User talk:Mdann52/Archive 22

Course date change
I'm confused by this. I mean, I appreciate helping out of course, but I had just responded to the thread. We commonly set the date a short while beyond the technical end of class because inevitably there are things that come up just after (whether it be grading, students who want to check each other's work, or some other reason). I know of no downside (except when, for example, the date inaccurately bleeds over to the following term). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: "confused" isn't the right word. I can gather you figured I didn't know the end date. And it's true; I didn't look it up. :) She just said May so I set it to be good through the end of May just in case (since, as above, I always add at least a week to the end date anyway). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies - wasn't aware of this! I've self reverted, lets see what they want to do. Mdann52 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The dates that are part of the course page system (the ones at the bottom when you "edit" the course page directly as opposed to the dates in the timeline or the dates in the sidebar) are really there for technical reasons rather than in-class organization, so it's not something I feel obliged to consult with instructors about. The technical impact of the course page end date expiring and the implications for usability are not obvious and not things I would expect a professor to be thinking about. If someone makes an explicit objection for this or that reason, I'm happy to change it, but that's never happened. What does happen a few times each term is that students or instructors can't find the page when they need it because the end date caused it not to show up in the course list. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: New helper policy
Hello member of ! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from. Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page. This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of —

Tech News: 2015-18
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * All accounts are now unique and work on all wikis.
 * You can read a report from experts who tested the security of MediaWiki.
 * There was a problem between VisualEditor and an antivirus software. It is now fixed.
 * You can help test VisualEditor to see if it works in your language.

Problems
 * Some Labs tools had problems due to a software bug.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 22. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 29 (calendar).
 * It is now clearer that you can delete several rows and columns when you edit tables in VisualEditor.
 * You now see more information when you search for a template in VisualEditor.
 * You can now cancel when you add citations on desktop, or edit links on mobile, in VisualEditor.
 * You can now see the list of other formats for videos only after they're ready.

Meetings
 * You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 29 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Winkreative


Hello, Mdann52. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Winkreative".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine
Thanks for tidying it up - see my comment on the List of archives in Ukraine if you wish to take on any more. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WT Logo centered HighRes (1).png
 Thanks for uploading File:WT Logo centered HighRes (1).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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-19
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can now chat with other users in Phabricator.
 * There was a rare problem with VisualEditor. The text of another wiki could be added to your edit. The issue is now fixed.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 29. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 5. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 6 (calendar).
 * It is now easier to add a link in VisualEditor. You can see an image and a description about the page.

Meetings
 * You can join a meeting with the Language team. The meeting will be on May 5 at 14:30 (UTC).
 * You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 6 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.
 * You can join an event in France on May 22−25. You need to sign up before May 8.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your close
Thanks alot for having the courage to close the smallcaps discussion. However do you think you could clarify the wording a little, you say "a few cases", and then ""the only is" and it is not clear whether you mean that that is the only exception or the only case where there is not consensus for an exception, and also it would be helpful if you would specifically state whether you find consensus for the use of smallcaps in citation templates in bibliographies, which is the main motivator for the RfC. Thank you again for your closure. Just to clarify again I am not unhappy with the closure, just think that it leaves a couple of core discussion points unclarified, which will likely lead to further discussion on the same topic, so if you could make a wording that preempts further discussion that would be helpful for all I think. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've clarified - what I intended for it to read was that only one was raised in the discussion, but the consensus is others general possible exemptions should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Mdann52 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you would say that another discussion specifically about small caps in citations is necessary?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * only if it was not raised in the original request. Mdann52 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was the motivation for the original request, so you are referring only to future exemptions that crop up, so the citations are included in the ones you consider to have consensus currently?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still dont entirely understand this sentence " From this discussion, the only use is when not using all caps would change the meaning of the thing in question (ie. scientific names etc.)" It seems to me to say that the only use for which there is consensus for using smallcaps is when not using it would change the meaning. That would exclude use in citations and bibliographies and in linguistic gloss both of which was specifically mentioned in the request. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

that appears to be the conclusion of the discussion, yes - as many of the commenter referenced to the three parts separately, I decided that addressing this in my closing comments would be good. Mdann52 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, you just didnt refer to the citation issue (which is not the quotation issue) in your close, which was one of the three questions. Also just clarifying, what is your position then on WP:CITEVAR because if the consensus is to not allow small caps in citations then WP:CITEVAR will need to be changed. This would be a big thing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you maybe make it explicit what consensus you see for each of the three original proposed exceptions (1. quotes, 2. authornames in citations, 3. scientific notation). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will - however, the only real one would be scientific notation (as I mentioned as an example in my close). Mdann52 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree with your close, but thanks for reading the entire discussion
I'm disappointed in the outcome obviously, but since you went to the trouble of absorbing all this material I'd like to take the liberty of asking some questions nobody else has answered. I'd welcome input from page patrollers as well. 1) Why is the threshold for inclusion a consensus to restore? If this was listed at AfD (which I hold it was), why is not the threshold no consensus defaulting to keep. Note (as I'm sure you've already assessed) this page has never been deleted, and DRVs associated with merge outcomes can't normally exceed the closure; they can only overturn the outcome, relist for further discussion, or endorse the merge. In the case of pagewatchers on a merge target refusing to include the material, a defacto or out of process deletion occurs and DRV has no power to overturn such unofficial deletions. 2) How can MEDRS level sourcing be required for this page when it is not required on the merge target? Many contributors to the discussion asserted that the subject was a social state, not a medical one. 3) What process would you suggest editors take in order to remeasure consensus and get such a draft included in main space? This subject isn't going away, being a social state occasionally affecting almost all human beings at some point in their sexual development. Again, thanks for your effort. I'd appreciate a brief discussion here. To make it clear, I'm ready to drop the stick for now. I do not want to reopen the discussion here; I just want to understand the process better. After a reasonable period of time, I will again argue for inclusion. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for approaching me on this - I much prefer this to the alternative of endless warring over closes. In this case, let me address these one by one:

1) The issue is that, while at AfD the default is keep, to be fair this was not really a keep - and additionally, the convention at AfD AFAIK is to go with the previous result if it is relevant and seems to fit with the later discussion. I knew the page was closed as merge last time, however with no clear consensus to restore (leaning towards not restoring) the most appropriate choice here appeared to go with that, using a bit of discretion. 2)That was just a point raised a few times during the debate, saying some should be provided. I can clarify if you think it is needed? 3)Often, if there is a previous deletion, DRN or a RfC is usually best if it is contentious. However, a better measure may well be informal discussion in many cases before launching one of these, particularly with the opposering parties. To be honest, an AfD to restore material is rarely appropriate in cases like this, and with all due respects, probably added to the confusion here.

Please let me know if I can clarify further, Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of wisdom in your responses, especially the last. Thanks again for your effort, and I don't envy your position on the closing panel for the HRC/HC RM. It's bound to be much discussed and much disapproved no matter the outcome. Know that many wikipedians respect a closer willing to measure consensus in difficult cases. I appreciate your effort in these matters. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks - unfortunately, others do not share your thanks, but this is what I've come to expect when making closes without a mop behind me. Mdann52 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say I might have predicted such behavior. IMHO Valoem's enthusiasm has been a handicap in making this case, many editors expressing frustration with the editor's inability to disengage. In any case, I doubt another closer will differ much from your decision. The difference between that editor and myself on this issue is that I feel it's just a matter of time and better sourcing, and Valoem seems to be in a hurry. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to distance myself as far away as possible from Valoem's conduct this morning. I agree with that user's intention, but not the editor's choices. BusterD (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-20
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can now make charts and maps on your wiki with the new "graph" tool. If you have an old browser, you will see images instead. It uses a tool called Vega; you can learn how to use it and write help pages for your wiki. You can use the Vega edit tool to make charts and copy the code to your wiki. Charts and maps use complex code and you should put them into templates. In the future, you will be able to create charts with VisualEditor.
 * You can apply for technical jobs to develop tools for the community.
 * The logos of all wikis are now in a new place. It will make pages load faster. You can still ask to change the logo. You can also use local CSS for brief changes.

Problems
 * There was a problem that caused slow editing.
 * Pages were sometimes removed from your watchlist in VisualEditor. This problem is now fixed.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 6. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 12. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 13 (calendar).
 * You can now use data from Wikidata on more pages. The page doesn't need to be linked to the Wikidata item. It works on a few wikis and more wikis will be added soon.
 * You should get fewer errors when you add files to Commons.
 * When you use an external link to link to a wiki page, VisualEditor now converts it to a wiki link.
 * When you add a link in VisualEditor, you see pages that match what you type. It is now easier to see where they match.

Meetings
 * You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 13 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Small caps
Hi Mdann, would you mind reconsidering your close of that RfC? WP:CITEVAR allows editors to choose any citation style within reason: "If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." That would include styles that use small caps.

The MoS can't change that, and editors at WP:CITE weren't told about this RfC. Also, it doesn't look as though there was consensus against the use of small caps in citations (in fact, people seemed to support it), but now a few editors apparently feel they can't use them. It would be good if you could clarify that nothing in your closure affects an editor's right to choose a citation style according to CITEVAR. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand this, and see where you are coming from. The issue is, my reading of it suggests the majority disapproved or opposed it in that discussion. However, there was a lot of different issues mixed together, so holding a separate RfC focusing just on CITEVAR may well be worthwhile in order to clarify this point, which is muddled at best. I agree notifying WP:CITE would of been ideal, but unfortunately that didn't happen. Of course, if people over there wanted to drop their 2c in, I would happily reopen this to allow that to happen, especially due to what you have said. Mdann52 (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Matt, thanks for the reply. There are two separate issues.


 * First, the MOS can't dictate how citations are written. WP:CITE is the guideline that governs citations. Editors at MOS can't change citation practices, just as they can't change the NOR policy. So the citation request shouldn't have been asked at that page, and the RfC closure should make clear that nothing in the RfC affected an editor's right, per WP:CITEVAR, to use whatever citation style she wants: "If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." Re-opening the RfC wouldn't really help, because the point is that that page has no say over citation styles.


 * But ignoring that, it's also the case that there was no consensus to disallow caps in citations. I've written out the numbers at User:SlimVirgin/caps. (This was after just a brief glance through them.) As you can see, only six people were opposed out of 20 who gave a clear response (plus four whose responses were unclear). Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying - looking at this again, the first few comments appear to have been made outside the main RfC. I've clarified in my close that MOS does not have the authority to overrule WP:CITE (as some more background reading seems to enforce). Mdann52 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edit. That should put things right. The issue is that CITEVAR avoids a lot of disputes, so I didn't want to risk anyone thinking the RfC had overturned or weakened it. Thanks again. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver
Hey there Mdann. Haven't seen you on IRC lately. I noticed that you seem to be using the deprecated version of OneClickArchiver and I'd like to encourage you to "upgrade" to the maintained version of 's (Original by ) OneClickArchiver (Original) script that respects maxarchive sizes, allows for specification of header level, has a lower stall rate, and is less likely to archive the wrong section to the wrong place. Simply replace:  with   in User:Mdann52/common.js. You may also consider changing your header sections to use  comment syntax and using User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-codeAnchors and then links like that one will take you directly to the section they reference. —  21:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Alec Marr Edit
You have arbitrarily chosen what is relevant without justifying your choices. The article becomes completely redundant without this figures record of involvement in controversy. Without those references he is an obscure minor figure. You will need to identify the citations you have a problem with before this edit will be accepted. You have removed a lot of material which was in the original draft which was accepted for publication which puts you at odds with the acceptance of the article in the first place. Deletion of the material is a last resort. You need to refer to the criteria and flag possible improvements before making sweeping deletions. You have applied the notion of relevance in the most sweeping way. Applied to most articles in this way Wikipedia would be halved in volume overnight.

I'm going to refer you to this statement in the Disruptive editing page "Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively."

I'm more than happy to work with you if you would like to see the article improved but you'll need to disclose what criteria of relevance you are working to.

User:Mdann52 You need to engage with me via your talk page, not simply proceed with your previous edits. I'll attend to each edit separately over time as this is a minor entry attracting very little traffic. I'm not sure whether you are acquainted with the particular individual. Your current edit misreads events I'm afraid and misunderstands the emphasis presuming a lot of prior knowledge on the part of the reader. For instance, under the 'Controversy' section you have eliminated the explanation of how things came to a point where the individual was forced to quit from his position.

If I applied the same criteria to Wikipedia that you have applied to sections of this article on relevance I would wreak havoc across Wikipedia and bring myself into disrepute.Gumsaint (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumsaint (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Mistaken Identity
I noticed you posted two templates related to an AfC submission you thought I created. Truth is, I've never gone through AfC, but rather, I upload directly to the mainspace if I'm writing an article. However, I am a helper on IRC, and in that capacity, I sometimes place a submission template on a user's draft, at their request, if they don't know how to do so. It appears that's what happened in this case. However, I always make it clear in the edit summary (for the benefit of the reviewer) that I'm not the creator of the page; in this case, I wrote: "Submitted to AfC per user's request." If you're using the Helper Script, try to check the revision history as well, so you know who the author is. Just thought I would give you a heads up, so that you can inform the appropriate party. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed this after I'd sent the message. For future reference, to avoid this happening, you can use to change the author (this would submit as Mdann52 (alt)), or the helper script will submit as the page creator as well. Mdann52 (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Lane
WP:TWODABS "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Shouldn't Jeremy Lane (disambiguation) be deleted?Joeykai (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Query
Mdann52, First of all thank you for closing the long running RM discussion at Talk:Korean American/s

I would also appreciat your thoughts regarding any potential distraction regarding the WT:AT discussion at Common name people - removing (the) pulp? and on which I had placed the 12 May 2015 initial note: "On this I will risk bothering "Hillary Rodham Clinton" RM deliberator, Mdann52, as content in this discussion I think demonstrates arguable search anomalies (re: Liberace, Syahrini and Bill Clinton) which may, arguably, relate to a search related controversy that was raised in final stages of the HRC discussion."

After much discussion the thread was closed here with the only remaining text presenting "No need to bother the closers at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request during their deliberation." Obviously the HRC discussion ended with talk regarding the use of Google stats and in the during compilation of information regarding the WT:AT discussion I learned and presented some things that I took to relate to the use of these stats.

I am left wondering regarding the extent to which the WT:AT OP raised issues and to which the continued discussion continued to raise issues. Please only reply if that is what you choose to do. Thanks. GregKaye 10:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is being worked out. GregKaye 13:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Tournament of Champions
The NDT page features historical winners, and it seems like salient content. Which specific WP-NOT category were you referencing? It seems like the list of TOC winners should stay. I didn't want to get into an "undo" battle with you on the page itself, so I thought we could talk it out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashgordeaux (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In this context, I think WP:IINFO applies, although I have no opposition to it being spun off into another article however not until all the material is sourced. Mdann52 (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-21
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can watch a video about the new graph tool.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 13. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 19. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 20 (calendar).
 * References are now always in the right order. Also, the reference list now only shows references used on the page.
 * You can no longer create an account with a colon ':' in it. If you already have one, it still works.
 * The toolbar in VisualEditor now looks different. It is easier to see the icons.
 * You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday.
 * UploadWizard now shows better matches when you add a category to your file.
 * A test about VisualEditor will start on the English Wikipedia on Thursday.

Meetings
 * You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 21 at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
 * You can join a technical meeting in France this week.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-22
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems
 * VisualEditor was broken for 30 minutes on Tuesday. The problem was due to a tool it uses.
 * Some Labs tools had issues last week.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 20. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from May 26. It will be on all Wikipedias from May 27 (calendar).

Meetings
 * You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on May 28 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * You can add your ideas of new tools to help active users like you.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  16:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of appropriate edits
It is not appropriate for you to delete appropriate edits in an article, demanding that they first be proposed on the talkpage, on the basis that other editors engaged in COI editing as revealed in the history of the article. Even in articles under 1RR that is not required, in highly contentious articles under ArbCom restrictions. It is required under COI circumstances, but I have no COI, and I was not part of the prior COI editing. Please don't roll back appropriate edits on the basis that you rolled them back today. It's simply not allowed. Thank you. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned it as a touch of advice as edits like that is why the page was protected originally. Mdann52 (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The page was protected for inappropriate edits. If you want page protection, there is a proper way to seek it, from a sysop. But it will not be granted where the edits are appropriate. And reverting as though you are a sysop protecting a page, where there is not page protection granted, goes beyond "advice" and is not a correct way to handle any concerns. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Markup Language
Hi User:Mdann52, I've been doing minor edits on articles for about 2 months, but despite numerous attempts, I can't seem to make the Wiki markup work. In particular tables seem to evade me. I understand the basic |Title= but it merely puts it into text. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a few tips for me Kind Regards, TheHecster (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for dropping me a line! In terms of tables, I can kinda do them, but I can't explain it very well, however Help:Tables explains it much better. Also, it may be worth looking into using Visual Editor, as it can now handle many features of tables quite well. Let me know if you want me to look at anything in particular! Mdann52 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will have a look at that. Also, you may remember me as HAWK1521, the persistent blocked user. I never thanked you properly for helping me with that, so thank you retrospectively. Kind regards,

TheHecster (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Mdann52 bot 8
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/Mdann52 bot 8 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

Tech News: 2015-23
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems
 * Many wikis were slow for a few hours on Wednesday due to a code error. Sometimes the pages did not load at all and showed an error.
 * Some tools in Labs were broken on Wednesday and Thursday.
 * Edit tags added by the software were broken on all wikis from May 23 to May 28.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since May 27. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from June 2. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 3 (calendar).
 * You won't be able to use e-mail lists for a few hours on Tuesday.

Meetings
 * You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 3 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Be careful of misusing PROD
PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletion proposals. When an article such as Jack Barsky is showing footnotes to CBS News (subject of a 60 Minutes report), NY Post, and Forbes, we call that a "General Notability Guideline pass," not an "uncontroversial deletion subject." Just because a piece has unsourced information about a BLP subject doesn't mean the article can be led down the dark alley of PROD to be whacked. So please: be careful to use PROD only for what it is intended. Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I occasionally will make a bad call, and after reviewing this, this appears to just be one of those off moments. Thanks for letting me know! Mdann52 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI close
Mdann, why did you close that discussion, rather than simply moving it to a subsection of the earlier one? It seems like the latter is the better solution here... --IJBall (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do - it just seemed a lot of this was repeated from the earlier discussion, but I get your point here as well. Mdann52 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Ombudsman
Hi Mdann52, I'm confused about the changes to the Ontario Ombudsman page. I think in your last edit you said something to the effect that info about the role/office in general don't belong there; but that info about the actual office holder does? I though the "Ontario Ombudsman" page was about the position and the office; while the Andre Marin was more about the person. Can you clarify?

Thanks. Thissilladia (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Many of these relate more to the office (eg. bullying etc. while employed), as opposed to being attributed to Marin directly - incidents like this belong on the page of the office. However, issues where he is directly involved, eg. expenses, belong on the article about him. Hope this clarifies this. or because I accidently edit the wrong bit, thinking I'm on his page and not the general page. reverted and fixed in the right place. Mdann52 (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I get it. Thank you. Going forward, if you think I've made mistakes, please let me know, still trying to learn Wiki. Thissilladia (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

New Traniee
Hello I am new to anti-vandalism Please guide me.Prymshbmg (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Can I recommend taking a look to see if you are eligible for the Counter Vandalism Academy? I'm an instructor there, but would rather not be taking on new students right now. Mdann52 (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-24
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from June 9. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from June 10. It will be on all Wikipedias from June 11 (calendar).
 * If you use the Monobook skin, the buttons and other controls now look more the same in VisualEditor and other tools.
 * When you edit links and other items in VisualEditor, you now need to apply your change before closing the tool.
 * The title of dialogs is now easier to see when it is near long buttons.

Meetings
 * You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on June 9 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
 * You can join a meeting with the Language team. The meeting will be on June 10 at 14:30 (UTC).

Future changes
 * If you have a bot, you may need to fix it. The default continuation mode of the API for  will change at the end of June.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tagging
Thank you for your work tagging articles for speedy deletion. In the future, can you try to use an appropriate WP:CSD tag in the db request? For example, in this nomination here,, you could have used the WP:G3 tag, and left a note on the talk page explaining in more detail. Thanks, Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 17:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just find it easier personally to do it with more reason in the db tag (as this is usually moved to the deletion reason when deleted, hence saving the admin some work). I'm not aware of an policy either way - however, due to the age of the article, the biolerplate "blatent hoax" does not quite seem appropriate, hence why I used an extended rational. BTW, I've seen you've unspeedied it (as I suspected it might be). Mdann52 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, I agree, sometimes the speedy templates do not adequately express the exact reason for deletion, but I find that in that case, PROD of AFD is more appropriate. On a related note, I have had articles like that that go to AFD, and somebody finds a foreign language references (which I suspect might have been the sources of this). Thanks again for your hard work!  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 17:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)