User talk:Mdewman6/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation
 North Woods Law, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Rollback granted
Hi Mdewman6. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMdewman6 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Rollback on Ohio wine add
I am new to editing. I have taken on the personal challenge of editing wine-related topics with regard to Ohio and the Grand River Valley AVA, due to the recent (10yrs) explosion in the industry. My recent edit to include Ohio in the list of ‘notable’ wine regions was rolled back. I do have valid sources to substantiate the inclusion. If there is a more appropriate way to approach this endeavor, I welcome the advice. This project is grossly overdue and I have found many wine-related articles that include outdated and outright incorrect information regarding the Ohio wine industry and the Grand River Valley wine region. I feel a personal responsibility to my field to lend this hand to correcting and elaborating on this subject without prejudice. I am more than willing to provide citations outside of the edits where appropriate or required. Please advise. Ltodd010480 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I appreciate and encourage your efforts to update pages related to wine, specifically to Ohio. The issue here is that it does not make sense to list every AVA for a state on the List of wine-producing regions page. The page would be untenable if it attempted to list every singe wine producing area in the world, hence the "significant" qualifier in the opening sentence. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the page List of American Viticultural Areas exists to serve as a comprehensive list of all AVAs approved by the Tax and Trade Bureau and focuses on American wine regions, and the world page should not replicate that. If you feel Ohio is indeed a significant wine region, then you should post on the talk page and get input from editors besides me so we can build consensus. My understanding is that while a lot of grapes are grown in Ohio, most are destined for grape juice rather than wine. Nevertheless, I would support the addition of the Ohio wine link to the page, but not any AVAs.


 * Given the above, I would recommend you focus your efforts on updating the Ohio wine page and the pages for the specific AVAs. Hope that helps! Mdewman6 (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Utility player (baseball)
Hi Mdewman6. I'm not against making Utility player (baseball) an article of its own but it probably needs to be expanded since it is currently less informative than the baseball section of Utility player. Another option would be to redirect the whole thing to Utility player. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. I thought I would start by getting rid of the utility infielder and fourth outfielder pages. Ideally, I think a lot of the content at utility player should be moved to utility player (baseball), leaving only a short summary at the general utility player page. I welcome you to help with that. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A heads-up
You nominated List of trauma centers in Massachusetts. I explained to concerns I had with their non-admin closure. You might find some of the points I made there of interest.

Since List of trauma centers in Massachusetts was started in 2014, and List of trauma centers in the United States was started in 2019, the earlier article shouldn't really be labelled a WP:CONTENTFORK.

I am not trying to pile on, but one of the other contributors who weighed in in that discussion was trying to tell you they disagreed with you bringing the article to AFD, at all. They thought it could be redirected without an AFD - your initial step of calling for a merge on Talk:List of trauma centers in the United States was the correct move. The other contributor's point that List of trauma centers in Massachusetts had existed for years was an extremely important point. You and I have no way of knowing how many webmasters of regular websites hard-coded links to  in their pages. If we delete the redirect those pages break. We shouldn't do that. Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ecola State Park
Thanks for starting that long-needed article and for helping unsnarl the state and national Lewis and Clark parks. Although I'm more apt to revert or delete uncited material than you are (per your userpage), I love the bit about "People are going to want to see this". I call that "shoehorning" and it's not my favorite to clean up after but I like your friendly take on it. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah it was definitely long overdue. More could certainly be done. I like this sort of work on WP, reconciling how pages interact with each other in terms of links and redirects and making sure things are named in an appropriate and consistent way. As for references, I've just seen too many times where WP refs don't support the text, but meanwhile some view it as an inflexible binary of has refs=fine and no refs=remove. Obviously some things really need references, like data and controversial statements, but I really view WP references (at least web refs) as annotated external links. And your term "shoehorning" definitely fits! Mdewman6 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hunters Hot Springs (disambiguation)
Hi, not sure what your thoughts were with Hunters Hot Springs (disambiguation) but we only disambiguate articles that currently exist; the DAB page you made only referred to one existent page (that I can see). Additionally, if there are only two topics then a hatnote is usually a better fit than a DAB page. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to follow WP:PRIMARYRED, but I guess that would require additional red-linked entries? I could either create a redirect under the red link and use a hatnote, or perhaps tagging the dab page with would be an alternative? Mdewman6 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Willcox AVA moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Willcox AVA, 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. Mccapra (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Lowercasetitle
Hello. I saw your comment at Talk:Α-Ketoglutaric_acid about lowercasetitle. It works because the title contains the greek letter "Α" and not our "A". They have different unicode id, but looks the same - but the lower case doesn't Christian75 (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Mdewman6. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

List of governors of California by age has also been included in the nomination with List of governors of Texas by age. OCNative (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Rollback of Merges
You have the right to roll back all the merge tags removed by me on the museum articles. Stale merge = 2 weeks with no discussion. I am proceeding in accord with directions given on WP:WPMERGE --Whiteguru (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the need to cleanup really old proposals, but two weeks is a bit extreme. If a merge proposal with no discussion can be closed as merge after 1 week (Merging), I don't see how it should be closed as no consensus - merge fails after 2 weeks. In any case, I plan on performing the merge myself soon (if there remains no objections), but did not anticipate there being any rush. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Merger of Alkane stereochemistry into Conformational isomerism
Hi, there has been a recent objection to the merger of Alkane stereochemistry into Conformational isomerism so I was wondering if you would be willing to rejoin the discussion again since the consensus was made years ago but I want to ensure that this current objection is heard by the original participants of the discussion before I merge and remove this from the backlog. Thanks! -Karthanitesh (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I stand by my comment in support of the merge. Absent any further discussion (at least 1 week after the most recent comment), anyone is free to close the discussion and determine consensus per WP:MERGECLOSE. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I will do so then! Thanks for the response. -Karthanitesh (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

ACW regiment merges
I would appreciate it if you would notify me (perhaps by leaving a list in this thread) when you make sensible merge suggestions as you have been making. I would not consider such notice as canvassing; it's entirely possible some of these unfortunate duplications are my doing. For the record I'm uninvolved on almost all ACW unit articles; my involvement has been almost entirely to bring all ACW units into a standardized naming scheme. I'm still interested in keeping the scheme as long as it serves the pedia. BusterD (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think for the moment I've done most everything I was after, except for the 1st Wisconsin merge discussion that is still open; I will reply to the comments there shortly. I've also been posting the more potentially controversial ones at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. If other things arise I will try to remember to ping you. But yeah, it looks like whoever originally made these stubs was following Civil War Archive to a T, resulting in the silly splits that I have been merging. For pages that are still separate, I have kept the enlistment period as the parenthetical disambiguator; I am not sure if this is best, but also am not sure about what would be better. Fortunately, most regimental articles no longer require this disambiguation. The other issue I plan to tackle is disambiguation for cases like 1st Virginia Regiment (ARW regiment) and 1st Virginia Infantry Regiment (ACW regiment) as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_166 but this shouldn't involve any merges or moves, just creation of hatnotes and dab pages with (disambiguation) qualifiers. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

G6 vs. pageswap for moving over redirects with history
Hey, thanks for your questions at my RfA. Since the format doesn't really allow for back-and-forth discussion, I just wanted to say I would genuinely be interested in hearing your thoughts about the issue you raised in Q12 about G6 vs. pageswap for moving over redirects, if you care to share. Colin M (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your message. I agree that for a page with only redirect history (no content), G6 is probably what consensus would say is the go-to option, with a round-robin move being a work around for page movers, and I'm certainly not opposed to G6 pages in those cases. On the far end of the spectrum, a redirect with two edits, the second of which is just to add an an rcat should be G6'd to make way for a move. But I think for redirects with more complex history, like retargeting, I would err on the side of keeping that history even if G6 is within the bounds of Requested_moves/Closing_instructions. My perception is that admins usually find themselves playing a quantity over quality game, and if they can cut a corner within policy to save time, they probably will, which is fine, but I guess my fear is that some potentially useful page history can get lost in the process.
 * On a related topic, some users (non-page movers) seeking a move with a redirect in the way sometimes will tag them for G6 rather than bringing them to WP:RM/TR. I am not sure where consensus stands on this, though certainly some admins are willing to execute the G6 in those circumstances, and both avenues seem to be legitimate based on current guidelines. On the face of it, RM/TR is the more open process, but is very difficult to object to moves before they are made, and many page movers at TR will simply perform the round-robin moves without doing a quick check to see if the move is potentially controversial (as evidenced by, among other things, past moves), which would require it to go through the normal RM process (see my user page for my statement on this issue). The advantage of the G6 approach is that these moves can be reverted by anyone, whereas an ill-advised round-robin move at RM/TR can only be reverted by pagemovers or admins (though this would result in an RM directly). The downside is that admins only perform the G6 and not the actual move, but are then supposed to "follow up" to ensure the move has happened as proposed. This seems unwieldy, and a potential way to bypass WP:RFD in bad faith and get a redirect deleted in the hope an admin won't check back to confirm a move has occurred. Anyway, I think it would be worth wider discussion on how exactly technical moves should be handled, and how to confirm they are truly uncontroversial before they are done without discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed response. I think what you've said makes a lot of sense, and I would support preserving the history for redirects whose targets have changed over time. I do think it's non-ideal that a pageswap preserves the history of name X under the revision history of another name Y, which can make the history hard to follow, but it's better than nothing.
 * I saw the point on your user page about the overuse of technical moves, but my view on that is actually the opposite of yours. I'd like to see more moves following a WP:BRD paradigm. Yes, this will result in some "bad" moves, but I think that's okay. Allowing bold edits to article content also allows bad content to creep in. In theory we could lessen this if every edit to an article needed to attain consensus through a formal discussion, but that would be a nightmare of bureaucracy. In both cases (whether we're talking about moves or regular edits), the more vital the article is, the more likely it is that an editor watching it will detect the bad change and revert it. A lot of the proposed moves that go through RM attract no or little participation because they're about obscure topics (often something like a school, an organization, a software package, etc.) and the nominator provides a flimsy rationale like "They changed their name" or "This is the name on their website". RM regulars are probably not inclined to do the nominator's homework for them to determine whether the proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME (and it may be difficult to do so, because we're talking about an obscure entity that perhaps barely passes WP:GNG, so it's not getting regular RS coverage that can easily be found with a Google News search), but also aren't necessarily cold-hearted enough to oppose based on the absence of evidence. I'd like to see these just be done as technical moves, so RM participants and closers can focus their attention more on the cases that involve difficult policy questions. That said, I spend far more time looking at RM discussions than technical requests, so I get exposed to a lot of the "false positives" (proposed moves that are done via RM which I don't think are truly controversial), but not the "false negatives" (moves which are controversial but get done as a technical request), so that may bias me towards being more concerned about the former.
 * By the way, if you haven't seen it already, there's a discussion going on at WT:RM that I think you might be interested in, since it relates to how we should preserve a record of technical moves. Colin M (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply, and pointing me to that discussion, which I will be sure to join. As for our different perspectives on TR, I fully support WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, and even support bold moves with the move function (as these can easily be reverted), but BRD just doesn't work at TR, because only page movers can do the "B" and "R" part. At best, it is "bold-discuss-revert", where it is nearly impossible to object to a technical request before it occurs, and the user wishing to return to the status quo must then request the move be reverted, rather than the user who wants to change the status quo requesting the move occur. The burden should be on the user to show why the status quo is undesirable. Also, because the "bold" page swap has necessarily involved a third user (the page mover), it arguably would be inappropriate for a user objecting to the move to revert the actioned move without discussion first, even if they are a page mover and have the ability to do so. It seems like what you're suggesting is that TR become the default move request venue, with RM being for those requests that received objection. For this to possibly work, there would need to be a better mechanism to object to requests, and more time to do so, which basically would turn TR into RM. In any case, what you're suggesting is contrary to WP:PCM which indicates TR is for uncontroversial requests and potentially controversial requests should go to RM, which are requests where someone could reasonably disagree with the move. Thus, any TR request that receives objection never should have been there in the first place, and was made contrary to the way the RM process is currently structured. Perhaps we need to more clearly describe how to identify a potentially controversial request.
 * My perspective on this arises from at least two (that I remember) cases where moves I had made just months earlier to chemical articles to bring them in line with chemistry naming conventions were moved at TR by well-meaning users misinterpreting the naming conventions (and doing no page history investigation to see why the page is at its current title). In both cases, the misunderstanding was resolved on the requester's talk page and I later reverted the moves, but the reversion process is much more than reverting a simple edit or series of edits in a couple clicks. Now the time of a third user (the page mover) has been wasted, and the reversion must not only be worked out with the requestor but also with the page mover to make sure they don't object to what is now their move being reverted. Yes, the status quo can be regained (though depending on how the round-robin moves are done the page history can be more of a mess than prior to the moves, and we must be careful with the redirects), but it is a messy process that can be avoided by a simple RM discussion in the first place, and is why I think page movers at TR would do well by everyone if they did some simple checks to see if there are any obvious reasons why someone would object to the move, like prior (especially recent) moves or past RM discussions. In fact, I think page movers should operate under this assumption until the evidence has led them back to the request actually being uncontroversial.
 * Also, I must say I was mildly disappointed with your answer to my Q11 in that you don't see a difference between page movers and admins at RM, even though this is your primary impetus for becoming an admin. In my reading of WP:RMCI, it implies to me that at least the most controversial discussions or closest calls should be left to admins, who are users the community has entrusted to make those tough calls. Now, I realize, most RM closes are nac closes, and we have many experienced non-admins who do a great job closing requests. But, in my opinion we also have some non-admins who enjoy acting like admins and inserting themselves into controversy without actually wanting to be an admin, and make some bad calls in the process, and that rubs me the wrong way. The solution to this is having more admins working at RM, and for that I am grateful for your RfA. While we clearly have some philosophical differences, you clearly have a good command of things and I trust you will be a great admin. (I realize I have not voted at your RfA, I will be sure to do so before it closes!) Mdewman6 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like what you're suggesting is that TR become the default move request venue, with RM being for those requests that received objection. No, my intention definitely wasn't to suggest that. I just think the bar for what nominators consider "potentially controversial" could be set higher. I certainly agree that if there's been any history of disagreements around the name of the article, including previous RMs, it should definitely go through RM and not TR.
 * In my reading of WP:RMCI, it implies to me that at least the most controversial discussions or closest calls should be left to admins, who are users the community has entrusted to make those tough calls. I don't see that in a plain reading of RMCI, and it's worth noting that the precise wording of that page, particularly around NACs, has been the subject of significant attention and fine-tuning over time. If you look at the revision history of the page, the trend has been to whittle away at wording that even mildly discourages NACs (e.g. Special:Diff/931426057, Special:Diff/964217556), and attempts to add more overt warnings against NACs of controversial discussions have been rejected (e.g. Special:Diff/897583143). I think the key factor that is correctly called out in RMCI is that closers should be "highly experienced with RMs" (and the more contentious the proposal, the more experienced the closer needs to be). I would rather see an RM closed by a non-admin with heavy experience with article titles and move discussions than by an admin with no experience. Yes, sometimes non-admins make a hash of closes, but we have processes for dealing with that (like MRV), and on the whole I think non-admin RM closes are far and away a net positive to the project. Colin M (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of fee areas in the United States National Park System


The article List of fee areas in the United States National Park System has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This article seems to violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. There is some news coverage about proposed changes but nothing that can't be incorporated into a broader article. We don't need a list of parks and the entrance fees they charge."

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. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Typhoon Nanmadol
Hey, just a reminder that when you close a deletion discussion, you need to remove the tag on the page as well. ansh. 666 16:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops! Guess I forgot this time. Thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Black Irish
Hi Mdewman6. You did a series of moves between Black Irish and. Unfortunately what has happened is that the edit history of Black Irish (which was once a fairly sizeable article) is at Black Irish (disambiguation). Do you think you could fix that? Scolaire (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , the page history ending up at Black Irish (disambiguation) is a consequence of the round-robin move, which results in the page histories being swapped. I agree having the article history at Black Irish makes more sense. You can try making a request at WP:HISTMERGE to see if an admin is willing to move the page histories around. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the proper link is actually WP:SPLICE. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mdewman6. I have done that. Scolaire (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

1,4-butanedione
Hello Mdewman6,

You say that 1,4-butadione is an alternative name for succinaldehyde. I've never seen anyone using this (incorrect) name. Can you please provide an example where that name is used? RolfSander (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yes it is arguably an incorrect name by implying the compound is a ketone, but is a plausible one using substitutive nomenclature. Pubchem lists it as an alternative name, and so does the CAS database (accessed via SciFinder). So while most users searching butanedione mean diacetyl (and are accordingly redirected there), a minority of users may be seeking 1,4-butanedione, and these users are served with a hatnote. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if Pubchem and CAS list this strange name, I guess I'll have to accept that...
 * I had tried a google search and didn't find any webpage using "1,4-butadione" for succinaldehyde. Only a few pages about more complex compounds which include "...1,4-butadione..." somewhere in the middle of the name. RolfSander (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreement
At least we agree on the International System of Units and the serial comma. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you feel I'm not trustworthy. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , I do not feel you are untrustworthy in general. But for reasons detailed at ANI, I do feel you should not be trusted with advanced editing tools that require extra care and attention to detail to ensure pages are moved according to guidelines and naming conventions in a manner other editors can understand, follow, and support. Most users do not have access to these tools for this reason. I really do value your contributions to Colorado related pages, as I have stated. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
QuicoleJR (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Georgia
I just saw your changes to Scouting in Georgia and Scouting in Georgia (U.S. state). Please leave those be. As scouting is international in scope, we also have Scouting in Georgia (country).

Thanks. --evrik (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The base name Scouting in Georgia redirected to the U.S. page for years, so I was trying to address that(WP:MISPLACED), and figured the state was primary, given for instance that the girl scouts were founded there, and that the base name redirected there, making it the de facto primary topic. But I see you made a dab page at the base name. I'm fine with that. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mdewman6,
 * Please stop moving around the Georgian articles. These articles have existed at these titles for years now. It's important to distinguish between the country and the U.S. state and we have thousands of categories that make that distinction. Please don't move a couple articles away from what's been the consensus on Wikipedia for a long time now. Or, if you want to pursue this, please start a talk page discussion first. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I am addressing cases where pages related to the country or the U.S. state are carrying parenthetical qualifiers when there is nothing to disambiguate them with. In many cases, the base name redirects to the article anyway, which should not be the case (see WP:MISPLACED), or are disambiguated when the base name doesn't exist, which also makes no sense; we only disambiguate when a topic could refer to other topics per WP:QUALIFIER; we do not presumptively or preemptively disambiguate. Anyway, I am making BOLD moves to limit the number of RMs, and thought I was mostly doing so in cases that are not ambiguous or the primary topic is clear, and go to RM for others, like here and here (I've also created a good handful of dab pages where we have topics for both the country and the state in cases where there is no primary topic, which were needed). I realize there are some editors who believe every Georgia article should carry a qualifier, but I am certainly not one of them, and there is no consensus for it (e.g. this RM and the RfC linked therein), and in my view is contrary to policy per WP:QUALIFIER (see also WP:SHORTFORM, although I disagree with the premise there). I also realize that cases where the topic obviously could refer to either the state or the country, but enwiki only covers one or the other, are more problematic, and will address those via discussion. I am all for disambiguation when there are things to disambiguate, but also, parenthetical qualifiers are not the only form of disambiguation (hatnotes are important too). All that said, I am happy to revert and go to RM if there are good faith concerns with specific articles (WP:BRD, like the case above with Scouting in Georgia). If you have specific concerns, please let me know. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello ! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Sent by using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Mdewman6. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for maintenance so that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Steps such as checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline are mandatory and will take a few minutes per article.
 * Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any required steps.
 * Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. signed,Rosguill talk 23:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

List of leaders of Georgia
Hi Mdewman6, several times you’ve declared your opinion that my close was inappropriate, but I don’t understand why. I was hoping you’d explain. As a closer it is my duty to weigh the arguments offered according to how well they’re based in policy. In the original RM I saw opposition had absolutely no basis in policy. Did I miss something? The claim that the title fails PRECISE merely because it’s ambiguous, or is “too ambiguous”, is absurd, because that argument would invalidate the title of every PRIMARYTOPIC article. In that original RM nobody on opposition even addressed primary topic even though it was noted in the proposal and multiple times in the discussion by Support. So, how was the close inappropriate? Thanks. — В²C ☎ 05:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I described my view on your close in detail at the move review, but I'll try to elaborate a bit. You know I feel strongly about unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation, just as you do, but making controversial RM closes is not the way to combat this, even if you are correct on the merits and policy. Your close was not a summary of the discussion and what consensus was reached (if any), it was more about what was missing from the discussion, and your strong opinions that came out in the move review illustrate how you are not a neutral arbiter on the matter, but directly involved in the outcome. You should have joined the discussion, indicating how weak the opposer's rationales were, rather than have closed it, i.e. your close was a supervote, with little distinction from the supervote we battled in The In Between saga. Yes, it is not a simple vote count, and we weigh the strength of the arguments, but a closer must still take into account the number of editors making an argument, and a weak argument made by a majority of participants can rival the weight of a strong argument made by a single participant. We should only discount votes where the rationale is completely off base, e.g. something absurd like "oppose: square pizza is better than round pizza" that obviously has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Here, the opposer's rationales may be woefully incomplete or miss the point, but you should not completely discount the views of 4 of your peers because their arguments are lacking. You must have known the close would be taken to move review, and met with resistance there, and even if the close was correct, closers should not invite controversy in this way (especially non-admins, as I noted, per WP:RMCI). The "but, it's ambiguous" opposes frustrate me just as much as they do you, especially those from certain editors who if they had their way would include the short description in parentheses as part of every article title (hyperbole, but not too far from the truth), and some want to to have their cake and eat it too (i.e., have the disambiguated title, but leave the base name redirecting there, as it did, which is ridiculously illogical), but forcing controversial closes upon them is not the way forward, and these will always be challenged. The way forward is to participate in RM discussions with strong policy-based arguments, and initiate RMs with strong policy-based arguments, if they are going to continue to oppose numerous individual RMs on the basis of ambiguity rather than follow policy or try to build consensus to change it to match their philosophies. Lastly, I see you discuss RMs on your user page quite a bit. Another suggestion would be to develop some of these examples into essays that can help illustrate prevailing consensus on the application of article title policy which can be cited in discussions, which will also help combat misguided opposition to policy-based moves (WP:MISPLACED is starting to gain a slight bit of traction in this regard, I think). Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

α-N-Acetylneuraminyl-2,3-b-galactosyl-1,3-N-acetyl-galactosaminide 6-α-sialyltransferase
Hello, Mdewman6,

Please check and look at "What links here" when deciding whether or not to leave a redirect, even if you are correcting a bad page move that you did. By not leaving a redirect, there were 8 or 9 broken redirects from this page move that I just deleted. Ordinarily, I would take the time to correct the mistake by cutting and pasting but I really don't know anything about chemical or biological compounds like this so I just deleted them. If they are needed in the future, they can be recreated. But it would be preferable if they weren't broken in the first place so before deciding NOT to leave a redirect, make sure that there are no pages that link to the page you are moving. And the same goes for Talk pages. For some reason with our page movers these days, redirects are left for articles but not for talk pages which just leaves talk page broken redirects. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that! Yes, I made an error in the first page move, and then suppress-moved to fix it, but didn't realize that would cause you to G8 the first one. I will make sure to recreate the proper R from move, and make sure the talk page redirect is in place too. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you undelete the broken redirects? I think that would be better than me just recreating them, to preserve whatever history they had:

I think that's all of them I can see in the deletion log. Then I will fix all the links you de-linked. Thanks! I just forgot I needed to fix the first R from move before it got G8'd. I'll remember that next time. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alpha-N-acetylneuraminyl-2,3-beta-galactosyl-1,3-N-acetyl-galactosaminide alpha-2,6-sialyltransferase
 * Cytidine monophosphoacetylneuraminate-(alpha-N-acetylneuraminyl-2,3-beta-galactosyl-1,3)-N-acetylgalactosaminide-alpha-2,6-sialyltransferase
 * (alpha-N-acetylneuraminyl-2,3-beta-galactosyl-1,3)-N-acetyl-galactosaminide 6-alpha-sialyltransferase
 * CMP-N-acetylneuraminate:(alpha-N-acetylneuraminyl-2,3-beta-D-galactosyl-1,3)-N-acetyl-D-galactosaminide alpha-2,6-N-acetylneuraminyl-transferase
 * CMP-N-acetylneuraminate:N-acetyl-alpha-neuraminyl-(2-3)-beta-D-galactosyl-(1-3)- N-acetyl-D-galactosaminide galactosamine-6-alpha-N-acetylneuraminyltransferase
 * Ah, I misunderstood, you didn't actually remove any incoming links, you just G8'd all the redirects. I think the only incoming link was repaired when I recreated the R from move. But the redirects listed here should still be recreated because in actuality there wasn't a valid reason for them to be speedy deleted. The title is a mess but once everything is fixed here, it is an improvement over the previous status quo, so all this mayhem will be worth something! Thanks again, Mdewman6 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

, when you get a chance could you undelete these? Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Liz responds to pings. Anyway I've undeleted the redirects, although there's not much point since none of them had any history of note. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, * Pppery *, for restoring these redirects, yes, it's best to come to my talk page to make requests, I don't see pings. Thank you for taking care of a task I should have seen to. I just happened to see the page restoration in the Deletion log. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page 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) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Please sign your posts
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(The unsigned post was on my talk page.) Altanner1991 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Aldol reaction/condensation
I just want to double check my knowledge before wading further into the aldol condensation vs aldol reaction issue. Aldol reactions give aldols? And when the nearly same reaction(s) proceeds further to eliminate water, then the net conversion is an aldol condensation? If that is the case, I think that we should probably recombine aldol condensation and aldol reaction. We'd keep aldol as a structural motif.

As a practical matter, it would be a good idea to get this issue (combine or not) before any students dig in. They arent equipped to figure it out.

Another practical consideration: aldol reaction is nearly 49000 bytes and aldol condensation is 17000 bytes. I think that in terms of importance, the condensation is more important that the reaction, i.e. a,b-unsaturated carbonyls are more abundant/common than beta-hydroxy carbonyls, which are somewhat fragile.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the condensation is just the subsequent dehydration, but is treated somewhat separately in o-chem textbooks. I think the topic is large and important enough to warrant separate articles, though as I say, that means the condensation part should not be recapitulating the content at aldol reaction very much. I agree keep aldol more or less the way it is, perhaps with some expansion and more brief summarizing/linking to the reaction topics.
 * But it definitely looks more and more like we feel that aldol reactions is an unhelpful content fork of aldol reaction. I can sort of see what the goal was there, but if it's confusing us, it's also confusing the readers. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, full disclosure, I wouldn't consider myself a "real" organic chemist...hard to put a label on what kind of chemist I am, if I had assign one from the traditional disciplines I'd say analytical. So anyone feel free to correct me! Mdewman6 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Merging metirosine
Hi Mdewman6. Just to say that I saw the request to update the drugbox in the merged article, which I'm happy to do. At present I'm on holiday with limited internet access, so I won't get to this for 10 days or so. If you go ahead and do the bulk of the merging, I'll finish the drugbox part in due course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've now added a chembox for the three relevant materials (R, S and RS) and started a section on the structure and stereochemistry to explain these. Unfortunately, I don't think that there is a way to embed a chembox of identifiers into a drugbox (or vice-versa), so I've put a truncated drugbox in for metirosine. Is there anything else you would like me to do, or can I leave any further tweaking (and turning metirosine into a redirect) to you? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, thank you! I can handle the rest of the merge. I was thinking a single chembox or drugbox would be best, but I think what we currently have is fine for now (certainly, an improvement over the content fork). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)