User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2019/September

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 6, 2019‎
I don't have a strong preference on US vs. U.S. here, and I wouldn't mind if you want to put U.S. back in. Just be aware that this is something I always check. There are 8 instances of "US" in the article and 1 of "U.S.", and the 1 is a highway.

Regarding "with recorded winds of 105 mph (165 km/h)" vs. the cvt template: adding cvt generally introduces an error in these cases. The key is the word "recorded" ... all of the usual reporting authorities measure in knots, then make an approximate conversion to mph and kmh to the nearest 5 mph or kph. Cvt can't handle that ... and we wouldn't even want it to. So the wikiproject is simply reporting how the result was announced. WP:TROP often leaves off words like "recorded" and "reported" ... which in my view is inaccurate ... but that's not something I can fix. Blurbs, I can fix. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood (as someone who's interested in tropical cyclones myself, I did think there was a good reason to report wind speeds slightly inaccurately). Actually, can in fact round to a multiple of 5 (or any other number), but I'll leave that out in case it introduces some other error. I've put "U.S." back in, however, as it seems to be the more common style in use on the Main Page and also because it appears twice in that day's OTD; I think it would be better to maintain this consistency. &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 14:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry, I meant that cvt can't handle "approximate", that is, it can't know how the figure was reported. If you're going to limit the logic of "I'm changing it because other Main Page sections do it that way" just to favor U.S. over US in certain cases, I don't have an objection. If the principle expands beyond that, that would need an RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's all I'm limiting it to. I don't have any objection to the policy outlined in MOS:US. &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 14:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're doing excellent work, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

IPA
Hi. Can I just ask you about the IPA pronunciation you've put into the "Huw Edwards" article, viz. ( ? Whilst it's true that English speakers mostly mispronounce his name by diphthongizing the first vowel sound (as if it were the word "you" with an "h" in front of it), he himself says it, as most Welsh people do, in accordance with the Welsh language's phonetic spelling. So I would think the correct IPA symbols are h|ɪu̯ - what do you think? Deb (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * IPAc-en doesn't support all IPA symbols, only those that regularly appear in English. Therefore, we could thus write   to approximate the Welsh pronunciation. Perhaps we could include both pronunciations in the lead, with the "Welsh" one coming first? &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 12:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm more than happy for you to do what you think is best, as I'm no expert on IPA. Deb (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, on the other hand, I'm no expert on Welsh pronunciation. Alternative IPA added as suggested. &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 15:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for José de Jesús Pimiento Rodríguez
&mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 12:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Malaysia Day
Re this edit, it's not a problem for an observance and a blurb to be reference the same thing. We usually leave out the observance only when that link points to the same article as the blurb. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 16:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted; I just thought it might be slightly better if we made mention of another, unrelated, event in OTD, although I understand now that it isn't a problem per se. Cheers. &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 16:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The downside was that we ended up featuring 3 US blurbs, which someone complained about. — howcheng  {chat} 16:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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: Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Rollback granted
Hi Ravenpuff. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ARavenpuff 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! Widr (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2019 (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.