User talk:Graham87/Archive 54

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship
Happy new year, in friendship! - Thank you for still being around! (just met another one who left ...) - The image is all bright, blue sky and massive snow on high trees. - One of my pics is on the Main page, DYK? - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

today's music in memory of JK - the large pic there shows a 1957 black&white iconic scene: Stockhausen lecturing at the Darmstädter Ferienkurse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop disrespecting Dentist.
Don't disrespect Dental surgeon by merely calling them medical professionals. Dentist are primary specialist of the jaw face and dentition. No other medical specialist or surgeon is legally or academically qualified to treat this anatomy of human body. Its my personal warning to Wikipedia and to you. Don't provoke us or dental community to take radical action against this site. I am not a lay person. Hemiplegiaxx (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I know you are administrator of this page. But blocking me will result in most serious consequences. Hemiplegiaxx (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Legal threat aspect of this has been brought up on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Floquenbeam, and thanks shibbolethink for your input and compromise wording at that page. We'll see what happens now. Graham 87 01:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to help —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't mess with dentists . EEng 02:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Archaeology challenge
Hi Graham, happy new year!

I happened across a curiosity - HomePage Vandalism. It doesn't exist, and is only linked to from an extremely old user talk archive. Think you can find out what happened?

Best wishes, —  Scott  •  talk  17:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Challenge accepted! :-) Well if you search for the page "Homepage Vandalism" in the Wikipedia namespace, you'll find references to The Cunctator/HomePage Vandalism, a userspace discussion. The original "Homepage Vandalism" page isn't in any of the deletion logs and it's not on the Nostalgia Wikipedia, so it must've been deleted (presumably by Larry) in the UseModWiki days. Graham 87 04:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha! I didn't think of actually searching page content for the title - good one. And indeed the second search hit is for one of the manual logs, Deletion log/December 2004 (1), which says it was deleted by Jnc. Nice.
 * That's actually led me to something else. Old deletion log, a truly OG document, seems to have at least one revision missing - where some vandalism in October 2005 (which I've just revdel'ed) was fixed. Any ideas? Cheers, —  Scott  •  talk  11:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah wow, the vandalism was completely fixed in this edit after this earlier edit. Since it was just juvenile vandalism that actually lasted for about three years, I've undone your revdel (hope you don't mind, but I'm very much opposed to rev-del's of simple vandalism like that). Your link additions are potentially very useful though. Graham 87 12:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah! That was a very restrained edit summary from someone. 😁 Yeah, hopefully linking those up will reveal a few interesting things! No problem about the revdel - out of interest, why do you think they have value in remaining public? Although I've long felt the opposite I'm open to being convinced. —  Scott  •  talk  12:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed re edit summary! Re revdel: I kinda take the tack of "Why does this need to be completely *inaccessible* to non-admins"? I was talking about this once with someone who pointed out that Roman graffiti is surprisingly useful these days to archaeologists. Graham 87 12:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My general feeling is that it makes sense for us to be seen to be actively preventing vandalism from being seen. I'm aware that this is basically the broken window theory, which isn't without valid criticism in the offline context where it originated, but this is a very different and more limited environment (and we're janitors, not police). The comparison to Roman graffiti's an interesting one... but I don't think it fully applies. Graffiti here doesn't provide a unique window on unrecorded aspects of a culture separated from us by a vast gulf of time, like bathhouse scribbles in Pompeii do. Also it's not completely inaccessible - in theory, revision-deleted "purely disruptive material" can be made available to any interested researcher at admin discretion. The policy doesn't explicitly provide for it, but nobody's going to drag you over the coals for revealing that a deleted revision was someone replacing the entire page text with "I like boobs". At least, I hope not, that kind of drama is very ten years ago. If a researcher turned up with the specific desire to see deleted vandalism, I'd be open for trying to get a policy discussion going about adding some nuance that addresses RD3 content being qualitatively different. —  Scott  •  talk  13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective, but I think we make vandalism invisible enough to the vast majority of people (who have no idea that article histories exist, let alone have the urge to randomly browse them). Making vandalism edits less accessible, except in the most extreme cases, does more harm than good in my opinion. And re the comparison with Roman graffiti: how do we know that Wikipedia edit histories and database dumps *won't* be one of the few things from our time to be preserved two thousand years from now? It's highly unlikely, of course, but stranger things have happened. I dunno; I think it's good to be transparent about these things whenever at all feasible.Graham 87 16:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't know that, I suppose - but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and also not wheel war with each other? Heh. But if you undo a revdel you saw me make I won't be bothered about it. —  Scott  •  talk  16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Something different again: Do you think the first 6 revisions of WhatIsaWiki, before Larry Sanger changed it to a redirect, should be history merged with What is a wiki? It looks like the latter was created with an early copy and paste move. I'd say yes. —  Scott  •  talk  14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm generally not a fan of history-merging when there are huge gaps in the history, as there were between the March 2001 version of WhatIsaWiki and the November 2001 version of "What is a Wiki" that was the earliest existing one before my operations on the page tonight. I went and imported edits from the August 2001 database dump, which made the gap in available revisions significantly smaller. I then history-merged the edits from WhatIsaWiki, before importing the ones from January 2001 from the August 2001 database dump. It seems that the page was used as an early sandbox. The process to do these sorts of imports is fiddly and error-prone, and in this case required the creation of several accounts for old hostnames, but at least it's all done now. Graham 87 16:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, our messages crossed in the post - I deleted my question before you answered because I decided those early revisions were too uninteresting to bother with - no actual content, just redirects. Cheers. —  Scott  •  talk  16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By the time you'd removed your message, all that was there was redirects, because I'd already done the history merge you'd been asking about. I just took a really long time to respond because of all the overhead with creating old accounts, etc. for the final import. Graham 87 16:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misread your comment and didn't clock that you'd worked on it after my message! Sterling work. No wonder that I was confused when I looked at the history again, I genuinely doubted my own brain for allegedly having seen something interesting earlier in the day. It's fun that the only edits to that page in recent time are from you doing history maintenance - now, in 2010, and in 2008!
 * In the interval I had spotted some stray revisions on some of the oldest page titles that were turned into redirects and subsequently deleted - WikiPediaAnnouncements, WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki, and PatentNonsense; and merged them into their current locations, Milestones, Why on Earth would I want to contribute to a wiki, and Patent nonsense. Can you find any more in the 2001 dump? —  Scott  •  talk  11:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into those in a little while. I wouldn't have merged them in myself (huge gaps and all that), but now that they're done, I may as well see what I can do. Graham 87 11:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All done. The only one with a *huge* gap after my imports was the first one. Just a tip: if you have trouble with the "Database error" message while undeleting, one or two refreshes of the undeletion screen will usually fix it these days. Graham 87 13:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That expedition also inspired this edit to Wikipedia records. Graham 87 18:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's great. I hadn't seen that page before, it's a good companion to Milowent's timeline. And I can use it to expand the list of lost project pages on my ancient things collection, which I'm adding to again. —  Scott  •  talk  11:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for follow-up on my edit + question about google books link
Thanks for fixing the lowercase and changing the link to .com instead of .co.il I also noticed that you changed my Google search keywords to a page number reference. Not sure why you did that, is there a reason that I should be aware in future edits? I checked your link and it seems to return different pages from what I had. Specifically, my link used to return page 174 in addition to page 175 that you linked to and that page contained some of the text I was summarizing in the article. When I try to follow either my old link or your new one now I only get pages 173 and 175. for page 174, I get the message: "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book".

Can we try to figure out how to create a reliable link that consistently returns the bottom half of page 174 and the top half of page 175? Thanks again. Annette Maon (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=S3h5N8eYuakC&dq=webber+argentina+bach+prelude&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie0YK_4LH1AhUX_bsIHfKlA0QQ6AF6BAgKEAI&q=webber%20argentina%20bach%20prelude&f=false

this link seems to work. Annette Maon (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

At least it does for me. Can you check if you can see page 174 as well? Annette Maon (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As my user page says I'm blind, so Google Books is almost completely inaccessible to me. At Prelude and Fugue in C major, BWV 846, I was just following what an old citation tool for Google Books used to do to these links. The current one does something similar. In general we prefer URL's to be as short and general as possible. My URL changes aren't mentioned here, but also see Google Books and Wikipedia. Graham 87 04:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I did not realize that you were blind before. I have edited the google books link to use the more inclusive page selection I figured out.

I am fascinated by your ability to overcome blindness and make such significant contributions to Wikipedia. As a sighted person, it is hard for me to imagine the obstacles you face, the way you use tools to overcome them and the difficulties that still restrict you even when you use these tools. I am more familiar with other disabilities like dyslexia, ADHD and Asperger and with how the coping mechanisms people develop to deal with them make them more productive in their own way than people who never have to overcome a disability. I do not wish to intrude or gawk but if there is anything I can do to help you bypass some obstacles, please let me know.

Dealing specifically with the link I posted above, I would like to learn how to make it and the google books text that it refers to accessible to you. I need your help in figuring out how to do that because I do not know enough about the tools you use and the adjustments I need to make. I took a screenshot of the bottom of page 174 and converted it into the following text: "A double reworking of the past is found in “Don't Cry for Me, Argentina” in Evita. Its verse structure and accompaniment not only is based on the Prelude in C major, the first of J. S. Bach's “48,” but also owes part of its melodic approach to the Gounod adaptation (as a setting of the Ave Maria) through the superimposition of a sustained melody line over Bach's broken chords. Unlike Gounod's version, Lloyd Webber uses only the first six bars of the Bach chord sequence, completing them as a fifteen-bar unit (another unusual section length, as with the Mendelssohn adaptation). The melodic"

Can you read it now? Is there some way I can help you access that same text in the original google books link? Annette Maon (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the kind words and the transcription of the text (which I can read fine) Google Books has been almost completely inaccessible to screen reader users for many years and that's unlikely to change unless publishers make their text accessible (which isn't likely to happen because of piracy fears)). There's unfortunately nothing you can do as an editor to fix this problem. It is possible to get text from Google search excerpts, and often that's good enough for me. Graham 87  11:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. I am glad you can read the transcription. I am not surprised that you had trouble with Google Books accessibility because I also had trouble selecting the text.  I had to take a screenshot, upload it to Google drive and import it into Google Docs before I got text that I could paste here.  I am not sure how much of that process you can replicate on your own, but I would love to collaborate with someone like you who is proficient in using the tools that overcome your limitations.  Now that you know what the text is supposed to be, would that make it easier for you to figure out how to access the original?  When you follow the link, can you "see" the reference to page 174 and somehow copy its bottom third to an OCR tool that makes it accessible to you?  Annette Maon (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think there'd be any way to grab the page image for me to OCR it. If I really need a bit of text I always find a way to get to it eventually. Graham 87 12:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just used the Windows Print Screen button to grab the OCR. I did use a visual clip rectangle to select the relevant paragraph before I performed the image to text conversion. I assume that without seeing the page you could not perform that clipping operation, which is why I took care to specify that the text is in the bottom third of the page.  Do you have tools that allow you to identify and select a page from a screen image (without seeing it) and then clip only the bottom third?

Even if you don't, just knowing what is and is not available to you helps me learn how to make my references more accessible. I really appreciate your feedback. Annette Maon (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't ... or at least I don't know how to do that. Graham 87 13:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a way to save the page-image. In Firefox, go to the "Extra"-tab at top (at least, that's what is called in Dutch); then select "Page-info." A pop-up opens, in which yoy select the second tab, "Media." This gives a list of links, including (close to the bottom of the list) three links for the page you're reading, the previous page, and the next page. Copy-paste such a link in the address-bar of a new browser tab, open the link, and then save the page. Depending on the limitations set by Google Books, you can save a number of pages. By changing the name of the saved page into the pagenumber of that page, you get a series of page-images. Next, these can assembled into a new pdf; I use PDFill FREE PDF tools to do this. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks, that works! Control-I gets me to page info and I can process the JPEG's from there. Graham 87 14:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I am still not sure if Graham now has the tools and enough information to get to the text on his own, but just being a part of this discussion is a good learning process for me.  Annette Maon (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Or ... good enough for most purposes. Graham 87 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

TY and FYI
Thank you for your earnest attention to accuracy at the First Wikipedia edit page. I want, FYI, to call your attention to my beginning a top to bottom check of citations and their formatting (since I have no subject matter expertise to bring to bear, there). In doing the first eight citations, I had to make one correction (misused citation, vis-a-vis date of January 15th date appearing in text). But more critically I hit a wall in trying to interpret and check the author TwoOneTwo (HomePage) citation, because the page that appears via the link does not seem to be the one desired by the editor that placed it. (User:TwoOneTwo does not appear on the page, nor does the date that is given for the citation, so something is amiss.) I wrote an in-text (<!-- type) note to explain, and marked the note text with and the citation with  so that it could be rectified.

Again, kudos for the hard work there. Pass on to others that you know deserve credit. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:4934:BD1D:2B41:D139 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I have it on my watchlist so I would've noticed it from there. Graham 87 04:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

February songs
Today is a feast day for which Bach wrote several cantatas including Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, which was on DYK 10 years ago and TFA 4 years ago. I'm less happy that Georg Christoph Biller had to wait days for a Main page appearance under recent deaths, and then stayed not even for a full day (with white space in my view instead of his name). It would have been so meaningful today, with the man in the cantata saying he can depart in joy and peace. - The February pic was taken in memory last year; it show a creek running in sunlight, with many little icicles lit by sunlight, probably hard to imagine in WA even if you can see ;) - The man in the cantata also says he saw the light. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! Yeah, we don't get icicles around here. When I think of icicles in Australia,it reminds me of this archived webpage. :-) Graham 87 03:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - I like my talk today (even explaining how it works), and managed to picture two more vacation days, rugged mountains, subtropical plants, and a cat --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Today, I decorated my talk with a Bach cantata. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

a little stuck
Hi there! I'm trying to create a bot to go to BRFA, but I appear to be- blocked from account creation via IP range? Pretty sure this isn't my own wrongdoing; what do I do? Thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what the range is; feel free to email me that. I can help create the account for you if you send me a username and an email address you want associated with it (again by email, if you're most comfortable with that); the system will generate a temporary password. I feel a bit bad pointing this out but if you were an admin, you would've been able to bypass this issue. I'm sorry about what happened with your recent RFA ... RFA can be very stressful sometimes! Graham 87 12:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Another thing you could try is creating the account from a different network (i.e. a mobile network if you're on a home connection or vice versa). Graham 87 12:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ahaha, gotcha! I emailed you :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And as I found out later, it wouldn't even work if you were an admin per T189362. Graham 87 13:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Cornish exonyms
Um... what just happened? Can we get the article back? 🤔  Tewdar   18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, I found out the answer to my first question... how about the second? There wasn't anything wrong with it, last time I looked. ☹️  Tewdar   18:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, banned means banned and restoring the page would just give more insentive for block evasion. This is a highly abusive user; I really don't want to give them any leeway at all here. Graham 87 04:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Great. Can I recreate the article then, when I have the time? Or do you mean to say that "Cornish Exonyms" must never have another Wikipedia article ever again?  Tewdar   09:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes you can create it again from scratch if you feel like it. On a personal level I'm not sure that the English Wikipedia is the place for an article of such detail about a language with only 500 or so living speakers ... it'd be nice to find references that show that these exonyms are actually *widely* used, rather than being the invention of a limited number of dictionary writers/language standardisers (I've vaguely heard of problems like this in other, much more widely spoken languages like Italian). But that's not really my problem. Graham 87 09:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I am resisting the urge to reply to your last comment, as I feel that doing so may get me permanently banned from all Wikimedia projects. 😡  Tewdar   09:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean by 'widely used', but certainly, in all of the Cornish language literature I've seen, novels, magazines, Cornish language wikipedia, Discord channels and Facebook pages as well as the BBC news and other news programmes, I can attest that Cornish exonyms are used and treasured. I think it's a pity that the article has to be re-created from scratch, but there we go. Brwynog (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I ended up undeleting it; see Requests for undeletion. Graham 87 11:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Brwynog (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Gelinek
Hello, Graham 87.

I thank you for cleaning up my edits in the articles on Beethoven's Diabelli Variations and on Joseph Gelinek. In the latter, though, you removed all my linking, saying it was unnecessary. Whilst I might have overdone it for words like "piano" and "composer," people like Count Kinsky are not well-known, and I believe they should be linked to their articles (or, for this example, to his family's article). If you agree, I will reinsert the links I had made in contexts where it is necessary.

Thanks in advance, --Meduer (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message and clarification on my talk page! Have a nice day.

--Meduer (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Always precious
I cherish working with you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. You're awesome! Graham 87 09:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * blushing a bit - 22 02 2022: music for you, today the German Main page has de:In Freundschaft and you know the long story behind it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * stand and sing - one hour of music titled Prayer for Ukraine, composed 1885, recorded 2000, on YouTube 2021. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverting good edit?
What is this revert all about? You appear to have restored an unnecessary space. SpinningSpark 14:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * {[{replyto|Spinningspark}} It doesn't make any difference in the rendered output. Maybe I shouldn't have mass-reverted that user's edits, but what's done is done ... Graham 87 14:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at a sample of their edits, none of them are disruptive and they are not all removing unrendered spaces spaces. This for instance adds a space between values and units, which is not only rendered, but a style requirement.  I cannot see how removing invisible spaces or failing to explain why they are not leaving edit summaries is grounds for blocking and mass reverting.  Your response of "what's done is done" is baffling.  There is nothing on Wikipedia that cannot be undone. SpinningSpark 15:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The account is an obvious sock of banned and globally locked Isuzu.tf. A discussion similar to the present one may be found on my talk page – executive summary: WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, didn't know about that particular sockmaster. I'd already mass-reverted my rollbacks before noticing the message just before this one, because of the pages with visible style fixes. There's plenty of administrative stuff that can't easily be undone ... but re editorial things: I see your point. Graham 87 15:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also was going to say that I wouldn't have been comfortable unblocking that user without a really really good explanation for their actions. But one has been provided now, indirectly ... Graham 87 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Favonian, thanks for clearing that up. SpinningSpark</b> 14:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks very much! Graham 87 05:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! I myself am nearsighted so I have to wear glasses in order to make out objects far away. Obviously that's not nearly as bad as you have it. Honestly, I knew there were people on Wikipedia who needed a screen-reader, however I had never encountered one until I saw your post at WP:VPT. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 05:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Inquiry on Accessibility issues regarding markups
Hello, there @Graham87. I have been actively editing tennis articles for the past 2 years and have consistently come across mentions like,   being preferred for screen readers and to avoid as much as possible the usage of breaks and other codes/wiki markups. My question here is: Is the parameter  a screen reader-friendly...markup, for lack of a better term, or is the longer version   the code of choice. I am asking because I want to make sure the tables I edit comply with the accessibility requirements of Wikipedia, and also making sure the tennis pages contain daltonist-friendly colors, which don't apply to you, but you get my point. I am impressed and inspired by your work that you have done on Wikipedia, for the visually impaired, and as an admin. You are a role model to many younger editors, like myself, and a great ambassador for good Wikipedia etiquette and manners. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. Sincerely, Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC) P. S. This is my first time getting in touch with an admin, which is really cool. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the kind words. The two forms of markup are equivalent for screen reader users. Graham 87 05:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that also apply to, for instance,  can be used a substitute for  ? Oh, and one more thing. Why are scope=row and scope=col so important to be included in table wiki source and how does their absence have an impact on the usage of screen readers aka is there really a pause when playing back the audio from a screen reader, with the aforementioned parameters missing. Just curious. Sincerely, Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re your first query, they don't affect screen readers, but as has been pointed out to you before, they're odler HTML so might not work so well in the future. Re the second query: scope tags help screen readers determine the structure of tables; see this explanation. Graham 87 06:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity. Which screen readers do you use/prefer using? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * JAWS, as it says on my user page. Graham 87 02:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Graham87 Oh, silly me. Completely overlooked it. Thanks. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Turf war
Thanks G87 for your interest in Bevan Rutt. I'd not come across the rather acrimonious dispute between "Guide Dogs for the Blind" and Seeing Eye Dogs Australia, in which stub there's a not-so-subtle reference, and am thinking of putting it on my "to-do" list. Do you have any good sources ? I have no personal involvement with either apart from being a resident of Harry's home town. Doug butler (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries; I was just doing maintenance. I actually know very little about this topic and I think there have been various name changes over the years. The only source I know about re the history of guide dogs in Australia is in the first ref at Arnold Cook. Graham 87 02:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A good link, thanks. I'll ping you if I ever do the article. Doug butler (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)