsia and that this wasn't a mistaken removal. I only ask because it's not in your edit summary.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

European multilateral defence procurement
Hi Andrew. I note you removed the PROD tag. I'm not here to challenge that, recognising you are as entitled to remove as I was to add it. I don't believe the article remain. Before I decide next steps I wanted to get your thoughts on the reason(s) for keeping it if you were willing to discuss. Best, Mark83 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a bold move, I give you that. You obviously have the opposite view and I therefore apologise for being hasty; WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions and I misjudged that. But I don't appreciate your interpretation that I was declaring ownership over the article and would appreciate if you could reflect on that and perhaps rethink that element of your approach here. Back to the overall point, if you feel the article can/should be saved I look forward to that. Mark83 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:OWN, article development is a multilateral activity, not unilateral or bilateral. What's remarkable in this case is that, even though the page was created in 2004 and the topic is quite notable, the article does not yet have a talk page.  Let's get that started so that further discussion is in the right place. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst respectfully disagreeing, I get why your quoting WP:IMPERFECT. But why WP:OWN? Mark83 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just realised the above is not clear. I agree with WP:IMPERFECT, I just believe in this case the edit history of the article proves that it isn't going to be improved sufficiently and maintained. Let's see though. Mark83 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) WP:OWN states that "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. ... Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." So, when Mark83 felt that the article was imperfect, they should have started with a discussion on the article talk page rather than unilaterally proposing deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Winston Churchill as painter
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 4,161 views

Burmese martyrs
Greetings...you have a very good understanding of Wiki policies and have also voted at AfD for Mya Thwe Thwe Khine. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion at Death of Kyal Sin, a high profile martyr of Myanmar,, ,. Thank you so much 🙏 Taung Tan (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I already removed a proposed deletion tag which had been improperly placed on Kyal Sin and so will continue to watch developments and comment as needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Mya Thwe Thwe Khine.jpg, which you've attributed to Taken from Facebook assuming w/o given permission, Person is dead. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The image already has a FUR. This notification is erroneous. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Everything will be ok.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Another erroneous notification. The one above has now been reverted by Dylsss so perhaps they can review and check this one too, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to repeatedly remove PROD Templates (especially from Burmese-related Articles I marked for WP:PROD) without explaining why and without notifying the one who tagged it. Per WP:DEPROD you absolutely don't need to explain but you are encouraged to do so and to inform the one who inserted the PROD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The PRODs were both placed and removed using Twinkle which generates similar edit summaries in each case. The placements were all invalid as the process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".  Heroic martyrs tend to inspire opposition and so it should be expected.  Andrew🐉(talk) 11:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Win Maw Oo.jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.myanmarheadlines.com/from-the-archive-why-the-past-cant-be-put-to-rest/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The image already has a FUR. This notification is also erroneous. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you are of course free to do whatever you want with your talk page but IMHO it would make a better impression to give other editors an explanation instead of just removing their questions like you did with mine this morning. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Another erroneous message. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Everything will be ok

 * Kyal Sin – picture ✅
 * Mya Thwe Thwe Khine – picture ✅
 * Win Maw Oo – picture ✅
 * Ye Baw Ko Htwe – picture ✅

None of these articles or pictures have been deleted. Everything is ok.

Kachin Wunpong

 * General Gun Maw ✅
 * Laiza Golf Club ✅

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laiza Golf Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Laiza Golf Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

General Gun Maw seems to be keeping quiet while CommanderWaterford has been silenced. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Kristoffer Domeij
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 36,697 views = 3,058 per hour. Did you know that in the Top hooks of 2021, he has only been beaten by the Mercy dog. What a team! Andrew🐉(talk) 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Kristoffer Domeij.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fujiwara no Yoshiko
Hi Andrew Davidson, I am confused by the DAB page Fujiwara no Yoshiko. None of the entries on this page mention 'Yoshiko'. Should it redirect to Fujiwara instead? Leschnei (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Such court ladies were known by more than one name and the page lists some of the possibilities for this one. See the sources for further details. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NNP
Saw your comments recently on WP:NOTNEWS. I have similar concerns and have created a new redirect WP:NNP to try to start to address this. More comments at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not.

Orphaned non-free image File:Eureka Sept 2011.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Eureka Sept 2011.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Theodore Cohen (chemist)
— Maile (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 2,611 views. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Heat transfer
I am writing to explain an apparently long-standing issue taken regarding your tendency to deprod articles without offering a reason for doing so, and not notifying the individual of this.

I was checking WP:Chemistry earlier today when I thought to look at two articles I had PRODed to see if I should consider AfDing them. Reason being is I was unsure if I had been to overzealous as I put them up a day or two after I started engaging in the deletion process. I happened to see that they were deprodded. There was no explanation a link to WP:DEPROD, nor was there any notice on my talk page, nor was there any notice on the talk pages for the deprodded articles. I have since put up both for AfD as I did a deeper dive and found them to fail to meet criteria. You may see them here if you so wish. WP:Articles for deletion/George B. Walden and WP:Articles for deletion/Charles_E._Wicks. To be clear, I do not have an issue with them being deprodded; I was going to look at them to make sure I was sound in my early reasoning. What I do take issue with, is not being notified about this or being offered any reasoning; simply linking to deprod is not a reasoning as it is circular. I thought this might be an oversite (it happens) at first, but that does not seem to be the case. As this seems to apply to a larger pattern I was compelled to speak out on behalf of anyone who might feel frustrated by your curt editing manner.

When I came to your talk page I noticed that there's a decent number of individuals complaining that you deprod pages without explaining, and not always tagging the individual or explaining on the talk page. When you do respond it comes across as cold and lacking in social curtesy. Of course, as you know this is allowed PROD rules. Yet on the other hand, this seems to be going against the spirit of the rules since deprod says it is strongly encouraged to explain. This is why I remark that giving WP:DEPROD is not useful; it is necessarily circular. It amounts to "my reason is I don't have to give a reason, even though it tells me to give a reason, that is my reason". In a vacuum, this comes across as flippant and curt, but this isn't a vacuum. Have you not considered how this comes across to others, even when told as such?

All in all, deprodding without reason, without writing in its talk page, and not noting others is either lazy, unhelpful, or both. This rather goes against the spirit of helping curate a better wikipedia for everyone to operate on. The bare minimum that could be done is a quick note saying why you disagree with the prod, and informing the individual that you have done this action so they can follow up on it. I find it frustrating (and particularly unfair to new folks who may still be learning) that, despite numerous complaints on your talk page you seemed to have not changed or adapted your behavior much at all, except for offering a very short amount of feedback after someone complains. This selective lack of human-directed conscientiousness is damaging to work and editspaces on wikipedia. You say you want to keep articles alive and save information from deletion. Yet, your lack of informing or explaining sends the signal that this endeavor is at best careless at best or with ulterior motives at worst.

I kindly ask that going forward you please offer reasonings for deprodding an article. Even just a simple sentence other than circularly citing wp:deprod. This would limit complaints about this, would offer your impression in being a prod patroller in a much more positive and helpful light, and would ultimately make wikipedia a bit more pleasant to volunteer on.

Thanks, -- Tautomers (T C) 02:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have responded in detail at the two AfDs. The prod process was not appropriate for either of these subjects as it is only for uncontroversial deletion and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".  Note also that, while explaining deprods is explicitly "not required", the process states that "The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion" and this was not done in these instances.  See WP:POT and The Mote and the Beam. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, my interpretation is that you simply don't care, and you're not going to take into consideration what I am saying at all and basically pulling a rules lawyering to fit your personal agenda of generally being against deletion. I wanted to assume good faith here, but considering you have not digested what I said seemingly at all, have displayed very little conscientiousness and left a petty remark on the walden AfD I put up (which I will respond to later), I am now seeing this as bad faith behavior and agenda pushing. This isn't good.


 * You're allowed to act as you want, as we all are. However, I will say this: I find your deprodding style rather duplicitous and an underhanded method to keep things from deletion processes through obscuration. You're free to keep deprodding as you wish. Just the same, I am free to leave deprod notices on the pages of users whom were deprodded, as I did yesterday for 8 users you've deprodded in the last month and failed to inform. Several of them thanked me for doing so as they failed to notice and now the articles are up for the AfD process. I will continue to do so on your behalf since you have a disinterest in doing so. I also found this to be very little work in the grand scheme of things, and ultimately improves the editing process by not letting things slip through the cracks of proper process.
 * Edit: For the record, I did leave a note on the wicks page maker, because when I looked at the edit history it appeared the article creator began using a different account. The second one I simply forgot because as I said, I was new to doing this and was explicitly checking back on it to make sure I had done things correctly. The fact that this is all you focused on is unbecoming and demonstrative of what I stated above.


 * Carry on. -- Tautomers (T C) 00:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For the record, WP:Articles for deletion/Charles_E._Wicks has now been closed as Keep. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
For your comments at the ANI thread. Your comment that "Lugnuts has been editing in good faith in accordance with long-established guidelines" was particularly heart-warming. Take care.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. "Play up! play up! and play the game!" Andrew🐉(talk) 20:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Chinook Display Team DYK
Template:Did you know nominations/British logistics in the Falklands War as a QPQ That is my contribution to the impending DYK. Somebody needs to get rid of the "CN". Cheers. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Spring time
An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America1000 10:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's after noon here now. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC) "April Fools is past and done You're the fool and I am none!"


 * Still 1 April on UTC time! I win ! North America1000 11:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's certainly better timing than Voltswagen which had me fooled but was several days early. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that made it into the news cycle here in the U.S. The prank may have actually increased their stock price, which has drawn the attention of regulators here. North America1000 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Chinese whispers
We have some philosophical disagreements, of course. But we're not all philosophical disagreements, and I've gotten myself in a situation you've had some quite strong opinions on. What are your thoughts here? <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Having read your user page, I'm not seeing any philosophical disagreements so perhaps I'm missing something. But "Vaticidal prophet" seems to mean a prophet that murders another prophet and sounds like you are eager to be disagreeable so please explain.
 * As for the Chinese scholar, I have put him on my watchlist along with other related topics and so shall watch developments.
 * This distraction delayed me in rushing to the baker but luckily I arrived in time to get the last five hot cross buns. Happy Easter!
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy Easter to you too! I'm always a bit out of sync for holidays. We've had some disagreements at AfD that were recent enough I was worried they may stick in your memory. I quite like that you recognized the word in my username; it's not exactly common language. It's not a matter of seeking disagreement, but rather a matter of seeking and accepting contradiction. Vates itself is a many-fragmented term, "poet/prophet", and allegiance with both it and with its reflection is appealing to me on a creative/poetic level. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 10:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Adelita&#39;s Misfortune by Shonda Bottke.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adelita&, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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. Thank you. <span style="background:-webkit-radial-gradient(red,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Dylsss(talk contribs) 20:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Birthdays
Hi Andrew, following on from our previous discussion on my talk page, I wondered if you could possibly take a look here please and perhaps comment. There is an Arbitration enforcement request on there regarding me, essentially because I've been using "primary sources" for BLPs (UK MPs). See: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Thanks.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I shall follow the proceedings and comment as appropriate. For that general class of topics, I recommend getting access to a copy of Dods Parliamentary Companion. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll behave in future, I just find this policy overly restrictive. I've heard about Dods, but I don't know if they include DOBs? I found a library with The Times Guide to the HoC. Still some complete dates missing though. That library has some older editions of Dods.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Introduced species of the British Isles
I see that you added Cotoneaster to Introduced species of the British Isles. My understanding was that although largely introduced, species such as Cotoneaster cambricus were accepted as native, at least by Stace. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Cotoneaster cambricus seems quite exceptional in this regard and barely exists now as our article indicates that "only six plants known in the wild, which are not regenerating naturally". I shall add a citation for the more common varieties. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Mary Ball in the news
FYI: ;. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall reply at the article's talk page. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Norwegian identity card
To answer "WP:A7 is obviously inapplicable and it's not clear why it was not just declined." - it was, twice. I was hoping an AfD would give either force the IP to discuss their issues, or give them rope to hang themself with. Either way, as I said, I had no issue with a speedy close. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mr. Dick
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hated to revert you
But the stuff you restored to Lepanto (poem) is a mixture of unsourced assertions and speculation by an obscure critic rewritten as in Wikipedia's voice. We need solid reputable sources for content like that. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful as ever
Re 'Zoom face'...You always say what I want to say! You realise better than perhaps anyone, the strange modern state of scholarship and our weird, impossible, encyclopedic project. Keep up the amazing work :) No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Radical reform of DYK
Your edit here indicates that you are deliberately violating the rules of WP:VPI. This behavior is disruptive, and if it continues you may face sanctions. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Or not. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The full discussion is now at Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_36. I seem to have gotten the last word. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This incident came up at rfA where it was interesting to learn that Sdkb does not stand for the Six degrees of Kevin Bacon as I thought. The puzzle has not yet been solved... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #2
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter



Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:


 * Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
 * The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Russian-Ukrainian cyberwarfare
Good day Andrew Davidson! You deleted the tag "Proposed deletion" without any reasons and explanations and I see that you are an experienced user of Wikipedia, so you should know that this is against the rules. So please explain your position and unreasonable actions. The article I taged despite all the links doesn't give any evidences but just theories. There are accusation also political but no evidences. In this case this article is against the Wikipedia rules.--Sputnik13 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The prod process is terminated when the prod is removed. We now have further discussion at:


 * Articles for deletion/Russian-Ukrainian cyberwarfare
 * Articles for deletion/Russo-Ukrainian War (2nd nomination)

I have commented there. Sputnik13 should please not make nominations of such controversial topics – see WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, both articles were kept at AfD. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Mrs Hinch
The statement you provided at the requests for clarification and amendment page have been hatted as irrelevant to the merits of the request. Please ensure that any further comments you make in the amendment request are focused on the request by Ritchie333. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Here the evidence in question, for my personal record.

I've not had much to do with this matter but happen to notice a fresh example which indicates that the root cause issue here is overzealous tagging by Praxidicae. The topic in question is Mrs Hinch – a famous cleaner, influencer and successful author. The recent timeline is:
 * Article moved from draft to mainspace
 * Praxidicae moves article back to draft space
 * Article moved back to mainspace after further cleanup, which continued
 * Praxidicae tags the article as G11 (spam)
 * The G11 is declined by Pawnkingthree as "not purely promotional"
 * The article is sent to AfD by another editor
 * The outcome seemed clear and the discussion was acrimonious so I snow closed it as Keep

The editors who tried to delete this seemed quite out of step with the general consensus and so it is they that should pull their horns in. The use of G11 seemed quite excessive and such tagging will naturally generate some pushback.

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Clarkson's Farm
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 21,300 views on the day (24 hours) and 309,974 in 30 days. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ingenuity - courtesy question
Hi - do you mind if I remove the "possibilities" from the redirect for ingenuity? I don't see any prospect of it becoming anything other than a content fork for creativity. It really isn't a topic in the literature in its own right, just a synonym for personal creativity. It doesn't even merit an index entry in the Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, or an entry in the Encyclopedia of Creativity, which are two of the most authoritative key texts.OsFish (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would mind. Note that while OsFish seems to have never created an article, I have created hundreds.  I therefore have more experience of such creative possibilities. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ahem. I was just hoping to keep the encyclopedia safe from content forks in a topic area I know reasonably well, given that this is an encyclopedia based on reliable sourcing. You may not be aware that creativity is an established interdisciplinary research field. Do you have a policy-based reason for your position? WP:BLAR says that there have to be reasonable grounds for notability before encouraging people to think of creating an article. Of the many academic books on creativity I have on the shelf behind me that have expansive indices, precisely none have entries on something called "ingenuity". (In the AfD just ended, all the (sparse) material provided indicated that when used, it was used as a synonym for personal creativity.) OsFish (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It appears that OsFish has some special and narrow interest in the topic of creativity but their source search indicates that creativity and ingenuity are different topics. Myself, I consulted the OED which does not use the word "creativity" at all in its extensive entry for ingenuity.  As for WP:BLAR, it's OsFish's recent AfD which is responsible for the blanking.  We now have a fresh start... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No, the sources that use ingenuity use it as a synonym for personal creativity. It is not considered a separate concept. I think it's a shame that you're unable to be civil, and a shame that you think knowing things disqualifies someone from having opinions on encyclopedic content. Good day.OsFish (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No, they are not synonyms. For example, consider the device which may have sparked interest in this: Ingenuity (helicopter).  The name Creativity would not have been a plausible alternative for this because the connotations would have been different. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point - it still has other uses. I've moved the disambiguation page to Ingenuity OsFish (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * So, we start to see the possibilities, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas J. Bray
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

1,895 views.

DYK for Alexander K. Tyree
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

8,507 view for 12 hours theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Urine deflector
Thanks for my random "huh!" moment of the week. Now I know what all those weird corner-filling protrusions are for! ;) MeegsC (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. If you see some more then do please take photographs as there seems to be quite a variety of design solutions and we haven't got them all yet.  And there's lots of opportunity:– at the Wikimeet on Sunday, I spotted some football fans in the bushes of Lincoln's Inn Fields but didn't think to take a picture... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

33,023 views in 12 hours


 * Urine deflector was a particularly interesting addition addition to Wikipedia. Thanks for writing the article. 68.239.27.30 (talk)

Allow me to also add my thanks for your wonderful article. I'd seen these devices before, but had just assumed they were useless bits of architectural flair. How wrong I was! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * CurryTime7-24 and 68.239.27.30 are welcome. Such feedback is most appreciated as it's especially good to hear from our readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Memphis Pyramid
Just saw your comment on that AfD page about the Memphis pyramid and wanted to point out that I was trawling its page with a friend very recently, it's an insanely fascinating topic. According to her the current Bass Pro Shop ownership of it has been mythologized into being over a fishing contest, when in reality it exists as a sort of odd architectural wonder that's traded hands a dizzying number of times. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bass Pro Shop is obviously a front for the Illuminati. Even the Queen of England is involved! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Jewish architecture
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jewish architecture. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 04:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Kilbrogan House
Hiya. In this AfD discussion/exchange you suggested that there are plenty of sources to help expand the article, including some mentioning an "attack by British soldiery". Could you share those sources please? (I cannot find them, and we would ideally use them to expand the text beyond "is a house / with steps and plaster / and tenants / and is now a B&B"). Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic is not a high priority but I shall revisit it to refresh my memory and follow up. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's alright. I think I found what you were talking about. And have made a corresponding update. Personally I'd still question whether these sources support notability (as the house is only mentioned in relation to other more significant events; And then only to confirm that some windows and furniture were broken; when other parts of Bandon were laid waste). But at least the sources support an expansion of the text - allowing us to say more than just "house / steps / occupiers / B&B / not B&B". Guliolopez (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Cornelia Chase Brant
<B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have replied there. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Cornelia Chase Brant at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! <B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 02:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have updated the article and shall reply further at the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

<B> Naruto love hinata 5</B> (talk · contributions) 01:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

How to spell siliceous earth?
Hello Andrew, you wrote in the AfD debate for Neuburg siliceous earth that Industrial Inorganic Chemistry (2008) has it as "silcaeous earth". What do you think the spelling should be, ideally? I'd also like to invite you to participate in writing Draft:Siliceous earth into a publishable article. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The spelling siliceous is fine. I'm too busy to assist with your draft currently but will put it on my watch list. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this make sense. Why people are using AfD is a weapon?


 * Military topics naturally enourage battleground behaviour. So it goes ... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Invitational education
Since you don't mind revealing your real name, you can post on their Facebook page and ask what media coverage they got.  D r e a m Focus  17:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I already listed 10 good sources but the nay-sayers aren't interested because they know it all already. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Nociplastic Pain
Hello Andrew Davidson, I have sent an email through your user page with regards to the article you cited on the Nociplastic pain page. Please do check it, I look forward hearing from you. Thank you! Hubretr (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't have the information you seek. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Asher Quinn for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Asher Quinn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Asher Quinn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Skyerise (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Monash coal mine
Hi Andrew Davidson, do you mind explaining why you de-proded Monash coal mine? Your edit summary only stated "per WP:DEPROD" but when I read WP:DEPROD it states "You are encouraged, but not required" to carry out a number of steps but you have done none of them so your reason for de-proding remain a bit of a mystery to me. Regards, Calistemon (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a prod patroller. The article states that this is "one of the largest coal reserves in the world" and so seems notable.  Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, the article has only one (archived) reference, which is of a statement by the mining company itself (see WP:PSTS on how to treat those), and this reference does not back up the statement of "one of the largest coal reserves in the world" at all, no such claim is made. Apparat from this unreferenced statement, the very article title misleads, as the research I did finds no evidence that such a mine actually exists. I wouldn't go as far as saying this article is a hoax, but it certainly is just another mining project that never got off the ground, something very common in Australia. If you see merit in keeping the article but, to me, it certainly lacks all notability and its claims are very dubious and unreferenced. Your call. Calistemon (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not take articles like that at face value. Not a good choice. cheers JarrahTree 02:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

List of international common standards
Thank you for your comment in support of keeping the List of international common standards. I agree that “common” in the title is unnecessary, as there isn’t an equivalent, I’d certainly move the list if hopefully it is kept. RW Marloe (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Max Hastings
Seeing your edit you may wish to comment on the discussion at Is Max Hastings a historian?  ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I already read the discussion. Per GBS, "those who can, do". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Majestrix Lilandra
Hi Andrew, hope you are well. Just thought I'd clarify something with you since you mentioned before that you are a PROD patroller? I just removed a PROD by another editor at Lilandra Neramani. So, I am not actually obliged to provide a reason to remove a PROD? Haleth (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The prod reason was just a WP:VAGUEWAVE of two words whereas your edit summary was more lengthy. In any case, the WP:PROD process does not require discussion because the nominations are supposed to be uncontroversial and should not be done if opposition is expected.  If discussion is needed then a different process is used.  Per WP:BRD, the onus is on the first mover to start any further discussion.  So, in summary, you're doing fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular, , and for closing the most difficult conversations and for  for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
 * 1) Revision of standard question 1 to Special thanks to  for help with implementation.
 * 2) A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
 * 3) Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to and  for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
 * 1) An option for people to run for temporary adminship ( proposal, discussion, & close )
 * 2) An optional election process ( proposal & discussion and close review & re-close )

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth
I'm looking for access to Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion to expand Cwmhiraeth—did you pay for the volume? How did you get access? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy. IIRC, there isn't much about the place in that volume but, if you want to check, I suggest that you try  as it's from the Yale University Press. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. I'll ask, though, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

TLC has taken it to DYK and so it's on the main page today. Here's the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

5,630 views in 24 hours.
 * I have no recollection of this ping (though I'm getting to that age ...). I can easily get Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion if there's still something you need from it. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I was mostly looking for something to help get to a 5x expansion for DYK – since i got there, I'm all right. Thank you for asking, though, quite nice of you :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, and ping to theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's the thought that counts so I still get credit, right? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for clarification
You asked me to clarify my objection. Here where you characterize an MfD as an attack by a specific user is what I consider to be a violation of the topic ban. Not only are you commenting on a deletion discussion you are doing it in a disruptive way. To be clear your topic ban applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including your talk page.

I am not concerned about you archiving discussions, but changes or additions to discussions about deletion can be a violation. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:SaddleBrown">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 22:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for following up. The best way forward is then to keep it simple.  The section in question seems to have quietened down now so I have archived it so that it does not generate more fuss.
 * That's reduced the talk page by 40K but there's more to do. If there's any other such case, I'll ask for further clarification, as needed.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WiG Editathon
Thanks for finishing Arizmendi. If I ever finish the nationality law article, you will be able to see the impact of what those policies inflicted on women - no nationality had many impacts. Women were denied access to maternity facilities and other government services, risked having their families separated, were branded as enemy aliens, couldn't vote, couldn't travel, etc. Their illegitimate children were denied education, and generational statelessness increased exponentially. It is a dirty little secret that is still happening and it was women who brought visibility to the issue of statelessness, which is now dismissed as mostly a refugee problem, (though it isn't). Most people don't even know that it happened and as part of the legacy of colonization, it helped spread racism, sexism, and inequality globally. Don't forget to list your name on the reviewer's list. SusunW (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'll look out for your article about nationality law as a family member has an issue of that sort and that bureaucracy is now certainly very stifling.
 * I have added the article to the reviewed list. It's good to find that the event's bureaucratic rules are flexible and understanding: "GA reviewers must begin their reviews during the period of 1–31 October, but may take additional time to complete those reviews up until 30 November."  And so we're good. :)
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks. I was eyeing the brownies at the Horsenden Loaf this morning but bought some cinnamon rolls instead.  Now I have both!  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Enjoy! Kaybeesquared (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Phoenix (wargaming magazine)
You were the lone keep voter in Articles for deletion/Phoenix (wargaming magazine), which has been moved to draft space, and you indicated that you would look at that time to see if you had sources - if you find any more, that may help push it back into article space. :) BOZ (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have some copies of the magazine but sources are more difficult. I have some ideas but will act when I find and revisit the sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages
You beat me to it. I own it. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (P.S. Your volumes are in the wrong order) Philafrenzy (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether you count down or count up is just a matter of convention – see reverse chronology. But the counting that really matters is the number of pageviews and I see that you got 14,509.  That fully vindicates your hook – well done!
 * My point was that, having seen the carping thread at WP:ERRORS, I thought it best to do something productive rather than add to the noise. And this addressed the need to balance Oxford with the Cambridge equivalent.  That was not the hypothetically ideal one-volume work either but I suppose that, if it's taken to DYK, we'll need a different hook. The fact that it was really a French work might do but it's unlikely to pull in the crowds.  For that, I'm now focussed on Veronica Volkersz who may do as well as Tammie Jo Shults who, with about 40K views, was my best DYK score.  Illustrated works are best, eh?
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am sure you will appreciate it when I point out that they are in the wrong order whether you count up or down, tho they are now so blurred one can hardly tell.
 * Great images on Volkersz that should help. One can always find some sort of good hook, even on translated French histories. That set seems to be common and crop-up a lot in charity shops. There is a common book club edition too. Perhaps it didn't sell or was poorly reviewed. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are in the correct reverse order. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that we can't use the picture here to illustrate these important details :). The thing that bothered me was that the publisher's name appears in a different position on the spine of the second volume.  Is your copy like that too? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My second volume is Cambridge while the other two are Guild Press (BCA I think). The sizing is the same so they make a good set. I am of the opinion that for relatively low sales books, BCA etc simply changed the imprint but the sizes etc are always the same, but for high sellers like popular novels they print their own copies in a slightly smaller, and cheaper, edition. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Harold George Jerrard for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold George Jerrard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Harold George Jerrard until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I could tell you more about this topic and why I started it but am forbidden to speak here. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that I don't understand how can you be "forbidden to speak" as your aren't banned or anything. I nominated the article just because I thought it was really poor even for a stub, with that being the only reason. It would be great if all this stuff can be discussed at afd page. Artem.G (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You apparently are unaware of the topic bans inflicted on Andrew. Unless I am wrong, of course.
 * I thought they were ill advised, but they exist. It is a Socratic conundrum and outcome.
 * And typifies what is wrong with Wikipedia. The thought police are about.  So you get to say what you want and delete away without an opposing view.  Muting and binding those who offer an opposing view.  How (in)convenient.  (Which no doubt will be cited later about me.  There is no pleasing some folks; so I won't indulge in a fool's errand.)  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that there is such a thing as "topic ban"... Sometimes I'm not even sure that I want to know what policies and procedures exist. Artem.G (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Topic ban. WP:ANI sanctions. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Don't want to go to this rabbit hole, but the list of what "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to" resembles some Soviet-era policies of what you shouldn't think of. Curious whether it really works as intended here. Artem.G (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Rabbit hole and Briar patch. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The outcome was a unanimous Keep – even the nominator, too. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As they navy pilots say, "We cheated death again." <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 00:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK Nomination for Play-by-mail game
Hello. I'd be happy to get your relook on the DYK nomination for play-by-mail game when you have time. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PBM had a leisurely pace because each turn required two mailings. Multi-tasking was therefore common and I approach Wikipedia in the same way.  Am also busy in the real world but will try to get back to you on Sunday.  More anon... Andrew🐉(talk) 00:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it and there is certainly no rush. At your convenience. Airborne84 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tackling this one Andrew, Airborne84 has done a lot of good work in a niche area - practically built or rebuilt nearly all of our PBM areas by himself. :) BOZ (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When you get a chance, I've provided an updated hook and a couple of images for your consideration at the DYK nomination for play-by-mail game. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

When you get a chance, I've provided an updated hook and a couple of images for your consideration at the DYK nomination for play-by-mail game. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't forgotten you as the pages are on my watchlist but haven't gotten around to going through my archives again yet. If you ready for another round, I'll review what you've added and see if that provides fresh inspiration for me to chip in too.  More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please do give it a look when you can. The images I added may be worthwhile or may, as you said, provide some inspiration. Greatly appreciate your assistance. Airborne84 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew Davidson I have the feeling that you are very busy IRL. I certainly understand. I'll ask around on DYK to see if someone else can complete the review there. I hope this is acceptable. Thank you for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been quite busy for me in various ways. Doing justice to the PBM topic seemed to require a good block of time and I've not had that lately.  So, do please press on if you're keen to get closure on that nomination.  I'll keep an eye on developments and chip in as and when I have both time and material to add. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, I did some work on Empyrean Challenge. It's not enough expansion to put it into DYK, unfortunately, but I realized that it will likely get visibility when the play-by-mail game article comes up, so I thought it merited some work. I know you used to play it so thought you might be interested. Airborne84 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

London meetup
This has been marked as cancelled as I was the only confirmed attendee. Anyone can revert me if they still wish to go. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning but I'll probably be staying home to keep an eye on the coverage of the F1 final. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Birds Aren't Real
Nice addition here! It reminds me of, its hard work getting the truth out there!--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 14:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the Orvillecopter. I still have plans for that but perhaps we should save them for the 10 year anniversary next year.  This reminds me of the cat organ, which I did do some work on back in the day.   See also I Taut I Taw a Puddy-Tat and the remarkable fact that "Tony Blair had the sheet music for this song upon his piano during the war against Iraq."  There must be something going on but what does it mean ...? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. emcee47 did the writing while I just did the graphics.  Teamwork! Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Should be the teamwork barnstar for you both Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Les 1001 BD qu'il faut avoir lues dans sa vie
Would you happen to have access to this? If you can provide me with the pages discussing this or other comics, ideally OCRed, I can use them as a source to expand the articles on these comics. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Philip Jones
Hi, I'm Whiteguru. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Philip Jones (producer), and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whiteguru (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You have not explained why you have done these things. I have started a talk page for this topic.  Please explain your actions there so that other people interested in this topic may see them. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Whiteguru And here's a ping. I'm trying the new beta reply tool but find that it doesn't seem to ping automatically.  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Andrew The beta reply tool seems to be effective. The article does not have enough references. One reference only? --Whiteguru (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Elspeth Green
first off, that name fucking rules. Elspeth Green. just—fantastic. Anyways, when I was in high school, I had a math teacher named Mrs. P—I was a freshman, and I was talking to a bunch of juniors about her class. They told me that the year before, they were in Mrs. P's precalc class when all of a sudden, she got a severe allergy attack—to which she promptly stabbed herself with an EpiPen and continued teaching like nothing had happened. Anyways, your hook reminded me of that story—here's to strong women, persevering under fire. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Assistant Section Leader E. Henderson, MM by Laura Knight.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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. Thank you. --Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK PAGE ) 18:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

First Missouri Brigade
Thanks for creating this page! I'd written articles for most of the component units, but had never gotten around to actually writing the main article itself. Hog Farm Talk 06:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I browsed some sources while looking at the artillery battery and the brigade seemed to be a glaring omission. It's puzzling that you'd start articles about the books but not their subject. But I too usually have far more ideas for topics than time to write them. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when I wrote the unit articles (stuff like 5th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)) in the summer of 2020 after getting laid off due to COVID, I kept meaning to get around to writing about the brigade, but wound up thankfully becoming reemployed and just never had the time. IIRC, the two book articles were written during a COVID quarantine when I had access to JSTOR and EBSCO journals but not many print books. Hog Farm Talk 14:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Veronica Volkersz
Hello! Your submission of Veronica Volkersz at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

File:XKCD StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:XKCD StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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. Thank you. --Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK PAGE ) 17:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Angelique Coetzee
An article you recently created, Angelique Coetzee, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  scope_creep Talk  20:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Angelique Coetzee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Angelique Coetzee, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Angelique_Coetzee Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cabrils&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Angelique_Coetzee reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi I submitted this article for review. I didn't want to leave it without somebody reviewing it. I thought she might have been notable.    scope_creep Talk  00:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Adminship
You should honestly be applied for adminship. You have greatly participated on wikipedia and fully deserve the role. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's kind of you to say so. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you like to be nominated? Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm open to offers but you don't seem to have participated at RfA yet and so are unlikely to be taken seriously as a nominator. Festina lente...  Andrew🐉(talk) 20:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Mentoring – Thank you
Your mentoring tips will be useful.

Today is my wikibirthday : 4years! I will try this new thing this evening, Andrew, and certainly would prefer a mentor I knew-ish - had 5 informal guides inc. your good self over the years giving me support....still have gr8 need!

Kaybeesquared (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday! Mine was just two days ago as I created this account on 15 Feb 2006.  See the birthday problem for details.  We can talk further about the mentoring setup after you've taken a look at the new home page. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - also for the suggestion given at Emcee47/Talk. I am not in a good place to 'practice mentoring or actually mentee-ing' this week, though I would be glad to help you try the tool out before too long goes by.
 * Kaybeesquared (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Lucy&#39;s Law.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lucy&, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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. Thank you. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Margaret MacLean (civil servant)
Hello Andrew, I moved the article to draft space so it could be incubated. The only source in the current version is an obituary written by the brother and a friend of the subject. Since it's not independent, it does not contribute to establish the needed notability. I was unable to find any reliable sources in news or books to meet WP:GNG and justify inclusion. If you can find any, please add them to the article or let me know, either here or at the deletion discussion. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: Margaret MacLean, civil servant who helped establish National Museum of Scotland

Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese dama
Andrew Davidson, the nominator has responded to your comments; please return to the review as soon as possible to let them know whether anything more needs to be done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're ever looking for a project
No one ever said that you couldn't be involved in undeletions. :) User:BOZ/Games deletions is my massive list, but I did break it up somewhat into sections. Find some good sources and we can bring things back! BOZ (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

First division
Howdy ! I made an enquiry at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, to see if anyone had access to a book that is held in the British Library, St. Pancras (as well as the IWM and the Grenadier Guards library) and was referred to yourself. Do you still frequent the library and if so, would you be up for a little collaboration?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your query lacks a signature which stops the new reply tool from working. The UK's main administrative unit is the regiment and so divisions are not as significant as they are in larger armies. As for the issue of identity, it's a matter of definition. Per Heraclitus, "You cannot step twice into the same river" (δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης). As for the book, I'll keep an eye out but won't be making a special trip as I already have a long to-do list. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So sorry, I did not catch that I had not put my signature on there. I thank you for the response and totally understand.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for West Pier Public Convenience
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 4,397 views

Happy April 1
<div style="transform: rotate(-25deg);">

<div style="transform: rotate(+25deg);">

Check it!

Agnata Frances Ramsay by Ida Baumann.jpg
Hello I would like to export this file File:Agnata Frances Ramsay by Ida Baumann.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. Since the artist passed away more than 70 years ago, is there a reason as to why it is not public domain? Best regards, --Charc2018 (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I forget the exact details as I first loaded this over five years ago. I have updated the image licence as you suggest.  If you wish to copy it to Commons or elsewhere, that's fine but please note that there's a keep local tag to protect and retain the version here. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for this. I have added it to Commons and did not touch your upload so it should stay local too. Charc2018 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Following your example, I have started an English language article for Ida Baumann too. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Edgelord
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Edgelord and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification but I am forbidden to discuss the matter. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)



A tag has been placed on Edgelord, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations 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. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note, for the record, that the tag was declined. One might say more but I am forbidden to discuss this.  Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW not my finest moment of snap judgement, but the outcome was what mattered, right? Sorry to have caused momentary pain! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Duct tape and Wrist braces were such a brilliant idea. You are in jail.  Sigh  Makes one wonder about the direction of Wikipedia.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Me too. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

List of fictional deities (2nd nomination)
An AFD you participated in is now restarted by the same nominator as last time. All past participates are being contacted.Articles for deletion/List of fictional deities (2nd nomination)  D r e a m Focus  16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "...Ultimate Chaos, at whose centre sprawls the blind idiot god Azathoth, Lord of All Things, encircled by his flopping horde of mindless and amorphous dancers, and lulled by the thin monotonous piping of a daemoniac flute held in nameless paws."

DYK Tuva Hansen
Hi Andrew! I just translated another article from Norwegian (Tuva Hansen) and nominated it for did you know. Do you mind just having a look to see that I have done stuff right now that I have done everything by myself? Rogalendingen (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The nomination looks fine to me. I ran the DYK check tool which is useful to count the size and it reports "Prose size (text only): 2451 characters (434 words)" which is adequate.  The hook is good too so it's a shame we don't have a picture of her or her dog.
 * Myself, I've been looking at another footballer but haven't found much more about her. With your expertise in such topics, perhaps you can help?
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I have tried to contact Tuva Hansen to get a picture of her, and also her dog, but she hasn’t answered yet.
 * It looks like a few other editors have updated that article and that it isn’t up for deletion anymore. So far, I have only either written new articles or updated stubs, so I would have been more than happy if I got an article to that length. So, I don’t think I have much to contribute in this case.
 * I must say though, that the discussion about deletion seems weird. If that article had been deleted, we should have gone through this category and deleted some of those as well, based on the same reasoning.
 * Rogalendingen (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Maria Olsvik
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reviews!
Dear Andrew Davidson, I thank you sincerely for your kind reviews on all of my article creations. Those are quite rare on this project. I thank you very much for showing me that kindness! Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC).


 * You're very welcome. I took a look at all your creations which are still unreviewed.  There were quite a few of these going back to February.  Most of them seemed fine and so I have marked them as reviewed.  There are still five remaining such as Deepak Sharma (writer) which I wasn't sure about.  I helped out where I could, for example, adding an image for Deepak Sharma and linking to the equivalent Hindi article.  But my command of that language is weak and so I'm not able to look at the best sources to do more.
 * When creating such articles, I recommend adding an image where we have one as a picture is worth a thousand words. And looking at the usage of the picture may help in locating other associated articles in this or other language Wikipedias.
 * Keep up the good work.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 18:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Commodity dependence
Hi! I paraphrased this article that you flagged with Close Paraphrasing entirely, and mostly manually. I removed the template because I thought it looked adequate. Do you think it's ready now to be reviewed or should I make any changes? Thanks! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Maria Tudor1 crop.jpg


The file File:Maria Tudor1 crop.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Superseded by higher quality crop."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 08:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is much I could say about this mystery but I am forbidden to discuss the proposal. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Edit wizard"
I appreciate the feedback on the edit wizard stuff. I write to note that I have a dim view of the phrase "worse than useless" when used for projects that others have spent significant effort working on. A more precise list of problems (which you provided) is a better way to communicate the sentiment. I've been around for long enough that I don't care, but not everyone is me, and I wouldn't want someone's introduction to how people express themselves around here to be those words. Have a good one. Enterprisey (talk!) 15:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * At NPP recently, I happened across the article praise sandwich. This concept is that criticism should be packaged in a sandwich of praise to soften the blow.  Some people don't think that this works – that the recipients may only take in the pleasant part and ignore the dark meat.  Or that they will feel insulted by the manipulative nature of the technique.  So, it appears that there isn't an easy way to deliver criticism without risk of upsetting the recipient.  See also egoless programming, which I started after being impressed by Weinberg's book. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delivering criticism with zero risk of upsetting the recipient is a fool's errand, but saying "this is worse than useless because X" clearly has a higher chance of doing so versus just "X". Enterprisey (talk!) 06:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Life expectancy
Thanks for uploading File:Life expectancy at birth by sex in US, 2000 to 2021.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This bot seems mistaken but as it has threatened deletion I am forbidden to discuss the matter. Instead, I shall work upon ED-209: "You have 5 seconds to comply!" Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Help with citations
Hi Andrew! I've created the page 2022 US-Afghan prisoner exchange but there seems to be a problem with some citations - I'd really appreciate you explaining the issue to me. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * When you're re-using a named citation then the names have to match. I fixed a couple where the problem was a spurious extra character in the name. .But the third name is "nytimes2020-11-212" and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding citation with that name or date. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks a lot! Quantum XYZ (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for The Queue
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Toasting fork for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Toasting fork is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Toasting fork until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Fram (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I am not welcome to contribute to the discussion. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 18:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Toasting fork
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

5,256 views.

DYK for Tickner Edwardes
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 2,573 views. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

□
I'm enjoying your barnstar gift while wearing my favourite clothes at home in my favourite country listening to John Cages's 4′33″ my favourite music. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Clem Rutter
Re, yes, I am a little familiar with the sad saga with Clem, although I haven't looked at the full detail and I suspect in his case it was on the basis of rather more than just a single short sentence which can only be written in one way. Either way, it's a great shame because Clem is/was an experienced, much-liked and prolific editor whom I also know from occasional visits to the pub on a Sunday (as indeed I also know you from a couple of such meetings). I very much hope that Clem will be back with us in the future, contributing in a way that doesn't fall foul of the copyright policies! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Clem still attends the London Wikimeets and I spoke with him about the matter at the last one. I also saw him on television the other day, so he gets about.  My view was well expressed by the judge in the case of Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., "The parties are advised to chill." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK December Editathon
Hello again ! It was great to meet you last week, and I hope that you enjoyed the session.

I just wanted to drop by and see if you had any questions after the event - do drop me a line if there's ever anything I can do to help.

The results of the evening's work can be seen here, and so far there have been over 19k pageviews of the articles we edited.

All the very best, and thanks again for taking part! Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Jarn Mound
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Strawberry pie
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 13,653 views

Help with St. James's Place article
Hello Andrew. I noticed you have edited the Lloyd's of London article and am hoping you might be willing to consider helping with St. James's Place plc article as well. I recently posted an edit request to improve the structure and content of the St. James's Place plc article. I would really appreciate your help with implementing these changes as my COI prevents me from making these kinds of edits directly. Thank you. WJack11 (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My edit of Lloyd's was just a link to an article I started about Ian Hay Davison. But I've actually made more edits of St James's Place so it's a small world.  Anyway, I've put St. James's Place plc on my watchlist and will give it some consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
 * A brief guide for administrators may be found at Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
 * Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
 * Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
 * Discuss this at: 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The substitute (right) seems implausible as "own work". The better image above originates from In the Interest of Justice. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition
266,751 pageviews to 1 Feb 2023.

Spectrum
You could add a reference about the spectrum of the comet, that was recently taken, showing its strong emission lines, see: Follow-up Observations of Comet C/2022 E3 If a spectrum should be shown on the Webpage follow the Link: CTK-II spectrum in the R-band IP editor 16:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a spectrum earlier so your suggestion is timely, thanks. It shows strong lines of nitrenium, diatomic carbon and neutral oxygen (O I) which is interesting.  I'll consider using it... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're very welcome. FYI, I took that picture when the Boris bus was new and being exhibited locally.  I was interested in the moquette as I'd already done some work rescuing that article.  And I liked the design, which nicely abstracts the London skyline. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * For the record, I took several pictures and uploaded them but hijacked my contributions by moving them to Commons in their own name.  Tsk.  Here's a selection from 7 Jan 2012 for further action.  I am now more careful to always use Keep local. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering why you were adding a Keep local to old photos that are PD and I guess the reason is related to the comment above. If you miss being able to see files uploaded by you perhaps adding them to a category on Commons would help you? --MGA73 (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I rarely log in to Commons as I find it more convenient to work with files here. I have a familiar workflow for images now and am mostly content with it. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Great. If you ever want your files on Commons in a category I can add them with my bot. Just ping me or write on my talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing news 2023 #1
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:


 * 1) The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
 * 2) They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences. Please tell them what you think.



An A/B test for on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Caulfield railway station

 * Thanks for identifying the most hookworthy feature of the Caulfield railway station (which as it turned out had been insufficiently discussed in the article about the heritage-listed station until you worked it out). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It got 1,678 views which is not great but could have been worse. So it goes... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"List of terrorists" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorists&redirect=no List of terrorists] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not welcome to comment. Audi alteram partem. ... Not!. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Stanhope Demonstrator
Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 6,790 views.

Percy Kelly (artist)
Hallo Andrew, You started this article in 2018 and it looks as if perhaps you got distracted down another wiki rabbit-hole before finishing it - lots of references ready to be cited, but only one actually in use, and lots of categories not supported by the text, at the stage where you left it.

I came across him when working on Lakeland Book of the Year (see 2012), and had it on my watchlist, so noticed when someone recently changed his pronouns to "they", sanitised the vocabulary of the title of a source reference, and gave it a couple of maintenance tags. I've added some biog info from a couple of sources but there's obviously much more to be written about his art. I wonder if you'd like to pick it up and build on your work of five years ago? Pam D  08:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking an interest in the topic and providing an update but I have no particular plans to do more work on it myself. I have a long to-do list and my priority currently is completing the archiving of this very talk page as that's too long too.
 * While we're talking, did you attend the online meeting this week? I was thinking of joining but didn't get to it.  Were there any particular highlights, please? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I had a clash with a real life meeting on Weds, unfortunately. I might try and expand Percy's article: seems to have been an interesting character. Got distracted onto creating a County Durham civil parish with the intriguing name of Forest and Frith. Pam  D  12:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I come from County Durham, as it happens. But it's hard to keep up with the constant tinkering with these county names.  It's interesting to find that Cumberland will reappear next month and so Percy Kelly's heritage will be restored.  And I wonder if his name refers to the House of Percy?  I'm now tempted to do more with the article but the main frustration is that it really needs examples of his art but I'll have to find some appropriate examples which we can use as fair use. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello AndrewD and @PamD. I've taken the liberty of expanding the Percy Kelly article and submitted it for DYK (just in time for the 7-day deadline), crediting both of you. The article could use more work (complicated life), and I realise my "visual edits" drive PamD up the wall...but I think we could get it in shape over the next few days. (And of course, a representative image of his work would be wow.) In the meantime, if you have any hook ideas, please do suggest them here: Template:Did you know nominations/Percy Kelly (artist) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delighted to see the expansion: I specialise in creating a solid little well-sourced stub with full infrastructure of incoming redirects, surname page entry, etc and usually leave it to others to expand the text. Pam  D  09:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that 5x expansion was so feasible so thanks for picking it up and making the effort. I'll watch the nomination and help out as needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I recommend installing the DYKcheck tool available at: User:Shubinator/DYKcheck The DYKcheck tool clearly shows that PamD had already achieved 5x expansion of AndrewD's stub on the very first day (30 March 2023); at that point, it was just 18 characters short of qualifying for DYK. (Plus the Art section needed more content but that's separate.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cielquiparle @Andrew Davidson I don't usually get involved with DYK but I'm astonished at the idea that I had 5x expanded this article by 30 March. It has grown incrementally over the years. When Andrew finished his initial work in April 2018 it was 2482 bytes; when I first came across it and added a book in May 2020 it reached 3192; it was 3356 in June 2022 before some weird editing which I corrected and expanded from a little on 30 March 2023, leaving it at 5291, and it's now 11,424. But if that's how it works, then good luck! Pam  D  17:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @PamD Indeed, DYK is very particular and only counts "new" prose content! So the list of books added previously didn't count, nor did the sources. I think it speaks to both Andrew's careful crafting of stubs, as well as your expansion. (I would argue that PamD's "stubs" are quite sophisticated and that many of them are probably better characterised as "Start" class.) Cielquiparle (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 4,964 views on the day. Just 13,718 all time views since it was created in 2018.  Needs more incoming links...

Proposed deletion of Amur and Timur


The article Amur and Timur has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV; it is just one of many puff-pieces/feel-good stories that newspaper print to fill pages."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am forbidden to speak about your proposal. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Klaus Teuber

 * 156,044 views in April.

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Tabletop games
Hi there! I remember you saying that you have access to sources for older games. I've been building up User:BOZ/BTG reviews noticeboard a lot this year (and one for RPGs too) and removing entries when I start articles. For what types of games, from what period of time, etc, do you have the best sources available and would be best positioned to help out? For example, I believe you had been referring to Management (game), where you did indeed make some additions that helped save it from deletion. I have started, or restored, several 3M games recently including High-Bid, Image (board game), Mr. President (board game), Oh-Wah-Ree, Sleuth (game), and Stocks & Bonds. Most of the games on my list or that I've created through it are more recent than those, though, and many are British, French, or German. Let me know what you think, whether you can help out and if so where you would want to start. :) BOZ (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added your page to my watchlist and will chip in as I come across relevant material. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome, and thank you. :) BOZ (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Zambian Space Programme" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zambian_Space_Programme&redirect=no Zambian Space Programme] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Tollens (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I am not welcome to comment. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The result after relisting was keep.

ITN recognition for 2023 London Marathon

 * 90,297 views.

Priyanka Joshi
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Priyanka Joshi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Priyanka Joshi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Priyanka Joshi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Priyanka Joshi& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken as I am not welcome to contribute to the discussion. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 17:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I certainly meant no insult.  Twinkle left the message automatically; it had slipped my mind anyway that you were topic banned (if I knew at all; I don't recall if I did).  I considered leaving a note at the discussion on your behalf that you are unable to participate (and I could still do so), but I am uncertain that it would make the outcome that I presume that you desire more likely.  Otherwise, I guess that you are not prohibited from adding sources to the article while the discussion is ongoing, if there are sources that I have missed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * all time views 12,398 in June 2023 = average 4/day

Question regarding ITN
Hi! Could you please limit the pageview statistics to Comment !votes only? Support/Oppose votes are supposed to comment and discuss the quality of the article (or notability, if regarding blurb discussions), and just because an article is being viewed a lot doesn't make its quality up to par. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * !Votes are literally not votes and so the bold summary word is effectively a sub-title. For statistics, I commonly use Stats which seems quite clear.  Here's a fresh example. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Linda Lewis
112,871 views in May

ITN recognition for 2023 Emilia-Romagna floods

 * 99,906 views in May

"Wikipedia:PYRZQXGL" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PYRZQXGL&redirect=no Wikipedia:PYRZQXGL] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Q𝟤𝟪 07:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I am not welcome to comment on this and note that the redirect has been speedily kept. For the record, see On losing admins. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The result was Speedy Keep

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PYRZQXGL&redirect=no Wikipedia:PYRZQXGL] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What, again? The more you talk about it, the more use it gets.  The count is now up to 12. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Asia Abdelmajid
—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 10,593 views.

Regarding In the news credits
Hey, Andrew Davidson. I want to say thank you for the credit at In the news. While I am happy to be acknowledged, I do think that I need to speak up, so I apologize if this comes off as impolite. I don't think I have made enough contributions to the articles nominated to be listed in the credit. In one article, I added roughly 1.5 sentences and 3 sources in total while I never made any edits to the other. I believe that others have made edits that are significantly more notable than mine. (Specifically, these two edits alone did more for each article than what I did combined.) Thus, I believe that you should remove my name from the credits at ITN. Sorry for the trouble, Super Goku V (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If you think that others are more deserving then please feel free to amend the list accordingly. But note that such credits are just a courtesy and have no special value or consequence, so far as I know.  "It costs nothing to be polite", as Churchill once said. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. I thought I would get in trouble if I edited your nomination.  Thank you as well.  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Annual readership
Template:Annual readership has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. DFlhb (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The result was Keep again. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 ICC World Test Championship
The notification you gave out, did you also give it to others? It appears they only created the redirect. I'd say if that was true, others would merit a notification as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Paradise Chronicle's link doesn't work now because of another move of the article title.  was the first editor to work on this and so their user name was highlighted when I was checking the top read articles recently.


 * Looking at the editors who took this forward, we find that the editor who expanded the redirect into an article was aka .  They have been indefinitely blocked as has Lugnuts too.  So, getting this prominent article started has been rewarded with severe punishment.  Tsk!


 * So, I have, as you suggested, given Prashant Sahu some love too.


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Ellsberg



 * Thanks. It seems good to clarify and highlight the risks of nuclear war at this time. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 290,559 views in June

Reggie the Lion
In this edit, you wrote: "the source describes it as 'emasculation' ... Note that we have an article specifically about the rivalry which gets this right." I thought you might want to know that the relevant paragraph in that article blatantly copies that source word-for-word. See Copyright problems/2023 July 1.  M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The source was an archive snapshot so I've found the current version. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hi. I was going through the list of restrictions when I noticed your case, and I didn't see anywhere in the ani discussion where anybody had mentioned that the nominator had presented their case in a way that was essentially canvassing by pinging only editors siding with their side of the case. You should ask to have the decision overturned on this basis. The odds were stacked against you from the start because of the way nomination was presented by pinging all those who were already in favor of the nominators proposal. Huggums537 (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, please feel free to reference this section as evidence if need be. Huggums537 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what process you would follow, but maybe try discussing it with the closing admin or whoever imposed the topic ban. Huggums537 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a good point and it is quite perceptive of you to spot the way that this was done. I had supposed that there was canvassing but didn't realise that the evidence was there in plain sight.
 * I'm not sure of the next steps too but agree that approaching the closing admin might be best. I'll think it over...
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean you know it's a real big iffy kind of situation because the canvassing worked really well so the support was huge, and if you try to get it overturned because the canvassing was there and it worked so well in the first place, then you run the risk of having a boomerang effect where whoever you appeal to is not going to pay any attention at all to the canvasing, but expect you to respond to the impact it had anyway, and say the response they were looking for wasn't talking about what they did wrong, but what you did wrong. That's the hypocrisy of Wikipedia "collaboration". Huggums537 (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There should be a bot for that
Noticed you have been manually updating views for past DYKs. IMO, this should be automatically performed by a bot. Surely it wouldn't be difficult to implement moving forward. While DYK shouldn't be a competition for pageviews, overall, it would incentivise nominators to create better hooks. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The DYK project takes a healthy interest in the views that its articles get and so it makes sense to keep track of them. I have a page where I record my DYKs and have a backlog of updates to make which I'm doing as I slowly archive this talk page.
 * The notification templates seem to vary in format and so the data may be too dirty to make a bot easy. I just checked WP:DYKBOTS but don't see any new or existing tools which might help.  It would be nice if there was a systematic summary as there is for all article creations (Andrew, Warden)  Perhaps  has a twinkle in their eye and can advise?
 * While I have the current stats at my fingertips, here's my current list of gold records with over 1 million views. Note that it's hard now to establish the DYK views for the older ones so it's good to capture the stats while you can.


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, surely you know about Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders? Taking care of that automatically was my first programming project, first as a user script, then later as a bot. I really should advertise these things! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that and it's fine for what it is. But what I'm doing is compiling a personal DYK record which is similar but different. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theleekycauldron Could we have the bot follow up with stats for every DYK Talk page notification? It doesn't have to look as fancy as the notification for "most viewed hooks" – visually differentiate somehow. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I'd be worried about hurting people's feelings, – although I do think it's worth considering.  so, what is it exactly I can make for ya? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 15:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any great need myself but like Cielquiparle's idea of following up the bot templates by adding the views on the day after. To avoid personalising this and hurting feelings, I suggest that the article's talk page template be the main place for the update.  The DYK talk template has a views parameter specifically for this purpose.
 * For example, my most recent DYK was Asia Abdelmajid

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"In the future: all books will have an edit button"
That's funny. I'm currently re-editing my own books and hoping (tempus fugit) the first three, updated, will go 'live' next week with new covers and updated/more polished content. Books today have an edit button... :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Your comment was puzzling at first but then I worked out that you must have seen this as a motto on my user page. Please note that these are dynamic and so will vary on different viewings by different readers.
 * As for books, these used to be hand-written manuscripts rather than printed and so the text might evolve with each transcription. And then readers might make marginal notes.  Per Ecclesiastes 1:9, "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun."!
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 19:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Winston Churchill's pets
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winston Churchill's pets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Winston Churchill's pets until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken as I am not welcome to contribute to the discussion. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The result was keep.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

7,919 views.

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Rich Men North of Richmond
Thank you very much for the mention in the ITN nomination. I really appreciate it. All the best to you! Boscaswell  talk  10:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome. I checked the histories of the articles and you stood out as a significant contributor so thanks for making a difference. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The ITN nomination doesn't look like succeeding but that's normal as that section is quite dysfunctional and so nothing much gets done there. But it doesn't much matter because our readership pays little attention to it and just goes direct to the article(s) as a result of the news coverage.
 * To get a better credit, DYK is more productive and so I've nominated the articles for that section. See Template:Did you know nominations/Oliver Anthony.  I anticipate that there might be some issues there too, as the topic is high profile, but so it goes.  I'm a veteran of the process and will assist as needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks again, but I just wanted to say here that something which has come up on the Oliver Anthony talk page has just made me very sad about it all, and about the way that Wikipedia has gone. There’s an editor who has posted several times to the talk page who obviously doesn’t like either the subject of the article or the article at all, and under the heading "why is a promise to God and anonymous fan comment in this article?" has taken issue with something which another editor has taken up. That something being the quite clear and really rather wonderful sequence of events in which Anthony, struggling with alcohol and with his music career heading nowhere fast broke down and promised God that he would get sober if he helped him with his music career. 30 days later the YT channel radiowv rocked up, recorded the big song, Rich Men, uploaded it and ..kerpow! So now that sequence is being challenged as not notable, for reasons I can’t fathom, the clearly epiphanic occurrence is being denied, and it could well be completely neutered, with the praying part stuck in personal life. There really is no justice any more on Wikipedia, I have to say. It’s looking likely that that editor will have her way, if only because she appears to be absolutely determined to eliminate any mention of there being a connection, one way or another, and is simply refusing point blank to see it as being notable. I myself wrote the words of that part, so you can imagine… But thanks again, and I wish you all the very best in everything. You’re obviously a decent human being!  Boscaswell   talk  01:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

—Kusma (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

—Kusma (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

raw views = 13,077 + 10,477 = 23,554 in 12 hours

DYK adjusted stats

Image copyright problem with File:Ealing Eternal Flame.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Ealing Eternal Flame.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука13 18:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As I have an editing restriction which limits my ability to defend content from deletion, please could you assist in resolving this. Note that: Andrew🐉(talk) 22:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) This image seems similar to other memorial images such as those used in Great Western Railway War Memorial, which Harry brought to FA level
 * 2) JPxG has advised Iruka13 that "Many of your nominations at WP:FFD do not seem to be based on policies or guidelines."
 * 3) Iruka13 says that they "...have 2.5 bans for harassing users on 3 projects."


 * That's a very silly nomination. Reverted. Feel free to ping me for any more issues but even admins have to sleep so don't expect a response until tomorrow! ;) <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response. I would hope that this settles the matter but we shall see.  There's no great urgency as the use of the image is currently quite limited.  I must get some sleep now too... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the photo, which I agree is very clearly fine from a copyright perspective. It's now in use at List of public art in the London Borough of Ealing and List of Armenian genocide memorials. the wub "?!"  09:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't familiar with the first list but will look out for more opportunities to add to it now.  I just took the picture in passing and it's nice to see its details and usage fleshing out. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is quite concerning, yes. jp×g 16:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to editors who rescue articles from deletion. From the Article Rescue Squadron. Ikipedia2 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * supposed to be down below....Ikipedia2 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

StuckWithBadVersions
Hello, Andrew/Colonel. I was really hoping to contact you and others under different circumstances. Unfortunately, my plan fell through, frustrating me tremendously. I suppose for now the original problem cannot be fixed. But since you have editing history in some of these areas, I thought maybe you could take a look at the last eight edits of the account, and consider them only on the basis of actual content, which no one else has done. 103.177.34.188 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I looked at the edits but they are to a variety of pages and I'm not sufficiently familiar with them to follow your meaning. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess I will tell you a bit more. I don't know whether you will be sympathetic, and even if you are, you still might not want to get involved. But what has occurred seems almost as silly as it would be to restore vandalism just because of who reverted it.
 * This started at Bates method, which I saw that you made a few edits to years ago, as Colonel Warden. The first sentence now states summarily that the Bates method is ineffective. I am not sure whether there is a good source which states this unequivocally; even if there is, I think that is likely wrong to some extent (maybe only a small extent, not sure). There is a fair amount that could be explained, but for one reason or another was rejected. For example, there was a seemingly valid source which mentioned the Bates method and mentioned pseudomyopia, but didn't quite make an explicit connection between the two, therefore it was deemed original research and removed. All of this really frustrated me. I realized that a new source was needed, and I very nearly brought one about; to a large extent, it was fair and informative, but unfortunately part of it got screwed up and I couldn't get it fixed. I don't know whether this source actually would have been accepted here, but it would have at least reset the discussion.
 * I am not now seeking to change the Bates method article. I recently provided better explanations regarding some of the pages in question:
 * The reversions have nothing to do with actual content. The Mark Geragos editing history in particular really illustrates how absurd this is. But I suppose editors don't have time to check the sources, and may not be sufficiently familiar with U.S. politics to know that a pardon is very unlikely to have been requested on January 20, 2001.
 * Porter and Jick was of interest to me because that shows how things can go wrong in science and medicine. That letter is also mentioned in Opioid epidemic in the United States, where it is stated that a "rebuttal" to the letter was published in 2017. That characterization is grossly unfair, as there appears to have been nothing wrong with the letter itself.
 * Also, I never emailed the user who claimed I harassed him via email. 5.31.166.67 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, there's a variety of topics but I'm not seeing the particular point that you're making. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone (e.g. you or a talk page watcher reading this) could just take a look at the editing history of Mark Geragos and see how absurd all those reverts are, you might decide to look at some of the other pages also. Even if you stopped at Mark Geragos, that would at least be one problem fixed. 172.58.147.41 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My archiver
The one-click archiving tool that was recommended to me at DYK Talk was this one: User:Enterprisey/archiver. I have found it very easy to use, once I worked out how my Archive numbers (1, 2, 3) mapped to the Folder names I created (which happened to be 2021, 2022, 2023). Cielquiparle (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I already looked at your common.js page to identify this but it's good to have confirmation.  I previously tried a similar script but couldn't get it to work and the documentation seemed too sketchy.  I've now evolved a system of thematic archives which such scripts don't understand and so I'm now looking for a more general tool which will move a section from one page to another.
 * I also looked at Peanut, California so that's another hit for you. Well done!
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling it was that one, as I checked your talk page text and there were no bot archiving settings. I personally like the bot archiving as I never have to worry about it; however, I also like sugar puff sandwiches, so I wouldn't take my opinions as anything useful. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Convenient Discussions can move sections easily. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. That tool looks to be quite fully featured but my impression from recent discussions is that it then struggles to load large talk pages like mine.  I'll look at what's involved in trying it... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hans Albrecht Wedel
Hello, Andrew Davidson. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hans Albrecht Wedel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)



Hello, Andrew Davidson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hans Albrecht Wedel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Attention needed for ITN
Hey Andrew, I recently nominated 69th Filmfare Awards to ITN on | January 28, but there seems to be no one interested. Would you like to opine on it? Harvici ( talk ) 10:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That nomination has been archived and so is stale now. It's not my kind of topic and my view would mainly be that it should be removed from ITN/R.  But count your blessings - the article got many readers regardless and so I suppose that they didn't have trouble finding it.  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Piccadilly on the Vostok
The Queen's house led to me creating this fine fellow straight out of Nabakovian central casting. I really believe we only have 0.1% of potential articles already started! No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Fleetwood Lifeboat
Someone said thank you for once, instead of jumping in and re-editing the whole thing. You're welcome! Hope its OK. MartinOjsyork (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * And you're welcome too. I've noticed that you've been working on RNLI topics and that seems commendable as they are a notable and respectable volunteer institution.  Note that Wikipedia has a similar institution -- the Article Rescue Squadron.  But I've been patrolling such new articles for the New Page Patrol and their attitude is supposed to be helpful too.  The New Page Feed advises patrollers that   So, thanks again. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I set about to update all the the RNLI Station pages - which I did, bringing them all into some common format, but respecting what went before, and keeping formats where possible.
 * I now have this chap, who is systematically unpicking everything I've done., even going against his previous principles, just to make a change to something I've done. There is one page (Looe Lifeboat Station) where there is now no evidence that I've been there.
 * Common format on lifeboat pages is to use Unnamed for unnamed lifeboats. He's now putting (No Name) just because he can.
 * If you find anything done by xxxxxxxx....
 * MartinOjsyork (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I find that there's a task force for RNLI topics and have started some discussion there. Maybe that will help.  There's some others active there and I even see an RNLI contact.
 * More generally, Wikipedia can be difficult to navigate as there are many pedants and perils, as you're finding. For example, the phrase storm in a teacup comes to mind but I find that the article is called tempest in a teapot and the concept goes back thousands of years.  So, there's unresolved debate on that article's talk page about its title and so it goes.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew
 * Two things.
 * Firstly, I revised the railway reference on the Fleetwood page. Did that meet what you wanted.
 * Secondly, I'm going to delete name references above, because I should.
 * MartinOjsyork (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The update about the railway companies and service to Glasgow is quite interesting, thanks.
 * Pulling your horns in to help get along with the other RNLI editors is gentlemanly. Thanks for that too.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good, glad thats OK.
 * Your input on Unnamed or (No Name) would be appreciated.
 * MartinOjsyork (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Limpopo bus plunge
... for this dumb edit of mine. When I read that reply (hours ago), it had already looked like it was a response to your edit. I didn't understand the reply at all, and was even tempted to respond to it, but (in my misunderstanding of the situation) still felt neither comment nor reply should be removed. Further proof that REDACT makes sense. But there's no point in restoring those two comments, I agree. Sorry again (you probably got a ping for my undo). ---Sluzzelin talk  00:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I was also puzzled initially but figured it out, as you have done now too. Thanks for clarifying your action.  All’s well that ends well. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Donna Nook
Thanks for the review. You might like to check out Sutton, Chapel and Theddlethorpe too, all new. MartinOjsyork (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll take a look now. Thanks for your continuing efforts. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Bicycles on Stamps
Hi, thanks very much for reviewing Bicycles on stamps. If you get a chance, please also consider reviewing the following articles: M. C. Escher: Visions of Symmetry, Mass Media Stars and Acqua Fragile (album). Thanks GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. The Escher book looks fine but the album articles are not to my taste.  I'm not convinced that those topics are notable and album titles tend to take up valuable name space, generating confusion.  So, I'll leave those for another reviewer.  Thanks for the contributions. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Contentious topics
I suggest you read WP:CTOP if you want to know about how the contentious topics system works. But to answer your questions on WT:DYK, page level restrictions like 1RR only apply if an admin applies them to the specific page which has certain requirements including for a page notice. However Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict has restrictions namely WP:ARBECR and 1RR which apply throughout the topic area. And 1RR applies throughout the topic area of Contentious topics/The Troubles and Contentious topics/Genetically modified organisms. To be clear while page notices are required for page level restrictions (because otherwise there is no way for anyone to know they apply), the page notice is generally largely irrelevant otherwise. For example, an editor without EC should not be adding info on how random person A said something about the Gaza war to person's A page although person A could be a mostly apolitical actor who has never commented on anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict before and has no connection to Israel or any Arabic country or Palestine (so it is unlikely there is any need for a general notice on the talk page or at least there wasn't before they made the comment). It's also impossible for there to be a page notice if the editor is creating a page yet ARBECR covers how to handle cases when editors who aren't EC create a page covered by the CT. And even if there are no page level or topic level specific restrictions, editors still should take something being a contentious topic onboard if they're aware of it. For example any editor editing a BLP or anything relating to living persons anywhere who is aware of CT for BLPs should be aware that they're editing a contentious topic regardless of any page notice. They can be sanctioned regardless of any page notice under the CT system. Again to give a simple example, an editor who creates an attack page on a living non-binary American active politician, who is aware of any of the 3 contentious topics involved (BLP, post-1992 American politics, gender and sexuality) could easily be sanctioned under CT for it. (I mean they'll probably just be indeffed without bothering with the CT element but no one will bat an eyelid if it's CT and the editor is aware.) Editors who are aware of the restrictions are expected to use their judgment to decide if something is covered by the CT; the examples I gave were intentionally stuff which would clearly be covered by the CT and any editor aware of the CT should be cognisant of that. As for alerts, I've given quite a few CT alerts (and AC/DS ones before that) and I've never checked the presence of a page notice since it's irrelevant. If an editor is editing something covered by a CT, then CT applies. I'm fairly sure this applies to pretty much anyone who gives CT alerts. As to how to decide when to give one, it's going to depend on the editor and topic area but despite the alert being not intended as a warning per se, a lot of the time it likely is a sort of warning. In other words, the editor giving it has done so because they are concerned over edits they've seen. Still this isn't always the case. Especially for something like the Arab-Israeli conflict, given how problematic this area is I'd probably give it to anyone if I find out they're not aware of CT even if they are EC regardless of any concerns over their editing. Also speaking personally, even when an alert is sort of a warning I greatly prefer to give it when I actually agree with the editor. I'm not involved in enforcement, but the CT system does require editors are aware. This generally comes in the form of being given of the aforementioned alert. As I've said, when an editor is given an alert they're really supposed to read about it and understand how CT works i.e. that it applies for that topic regardless of any page notice. They then need to use their good judgment on whether something is covered by a CT. Some stuff like BLP which is what I mostly deal with is generally obvious. Some stuff like the Arab-Israeli conflict has a lot of grey areas. There are sometimes disputes at WP:A/R/E and the AN's over whether something is covered by some CT but again this doesn't generally relate to notices. If an editor is given an alert and has misunderstood CT and thinks there needs to be a page notice I think most admins will generally let them escape with a warning and explanation of how CT works. However a lot of time it won't come to this anyway since a lot of time sanction is only likely if an editor has not only been alerted but being warned their editing is a problem and it's an area covered by CT so they need to cut it out. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The RfC was snow-closed in just 3 hours but the seed has been planted and now there's a more elaborate RfC underway. And there's already an ANI thread about it.  This one will run and run... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time
<div style="border: 6px solid #2bbf08; background: #FFF; background-color:#FFFFFF; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> Hello :

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there! You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Dark (MCC cricketer)" and others listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_(MCC_cricketer)&redirect=no Dark (MCC cricketer)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

But, Mr. Rimmer, sir!
I'll admit, I've always thought the same! :D Acalamari 13:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've also supposed your name was a Star Wars reference and your user page confirms this. Unless it's a trap! Andrew🐉(talk) 18:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been expecting you:

Women in Red July 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in Education: June 2024
<span style="font-weight:bold; color:#00A7E2; font-size:2.9em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">This Month in Education

<span style="font-weight:bold; color:#00A7E2; font-size:1.4em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"> Volume 13 • Issue 6 • June 2024

<div style="border-top:1px solid #a2a9b1; border-bottom:1px solid #a2a9b1; padding:0.5em; font-size:larger; margin-bottom:0.2em">Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issue
 * From a Language Teacher to a Library Support Staff: The Wikimedia Effect
 * 5th WikiEducation 2024 Conference in Mexico
 * Lviv hosted a spring wikischool for Ukrainian high school students
 * First class of teachers graduated from Reading Wikipedia in the Classroom 2024
 * Empowering Digital Citizenship: Unlocking the Power of Open Knowledge with Participants of the LIFE Legacy
 * Wiki Movimento Brazil supports online and in-person courses and launches material to guide educators in using Wikimedia projects
 * Where to find images for free? Webinar for librarians answered many questions
 * Wikimedia MKD and University of Goce Delchev start a mutual collaboration

<div style="margin-top:10px; text-align: center; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony 06:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2024
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 02:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"Demolition Ranch" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demolition_Ranch&redirect=no Demolition Ranch] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. C F A  💬  18:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken as I am not welcome to comment on this. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * And the consequence was ... that we now have a substantial page about Demolition Ranch. This is what is meant by R with possibilities, "a title that potentially could be expanded into a new article..."

Tech News: 2024-29
<section begin="technews-2024-W29"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News survey
 * Please help us to improve Tech News by taking this short survey. The goal is to better meet the needs of the various types of people who read Tech News. The survey will be open for 3 more days. The survey is covered by this privacy statement. Some translations are available.

Recent changes
 * Octicons-tools.svg Wikimedia developers can now officially continue to use both Gerrit and GitLab, due to a June 24 decision by the Wikimedia Foundation to support software development on both platforms. Gerrit and GitLab are both code repositories used by developers to write, review, and deploy the software code that supports the MediaWiki software that the wiki projects are built on, as well as the tools used by editors to create and improve content. This decision will safeguard the productivity of our developers and prevent problems in code review from affecting our users. More details are available in the Migration status page.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation seeks applicants for the Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC). This group will bring technical contributors and Wikimedia Foundation together to co-define a more resilient, future-proof technological platform. Council members will evaluate and consult on the movement's product and technical activities, so that we develop multi-generational projects. We are looking for a range of technical contributors across the globe, from a variety of Wikimedia projects. Please apply here by August 10.
 * Editors with rollback user-rights who use the Wikipedia App for Android can use the new Edit Patrol features. These features include a new feed of Recent Changes, related links such as Undo and Rollback, and the ability to create and save a personal library of user talk messages to use while patrolling. If your wiki wants to make these features available to users who do not have rollback rights but have reached a certain edit threshold, you can contact the team. You can read more about this project on Diff blog.
 * Editors who have access to The Wikipedia Library can once again use non-open access content in SpringerLinks, after the Foundation contacted them to restore access. You can read more about this and 21 other community-submitted tasks that were completed last week.

Changes later this week
 * This week, dark mode will be available on a number of Wikipedias, both desktop and mobile, for logged-in and logged-out users. Interface admins and user script maintainers are encouraged to check gadgets and user scripts in the dark mode, to find any hard-coded colors and fix them. There are some recommendations for dark mode compatibility to help.

Future changes
 * Octicons-tools.svg Next week, functionaries, volunteers maintaining tools, and software development teams are invited to test the temporary accounts feature on testwiki. Temporary accounts is a feature that will help improve privacy on the wikis. No further temporary account deployments are scheduled yet. Please share your opinions and questions on the project talk page.
 * Editors who upload files cross-wiki, or teach other people how to do so, may wish to join a Wikimedia Commons discussion. The Commons community is discussing limiting who can upload files through the cross-wiki upload/Upload dialog feature to users auto-confirmed on Wikimedia Commons. This is due to the large amount of copyright violations uploaded this way. There is a short summary at Commons:Cross-wiki upload and discussion at Commons:Village Pump.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. You can also get other news from the Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin. <section end="technews-2024-W29"/>

MediaWiki message delivery 01:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Have merged forestry literature
Dunno if you are still watching the article so thought I would let you know. Feel free to undo. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 63, May – June 2024 <div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;"> Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One new partner
 * 1Lib1Ref
 * Spotlight: References check