User talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive 4

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Varying Permeability Model into Thermodynamic model of decompression. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Forgot the edit summary. Thanks for fixing, . Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spirobranchus kraussii, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Baird and Marine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

WPSCUBA importance
You may be wondering why the importance rating you gave to Oxygen toxicity isn't showing up :) . When I implemented the classification system for WPSCUBA in 2009, I didn't include the importance parameters because the number of active WikiProject Scuba members was small. At that time, it was generally accepted that the importance rating was a guide for members of a WikiProject to the importance that the WikiProject gave to improving that article. In other words, a high-importance article was one that members wanted to work on. Of course things change over time, but even now, the number of active editors on scuba-related topics is so small that we all know each other and I've never felt the need to implement the importance ratings. Nevertheless, if you think that it would benefit WPSCUBA, I'd be happy to modify the template to accept those ratings. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I realised what the problem was immediately the rating didn't show up, so I took a look at the template and another similar template which has importance parameter (WPMED) and it looks quite simple to adapt, but I would be quite happy if you made the mod if you get to it before I have the opportunity. I think setting importance ratings might help me focus on what most needs to be done, and gives others a chance to give opinions on the matter if they have any. It is a trivial modification that might have useful consequences, so why not give it a go? Cheers &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Peter, and it's working as expected. I'll make a point of adding importance ratings to articles I work on in future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am adjusting when I think a change is needed, but readjust where you think advisable. Cheers,&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 01:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9
Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

International class
Hi Peter,

I found International class while doing new page patrolling, and the question that came to mind was "When was it discontinued, and was it replaced by something else?". I couldn't find answers with a quick web search, and thought you might know.

Cheers, --Slashme (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not a clue. I knew of the existence of international classes back when I sailed dinghies, but it never made any difference to me and I didn't research it at all. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Redlinks and redirects
Hi Peter, I am familiar with the use of redlinks, but there is another approach when there is a need for context. By using links and redirects one achieves a first level of coherence for the material. If that is sufficient for a given reader, problem solved. If another reader would like more detail, then sure, he or some author or editor should climb in and find out more, at which point the redirect page may become an article in its own right, and I have on occasion expanded redirects into articles, or even sets of articles, but at present I have too little time or knowledge of the Tunicata to indulge myself in expending these. Thanks anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues
As an experienced editor, you know our copyright policy. I'm puzzled by this edit which looks problematic. I wondered if the source was public domain, but it is not. Those excerpts are longer than most editors feel are appropriate.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that facts can't be copyrighted, and there are only so many ways that you can present statistics, so it's hard to avoid close-paraphrasing in a section titled "Statistical risks". I've done a further copy-edit to try to remove any appearance of copyvio while retaining as much of the statistics as I could. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) I looked. The information is bare facts and difficult to rewrite without changing the meaning, but I have done what I can to use slightly different words without misrepresenting the facts. It would also appear that RexxS has had a go since my last edit. Let me know if there is still a problem. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) I looked. The information is bare facts and difficult to rewrite without changing the meaning, but I have done what I can to use slightly different words without misrepresenting the facts. It would also appear that RexxS has had a go since my last edit. Let me know if there is still a problem. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Commercial offshore diving
Your addition of 14:33 on 16 July was picked up by a bot as being a copyright violation. Please don't paste copyright material onto this wiki, not even temporarily before you edit it. Please either use an external editor, or re-work the content before you save. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , Did you check the actual edit yourself, or are you responding to an automated report? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem was originally detected by a bot, but I checked the edit myself against the source web page using Earwig's tool. I have undone the revision deletion so that both of us can double check. here is the copyvio report when comparing revision 730111523 against the web page http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/norway-new-report-on-diving-related-accidents-launched/. — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I have read the linked report and still don't understand why it was considered a copyright violation. What does "Violation Unlikely 28.1% confidence" actually mean, and how is it calculated? I have never used the tool and it is totally unfamiliar to me, but my interpretation of the report is that it calculated by some unspecified algorithm that copyright violation is unlikely (which is what I thought at the time I made the disputed edit), and that it allocates a confidence of 28% to either the finding that violation is unlikely, or to the edit being a copyright infringement. It is not clear which. If the confidence is 28% that copyright may have been infringed, that strikes me as rather low, particularly when you take into consideration that this source is a plain report of data, and not a piece of creative writing. However as I have no idea of how the program works I don't know if I interpret the results correctly, and have no idea of what limits are considered acceptable. As you are using the software, can you clarify? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The prose that matches is highlighted (on my display it is highlighted in pink; your set-up may show a different color). When examining only one paragraph, the percentage is not a useful measure of the extent of the copy vio. If you scroll down and view the paragraph you added from this source, you will see that your version is almost identical to the source article. Visual inspection of the source document and your addition confirms that this is so. That's why the bot flagged your edit, and that's why I came here to discuss the edit with you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what you're looking at is Peter's draft attempt at rephrasing part of the content as a result of the note in the previous section of this talk page - we edit-conflicted as I was trying to copy-edit the same section to allay S Philbrick's concerns, so Peter didn't get a chance to do any more. As I said above, it's quite hard to avoid close paraphrasing of dates and numbers when you're trying to summarise statistics, so it's not surprising that phrases like "relatively few personal injuries", "last 25 years", "last fatality in connection with saturation diving took place in 1987", "In 2010 two personal injuries", "few serious incidents" turned up in both our article and the source. Anyway, the current version, Special:PermaLink/730111523, gives a 2% match because I artificially chose alternative phraseology in a deliberate attempt to mismatch the text with the source. Peter is an experienced editor, and I'm sure he has seen what I did. Is there anything else needed now? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Diannaa for your explanation, and thanks RexxS for your interpretation. It would appear that the problem was largely due to a collection of short phrases and a partial sentence rather tersely and exactly describing the unembroidered facts, using the same words as the original, as there are a limited number of ways to present the data without compromising it by introducing differently nuanced meaning, extracted from different parts the same article and assembled as a summary, which on visual preview seemed sufficiently unlike the original source, but as shown up by software analysis, turned out to be somewhat more similar than it looked to the eye. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The more technical the subject matter, the more difficult it is to paraphrase. What works for me is I try to imagine that I am describing the subject in my own words to a friend in conversation. I try to use different terminology, present the material in a different order, and so on. Thanks for your patience and thanks too to RexxS for helping to explain. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, these things happen, and it is a strength of the system that someone usually spots them. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The more technical the subject matter, the more difficult it is to paraphrase. What works for me is I try to imagine that I am describing the subject in my own words to a friend in conversation. I try to use different terminology, present the material in a different order, and so on. Thanks for your patience and thanks too to RexxS for helping to explain. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, these things happen, and it is a strength of the system that someone usually spots them. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nitrox Divers International

 * See Articles for deletion/American Nitrox Divers International. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, On it. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Solo diving page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=735100552 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F735100552%7CSolo diving%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your GA nomination of Decompression theory
The article Decompression theory you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Decompression theory for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dive profile
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dive profile you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dive profile
The article Dive profile you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dive profile for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dive profile
The article Dive profile you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dive profile for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done, Peter. Congratulations! --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, That one was the least work yet, and the smallest article. I suppose it it logical that a small article would be less work. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is, until you try to get it FA. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Different hoops. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Different hoops. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Diving instructor, Pbsouthwood!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"reviewed seems useful"

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Archive 05:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating List of Seaweeds of the Cape Peninsula and False Bay, Pbsouthwood!

Wikipedia editor Anne Delong just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Whew! That was a lot of work! Great job."

To reply, leave a comment on Anne Delong's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Archive 05:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Decompression equipment
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Decompression equipment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Decompression equipment
The article Decompression equipment you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Decompression equipment for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Decompression equipment
The article Decompression equipment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Decompression equipment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbaric Medicine
I removed the under construction from Hyperbaric Medicine, which you had added and then commented out in March. Hope that's OK. David Brooks (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem,. Sometimes I get involved in something else and forget about those tags. You are entirely within good practice to have deleted it after such a long time. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Underwater diving
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Underwater diving you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Atsme -- Atsme (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Too funny
Have you noticed the code in the diffs for your "done" comments at the GA review page? Are you a Texan? Atsme 📞📧 21:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice anything humourous, possibly because I am not a Texan. Could you explain? Cheers &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The code for bullets is "& bull" (without the space) - in Texas, the word bull*hit (I replaced the s with *) is popular or else they use just "bull" which Webster defines as "stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense: much of what he says is sheer bull.  So when you wrote your edit comment and followed it with bullets, the code read "& bull, & bull, & bull".  You may still not consider it funny, but because it was unintentional, I thought it was. Atsme 📞📧 13:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, I am unintentionally full of bull. Could almost be true. Make me an honorary Texan, I should fit in seamlessly ;-) Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I laughed because when I first saw it, I thought that's what you were saying to me about my suggestions! *LOL*  Your article is coming along nicely.  It's a long one, so I'm taking it one section at a time.  When we're done with the tweaking, and I'm able to promote it to GA, wait a week or two, then request a peer review - they'll let you know what else needs to be polished - then once that's done, nominate it for WP:FA...that is if you're up to it. SMirC-thumbsup.svg Atsme 📞📧 02:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Better that you are unintentionally amused than unintentionally offended. I am not as subtle as you give me credit for. On Wikipedia, particularly with people I do not know, I try to keep things at face value, as it is so easy for humour to be lost in translation, even between cultures using a common language.
 * FA is a worthy ambition, particularly for the lead article of a project, so I will do what I can to get it there. I have not been closely involved with the FA process yet, so it should be interesting and a learning process. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Underwater diving
The article Underwater diving you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Underwater diving for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Atsme -- Atsme (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Scuba diving
I noticed your edit following my revert fix of an image bracket, and wondered where the "original" concept originated. You might also want to correct the following Nevermind, I see where you already fixed it. Atsme 📞📧 17:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear I fixed whatever it was that needed fixing. Now you have me wondering what it was. Also thanks for all the work you did reviewing Underwater diving, the article is significantly improved in both ways that I hoped it would go, and serendipitous stuff. Also made me look at the process differently, so I consider it a good learning experience. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't leave you wondering. Click on the link in my original comment above, then click on the image. Once you're at the image, you can look in the edit history and see what you did. Happy editing! ☺️ Atsme 📞📧 12:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't realise you were referring to Commons. Thanks, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

West African Ebola virus epidemic
hi Pbsouthwood you've posted a few times at WPMED/talk and I noticed you have experience in terms of Good Article noms I recently nominated the above article and would therefore appreciate if you could take a look at it (review), thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will look at the article and see if I feel I can manage it, as the subject is way out of my field of knowledge and it is a very large and detailed article for a first attempt at GA review. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will give it a go. It may take longer than the recommended week to 10 days, because of the size. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pbsouthwood I really appreciate it, this means a lot to me, if there are any adjustments needed in the text let me know, again thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and I hope you still appreciate it when we are done. I doubt I would have considered something so far off my beaten track as a first attempt for a GA review, but you asked... &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you:-)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Pbsouthwood as you mentioned I am confirming that any remaining issues are resolved, and therefore am ready for Monday (at any time you might be available), thank you as always........PS Happy Halloween......--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

West Africa Ebola review
Pbsouthwood ,Thank you very much for taking on the review of West African Ebola virus epidemic I know that due to its length it wasn't easy, however you were very professional and I was very fortunate to work w/ you. Should you find yourself needing a reviewer (or any type of help in the future do not hesitate to ask). Bringing this article to GA has a special meaning to so many that worked on it.......God bless you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ozzie10aaaa, you are very welcome. It is clear that the article was a major collaborative piece of work and important to WikiProject Medicine, particularly as an accessible reference during the epidemic, when it appears to have been quite important for public information. It was an interesting and instructive experience to review, as a complete layman in this field, and it was less fearsome than I expected, as it was well written for the general public. If you do ever split it or take it to FA, let me know, I have invested enough in it now to feel I have taken on a stewardship (it will stay on my watchlist in any case). As far as asking for help goes, I have noticed that you are among the first to take a look when an opinion is requested, so don't feel you owe me anything, we pay these things forward, but I will keep your offer in mind. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Names in the list
Hi Peter, Re names: aaargh!! Was trying to help and the end was finally in sight. Now I'll have to start again? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , Look at it as a learning experience;-/ The repair work should go quite quickly. I will give a hand, and check current status on WoRMS at the same time. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Only trying to help make a beautiful (and correct) list. And yes, I have learned something, which is my chief motivation in the first place. And all this because I discovered the ultra cute Sepia mestus. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, most of your work has improved the list. To avoid edit conflicts, I suggest you tag the section you are working in with in use and I will do the same. I have not seen Sepia mestus, but have seen S. apama (though not a very big one), in South Australia, and a few other cuttlefish species in South Africa. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Userspace protection
Hey Peter. I'm contacting you to follow-up on the RfC on userspace protection that you participated in. After a discussion at, it looks like a filter is a better approach to implementing these changes. We're developing some language for a message that editors will see when the filter is triggered. Comments and suggestions on this message are welcome at the talk page. Take care, I JethroBT drop me a line 16:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Ozzie10aaaa (talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pbsouthwood, Happy Holidays/New Year!...ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

List-defined references
Hi Peter, it certainly makes editing an article easier when all of the reference definitions are where you'd expect to find them - in the Reference section (my old wiki-pal, User:Jack Merridew, used to call it "de-snotting" the text)! Can I make a suggestion? After you've finished cleaning up and tidying the references, collect the definitions all together in alphabetical order (not in groups). The reason is that any editor wanting to re-use a citation, for example, will start from the wikitext and will go looking for the definition by the name you've used to label it; but you can't tell from the label whether it's web, book, journal, etc. so they may have to scan though multiple groups to find it, and that's a pain in a large article. It's by no means crucial, but I'm all for making life as easy as possible for other editors. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that. Alphabetical order of what, though? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical order of the name/label you gave the reference because that's what an editor will be looking for (which is why I usually try to make names obvious like , or  , etc.) See how quick you can find a ref named "Scott 1932" in the wikitext of Decompression sickness . --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of the labels are not what I would have chosen, but I guess I can clean them up too. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, warts and all. Took more work than I expected. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A little help
There's a script I use at User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js. I don't know if you've seen it, but it collects all the references from a page into a separate text-box. When you edit the whole article page (not a section), it shows up as a green 'button' labelled "Segregate refs for editing" underneath the edit window, which you click to trigger the script. It's easy to copy and paste all of the reference definitions from the separate box into the References section; you then only need to scan through the text and change the inline reference definitions,  to the just the named reference , as you do anyway.

The loader to place in your Common.js looks like this: // var SegregateRefsJsAllowConversion = true; mw.loader.load( '/w/index.php?title=User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript', 'text/javascript' ); Hope you might find it useful. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks useful, I will look into it more closely. Thanks, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Same like magic! Very convenient.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Same like magic! Very convenient.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.''

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:


 * Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (15 December 2016)
 * Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
 * Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (23 December 2016)
 * Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
 * Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (8 January 2017)
 * Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
 * Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (11 January 2017)
 * Introduction of williamsworks
 * Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 February 2017)
 * The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
 * Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (10 February 2017)
 * Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Initial announcements review • Get help

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.''

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:
 * Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (16 February 2017)
 * Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
 * Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (24 February 2017)
 * Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
 * Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 March 2017)
 * Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Overview 2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process • Get help

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)

 * This message, "We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)", was sent through multiple channels by Gregory Varnum on 15 and 16 of March 2017 to village pumps, affiliate talk pages, movement mailing lists, and MassMessage groups. A similar message was sent by Nicole Ebber to organized groups and their mailing lists on 15 of March 2017. This version of the message is available for translation and documentation purposes

Dear Wikimedians/Wikipedians:

Today we are starting a broad discussion to define Wikimedia's future role in the world and develop a collaborative strategy to fulfill that role. You are warmly invited to join the conversation.

There are many ways to participate, by joining an existing conversation or starting your own:

Track A (organized groups): Discussions with your affiliate, committee or other organized group (these are groups that support the Wikimedia movement).

Track B (individual contributors): On Meta or your local language or project wiki.

This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?

We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.


 * Find out more about the movement strategy process
 * Learn more about volunteering to be a Discussion Coordinator

Sincerely,

Nicole Ebber (Track A Lead), Jaime Anstee (Track B Lead), & the engagement support teams 05:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TheDJ
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
 * The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
 * An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
 * After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news
 * After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
 * Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

List if US Navy Ratings
Hi. Further to the conversation at the Wikiproject, at least two of the rating titles that you have de-capped have gone into redlinks when they were blue linked before (Aviation storekeeper and Postal clerk). Just thought you should know. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, didn't notice those, will fix. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And done. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Whale
Well done for reverting yourself there. "Sulfur" is the international spelling for science just as "aluminium" is. See WP:ALUM. --John (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * More luck than good judgement, There is a lot of obscure stuff going on that one does not easily pick up. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This may be of use
Place in Special:MyPage/Common.js /* if(mw.config.get("wgCanonicalSpecialPageName")==="Watchlist") jQuery(function($){	$(".mw-rollback-link a").click(function(event){ if(confirm("Are you sure you want to rollback this edit?")) return; event.preventDefault; }); }); Especially useful if you ever use a touch-screen. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Will pop-up a confirmation dialog when rollback link is clicked from Watchlist.
 * Hit the "cancel" button if you had clicked Rollback accidentally and the edit will not be reverted.
 * 'User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js');
 * Thanks, I will try it &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for moving the page Talk:Merano back to its previous name, Pbsouthwood. Could you do the same with the article page too, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.95.8.200 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ran into technical problems so have requested a reversion at move requests. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The countries where the term allopathic medicine is used
Well there are many countries where the term Allopathic medicine is used. These three are just a few among the many. References can be found in the article that I am currently in process of writing.  D ip ta ns hu  &#128172; 18:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem when you produce a reliable reference. Until then, a problem. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Better before
Unfortunately the discussion closed before I noticed your comment. Are you participating in the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin? Anyway.You say "better before" may be a "simple truth", but that doesn't make it a good edit summary. There's actually specific policy that says it's a bad edit summary. "Better before" doesn't say what was better before, and is a form of article ownership. If there's something specific that was better before, it should be named, otherwise it's as vague as "I don't like it." Same for "that's a guideline", "stable version", and so on. Nothing favors not following the guidelines, and nothing favors a stable version. Reverts of a good-faith edit based on these non-reasons are bad, they prevent improvement under the guise of protecting the article. Bright☀ 13:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will not be in Berlin. I will be at Wikimania 2018 (Cape Town) as I am on the organising committeee.
 * Edit summaries are not compulsory, if they were, you would not be able to save without making one. I don't think making them compulsory would get consensus. Sometimes the hassle of making an edit summary is more than the work of making the edit, so you get sub-optimum edit summaries, both from people who couldn't be bothered to think up a good one, and those who don't care anyway. That is how it goes on Wikipedia, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. Clearly you are in favour of good edit summaries, and I am not against them, but I simply don't trust an edit summary. When patrolling my watchlist, if I recognise the username as one who I know does good work, I will not bother to look, unless they may have done something interesting, and that usually depends on the article. When there is any doubt, I look at the edit. I have seen vandalism summarised as spelling or grammar corrections and similar misleading descriptions. When I see a poorly written, irrelevant, or mistaken edit, I may summarise as "revert not useful", which in effect is the same as "better before". I see no point in wasting my time to explain why when it is fairly obvious. If the person appears to have made a real effort to make a useful edit, I will explain further, often on their talk page, to encourage better edits in future. I have seldom "reverted to stable version", and if/when I have it is after a series of vandalisations and usually when the vandalism has been only partially corrected, so one has to go back to before it started. That seems a perfectly valid use of that edit summary and has nothing whatsoever to do with "ownership". I don't think I have reverted an improvement, but why would I? Improvements are what most of us are here to do. Of course it is likely that some of the editors I have reverted disagree with me, but they are welcome to discuss the point on the article talk page or here. I do not, as a rule, bite the newbies, or anyone else who engages in civil discussion, even when I disagree with them quite fundamentally. I have been known to chide people for uncivil behaviour, because I think it is necessary for someone to do it. I don't know whether any of this clarifies my point. If not you are welcome to point out the specific issues remaining unresolved. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course this was not directed at you, it was directed at bad edit summaries in general, which are already discouraged in Wikipedia policy. For example if someone edits an article to better comply with a Wikipedia guideline and gets reverted with "it's just a guideline" that's a bad edit summary, it doesn't say why the previous version was better. Neither does "better before" or "not useful". I'm not talking about reverting vandalism, I'm talking about good-faith edits. If communicating what was wrong with a good-faith edit is a waste of time, then maybe communicating why your revert got reverted is a waste of time, too... and that way lie edit wars. Bright☀ 15:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , Quite so. I did not assume it was directed at me as I seldom use any of the summaries you used as examples, most of them never. Context is critical here. I don't remember you specifying that these summaries were used when reverting obvious good faith edits, but it is a while back, so I could be mistaken. In those cases I would agree with you that the edit summaries you specified are not helpful through to slightly uncivil, though sometimes "better before" may still be simple truth (but not very helpful all the same). So far I have managed to avoid edit warring, as it is not a productive activity. If someone reverts my revert I will open a discussion before making further changes unless it is obvious vandalism, in line with bold-revert-discuss. It works for me. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)