User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This is my archive for threads from 2013 that don't belong in my themed archives.

Happy new year!

Greengreengreenred — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!

	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser(talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you WereSpielChequers! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And an even more belated happy new year from me. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, WereSpielChequers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Go Phightins! 22:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melanie Hebert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Way(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} Wifione ^Message 16:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

TParis

G'day Fetchcomms. TParis has you listed as an editor from whom he will accept a nudge that he might not be acting as an admin in the right way. I have been involved with him in a conflict for the past couple of weeks that he is prosecuting way too personally. The latest incident is particularly disappointing as it was essentially an attempt by him to restart the conflict after it had fallen into a lull (diff), and an attempt by two other editors on either side of the divide to approach a resolution (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Discussion_redirect until TParis' attempt to close down the discussion, which was shortly followed by the diff above).

At the moment, I'd like to ask that you talk with TParis about the above diff, which was a clear attempt to restart the drama machine and probably WP:BAITING, and ask for him to back off. If he does not, then I'll leave it to your consideration as to whether this is now grounds for recall, but, personally, I have a high expectations of behaviour for admins, and, on top of everything else, WP:BAITING is a clear breach of that.

In terms of TParis' criteria:

1. I have previously discussed the issue with him at his talkpage at User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Follow-up and User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Your_actions.2Fcomments_at_RFC.2FU.
2. The issues at hand have been extensively discussed at ANI, where TParis proposed a onesided interaction ban, which I view essentially as an attempt to silence me.
3. There has been time to cool down since the issue started, but TParis can not let go.
4. In terms of actions as an administrator, TParis closed my initial complaint against ANI with poor wording, that has been discussed at User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Follow-up, where I repeatedly reject what I read as a suggestion that I follow Epeefleche around and fix his problems. I have since had to keep repeatedly saying that I'm not interesting in doing that at, for example, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#TParis.27_concerns_regarding_.22wikistalking.22. The Wikipedia:ANI#Formal_interaction_ban_proposal made by TParis at ANI was also made from an administrative perspective.
5. The key policy issue here is WP:CIVIL.

As I said, I'm leaving any decisions about whether TParis' behaviour is not what is expected of an admin in your hands. However, I would ask that you suggest that he consider stopping.

I am also posting this message to the other admins on TParis' recall list. Also, I am scaling back my involvement with wikipedia, so I might not see replies very quickly. If you have something you want me to respond to, I'd like to ask that you e-mail me at "daniel.judd@gmail.com". Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, sorry things have got to the point where you feel it necessary to contact me in my capacity as a member of his recall criteria list. On the underlying dispute I'm very much with you in wishing that my fellow editors would do more to source or if they can't source use more {{fact}} tags. But I'm well aware that the policy is should not must, and as with any such policy there will be editors who choose not to do what they are encouraged to do. As for TParis's recall criteria, I'm really not seeing misuse of tools or a one week gap. So my suggestion to you would be to wait for that one week gap to end and then come back with some diffs that clearly show him acting inappropriately as an admin. If you can't find diffs that show him misusing the tools then you might want to consider whether this is an admin who should be sanctioned or a fellow editor who is sufficiently involved that he is no longer able to act as an admin against you. ϢereSpielChequers 10:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply. I'm scaling back my involvement with wikipedia, but it's good to know that my experience over the last couple of weeks (not just with TParis) is not indicative of all admins. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the scaling back. I've had months and longer when I've been more active on Commons than here, and can heartily recommend it as a much more inclusionist environment, though conversations can often lack the diplomatic niceties that a native speaker can add. ϢereSpielChequers 10:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel, I just do not understand how many people on my recall list, how many people at ANI, and how many people have to tell you on the RFC/U that you're wrong before it's no longer "indicative of all admins" and you finally get it that you are the problem. Please stop your continual insinuated that I, and several other admins, have been abusive when everyone you've approached has told you that no, I have acted appropriately (if not harshly). I'm really tired of seeing the arrogance that goes alone with your claims of innocence and repeated claims of abuse by me. Time for you to back away from me. The "I'm the victim" card has gotten old.--v/r - TP 01:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

THIS is why I have a problem with you. Did you need to say anything here? No. But you did, because your arrogance required you to do so. There are legitimately higher expectations for behaviour from admins than users, yet you consistently show that you (an admin) are just as unable to let go as I (an editor) am. You should not be an admin. In fact, in my view, you're worse because at least I'm not filling my posts with invective nor calling for oxymoronic onesided interaction bans. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• User talk:Danjel. FYI to whom it may concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time, WereSpielChequers, have a good night.--v/r - TP 04:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Every time I see you username I smile. It's ever better with an edit summary like...

WereSpielChequers (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎RfA in 2013: typo)

Thanks for...well, not proofreading your edits!

—Theopolisme (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I assure you it isn't usually deliberate:) ϢereSpielChequers 01:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Progress over at Today's articles for improvement

I was reading an old conversation you participated in, and I thought I'd mention how much progress has gone on over at Today's articles for improvement. If you missed it, an RFC was held and concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. We will be launching the feature on the Main Page shortly, and the Main Page sandbox shows it will look. Participation on the talk page is always welcome. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georges de la Bouglise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris World Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: WP:NOUSERS

Hello, WereSpielChequers. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia should not have users.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution

Appreciate your contribution of Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka to improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.31 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, not an easy page there and as a Brit I'm a bit cautious at involving myself - presumably this is one of those conflicts with roots in the British Imperial system? ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 2, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @811  ·  18:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Dougweller/reversion

I'm not sure what you meant by your post there. I presume it refers to something I did during this period:[1]. Thanks. Oh - how did you get to that page? Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I got there from your current talkpage which links to it at the top in "Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...", So I assumed it was a currently applicable statement. I was commenting on the points in that page not on any specific use of them. ϢereSpielChequers 05:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand now. I'll be revising it now that you've pointed it out. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, I thought it might be a little out of date:) ϢereSpielChequers 01:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to stalkers

Feedback and collaboration would be welcome at User:WereSpielChequers/BotEditSummary ϢereSpielChequers 05:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ipblock-exempt

Hey, how's it going? I was wondering whether you'd mind adding ipblock-exempt to my account? I regularly look at wikipedia on my phone and, while I don't make any major edits when I do, it gets very frustrating when I try to edit an article and it says "this IP address is currently blocked from editing". Most of the IPs my phone carrier uses seem to be blocked. Thanks in advance, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Oli, congratulations on being the first to ever ask me for that userright! I had some interesting reading about what was involved, and I've decided that it is probably best to refer you to someone more experienced with these and because they will need to know the offending IP address someone who has gone through the vetting to be a check user. Check Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#Query or email User:Deskana has offered to help, so Email them or the functionaries list. ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I've linked to a mailing list post of yours here. Andreas JN466 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all; another newsletter.

• If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
• Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
• We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
• Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Might need some salt

One of the greatest persons this world had ever seen is back. Might need some salt this time around. The-Pope (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. We really ought to get you your own mop sometime, remember me if you ever want a nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 10:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey WereSpielChequers - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}}

Talkback

{{talkback}} GregJackP Boomer! 13:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

{{talkback}} GregJackP Boomer! 00:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Article protection

Hi. Is there a reason you protected Alan Faena indefinitely? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 13:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there were some IP vandalisms in 2011 including one serious enough to be revision deleted. As it is a Biography of a Living Person that seems like good enough reason to semi protect it. Do you think it time to change that? We now have pending changes so I could reduce the protection to just that. ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I see a grand total of 4 instances of possible vandalism in 2 years; indefinite semi-protection doesn't seem proportionate. Pending changes also doesn't seem particularly justified, but since it really ought to be applied to most BLPs, this is as good a place as any to start. :-) —Emufarmers^(T/C) 14:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has only been in existence for four years and I semi protected it in 2011 less than two years after creation. The lobster pot nature of semi protection is that we cannot now know whether what I did was needed and worked or whether the vandalism was merely coincidental. Unfortunately I can't show you the content of the vandalism that was revision deleted, but in my opinion it tipped the scales sufficiently to justify semi protection. However we now have PC available, and if you are prepared to watchlist the article I would be prepared to try PC. But please contact an admin if future IP vandalism needs revision deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 19:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How are you my friend?

Hope all is well, we haven't spoken in a while. :) ceranthor 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I responded to your comments. ceranthor 00:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very very good thanks. Hope life is treating you well. ϢereSpielChequers 01:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Life is fine. ceranthor 12:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I deleted that problematic sentence - let me know if it's still confusing. ceranthor 15:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A poke towards a question

This is just a wee poke towards Wikipedia:Bot_requests#.28Both_of_the_above_tasks.29 =] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hullo!

Hello, WereSpielChequers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Filter

Hey. Regarding this comment and this discussion:

I don't know. I'm having qualms about the whole filter thing, at least for en.Wikipedia. I think a "hide" button on every image (to create a reader-generated offensiveness rating system) would work - but I'm thinking the intrusiveness of "hide" on every image on en.Wikipedia is too high a price to pay, considering the relative lack of problem we have here. Is the offense caused to Muslims on en.Wikipedia by images of Muhammad, or Mormons by images of sacred garments, or prudes by penises worth it? I'm thinking not. And I can't see myself signing up to a filter where a self-selected group of volunteers decides how offensive an image is (the alternative to this reader-generated rating system).

That said, I do think Commons might use such a system - since they're all about visual media and they do have porn in categories where the unwary will stumble across it. But I don't know if I can be arsed trying to argue for it on Commons.

On Commons, I'd propose "report this image" on every thumbnail in a search result. Then, when the ratio of the number of reports to the number of views breaks a certain threshold, visitors who have selected the filtered search option, when searching, say, for electric toothbrush, will be presented with a blank place-holder, a "view this image" button and a warning such as "this image may offend some viewers" where they would previously have been presented with the controversial image.

(My preferred option is for the reader who chooses to filter their search results to be offered a slider, from "no filtering" to "strict filtering", because that would avoid the need for any gatekeepers to select a yes/no filter threshold, but that's a bit complex to explain to people new to the concept.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I share you distaste for some sort of overreaction such as blanking images by default, though that would be a very useful option for people with slow connections. However we have a global mission, and I fully support the idea of making our content available to all, and if that means finding some way to address the concerns of hundreds of millions of people then I for one would be uncomfortable simply dismissing the concerns of Moslems or other religions. There is of course the argument that image filtering is the first step on a slippery slope that could lead to censorship of articles on religion, sex, evolution and cosmology. However I see a sharp divide between the illustration of information and the information itself, and I'm prepared to compromise on one and not the other.

I share your distaste for a filtering system where people with different prejudices than me decide what I can see, whether that is a self appointed panel of censors or all readers, and I agree with you that if we have a system it needs to vary by user in some way. But I disagree that we simply have a choice between self appointed censors and a reader generated rating. Can I suggest that you have another look at meta: Controversial content/Brainstorming/personal private filters? I think you might find it gets a balance between functionality for those who choose to use it, and not placing an undue burden on our fellow volunteers. More importantly it is designed to be a filter that avoids almost all the objections of those who don't want filters, and achieves what I'd like which is that the images which I see are filtered according to the tastes of people who have similar prejudices to me. OK there is still the position that Fae took, that a filter is antithetical to our scope and a misuse of the funds that we've had given to us. But I think he's reconsidered that and I'm not aware if anyone still takes that line. ϢereSpielChequers 12:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I've been too busy and exhausted to pay due attention. I've just read through your proposal again and will think about it for a bit and re-read, then get back. Catch you later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Contours

Ta. After the second fight over up or down hadn't reached consensus (or even the right answer!), I called for quiet and held up a small eroded sandstone pebble. They agreed that from the side it looked like a very small hill. I put it on the table. They agreed the eroded layers resembled contour lines. Then little light bulbs started to go on, and they realised what a contour line really was when it wasn't being recited parrot fashion. The course went a lot better after that, as they realised that they weren't just being told things they'd already knew about from school. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As a 17 year old studying geology we did a field trip and looked at rocks in cuttings, but I think I learned about contours the hard way walking up and down mountains. I wonder if GPS and similar newfangled stuff have changed teenagers relationships with maps? ϢereSpielChequers 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

{{you've got mail}} Go Phightins! 00:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

{{you've got mail}} ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

{{You've got mail}}

{{You've got mail}}

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, WereSpielChequers. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}}

Thanks

Thank you for deleting Ulan Butong. I attempted to create a page,created it at the wrong address (seriously) , and then found myself unable to delete the page. Sorry for any inconvenience.Rwenonah (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! We all need to do that sort of deletion now and then. By strange coincidence I recently started a discussion about enabling everyone to delete such pages themselves. ϢereSpielChequers 23:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

E-mail-s

Did you ever get my email? Sorry if so! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diana Hayden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyderabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WereSpielChequers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

–BuickCenturyDriver 01:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WereSpielChequers. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 15:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oxford

Due to the trains, I'll be in the room two hours early today, so if you come ahead if time, you won't be alone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC/2#Unbundling_U1_and_G7

Just as a personal note ... I'm glad to hear that it's doable (I suspected it would be), and I have no problem with you being the one to ask ... my response isn't intended to put the brakes on. I just know that devs require tending loving care for best results :) So I'd prefer to see more discussion before anyone goes to them with anything. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My new essay

I've finally posted the first draft of User:WereSpielChequers/Going off the boil feedback from watchers of this page would be most welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 01:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In a cleaned-up form, that could be an interesting Signpost op-ed, if you wanted the additional feedback and comments. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be good, it might be ready in a week. ϢereSpielChequers 14:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 4

Thank you for attending the third Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. We hope to keep this as a regular event, every two months, on the first Sunday of the month (in order not to clash with London [second Sunday]). A page has been created about the fourth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetup is London, 10 March 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure was mutual, may come again at some point though London is my easiest venue. ϢereSpielChequers 23:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a reminder (because some people haven't seen the geonotice) that the fifth Oxford Meetup is this Sunday. Are you able to attend? It would be great if you could come. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Found advert

Hi Were - I thought you'ld be interested o know I've found an ad on the Cambrian explosion article. Hover over the word "present" in the sentence"All present phyla appeared within the first 20 million years of the period". Is Wiki advertising now? I tried to edit but cannot find it.

Regards - Mark^Dask 14:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This sounds like Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 107#advertisements on Wikipedia. Other similar threads exist in the WP:VPT archives. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, I can't replicate that in Chrome or indeed Firefox. I'm absolutely sure it isn't a Wikipedia feature, my guess is malware or a browser feature. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. I just checked the article again - no ad. I am/was using chrome when it showed, but have since cleaned out cookies so probs yeah it was just on my comp.

Thanks again Mark^Dask 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Abt Kathmandu Healthcare section

Hi, I have reverted your deletion in the section mentioned above. I would like to request you to discuss such a drastic change (in discussion page) when you are editing the page for the first time. I am a doctor located in Kathmandu (and not related to Tilganga). I have never known of anything from this city that has made it as big as the SICS technique. You can fact check it, change the language, or even delete it altogether, but please discuss it beforehand. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there. I read your edit note on the article and made few changes. Please have a look. Plus, if you disagree with the way the page is, you can always discuss it in the talk page. Thank you. --Eukesh (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Tyrol5/Op-ed

Hi, WSC! My apologies on the very much delayed response. I was travelling during the second half of last week and into early this week. This, combined with RL responsibilities, barred me from giving your comments the full and thoughtful reply they deserved. I appreciate you stopping by and commenting. I've left some thoughts and observations in response here. Thanks again. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious

native tongue as tool
Thank you for using the tool of your native tongue, for the wisdom to ignore "your" articles after you finished them, and for not ignoring people, as one of the adiminz: you support others to be one in "fair and consistent" voting and make efforts to reform the process, and you trust editors to rights such as roll back, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (3 May 2009, 14 October 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. ϢereSpielChequers 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We'd like your opinion

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Gilderien's talk page.

Talkback

Hello, WereSpielChequers. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reward for those involved in April's First pranks

Hello WereSpielChequers, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eduemoni. ϢereSpielChequers 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Yeah so your April Fools thing about the aliens is awesome. (In the event that this is not an April Fool's prank and an actual suggestion by actual extraterrestrials, I wholeheartedly approve.) Gupdoo3 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, if pushed I'd have to admit to not being entirely sure. My 2009 effort was definitely an April Fool, but my mind is now sufficiently muzzy about the events of that day that I can't be sure whether 2013 was me doing an April Fool or Extraterrestrials temporarily taking over my mind to communicate a genuine if somewhat unfortunately timed offer to this planet. ϢereSpielChequers 20:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

RevisionDelete request

Hi! I saw your name listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. In my opinion, all the edits at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/SuperAppletart%26ViralVideoify except the first one should be revision deleted per Wikipedia:Revision deletion: "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, harassment ... and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose." --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It appears that the spammy Youtube links are still visible on three of the edits.[2][3][4] I have no idea what he thought posting to the sandbox would accomplish, but we probably should Wikipedia:Deny recognition for those three posts as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Deny recognition doesn't require that we revision delete spam or vandalism, if we tried to do that we'd quickly be buried and only admins would be able to counter vandalism. Assuming that the edit summary was referring to a real person it was right to revdelete those, but spammy youtube links can simply be reverted. Cheers. ϢereSpielChequers 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, WereSpielChequers. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but sadly I rarely have time for breakfast. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Argh

Hi WSC. I honestly haven't forgotten about User:WereSpielChequers/Going off the boil, and will get my thought into text ASAP. I seem to be very often pulled into things (or I jump into things) that I didn't really have an intention of involving myself with. I did add a link to the page, and will get back to you soon. Very sorry I haven't been more timely with this. — Ched :  ?  21:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I noticed the linking, your feedback would be appreciated but only if you have time. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi WSC, I wasn't going to override your decision, though I agree that the assertion of importance wasn't/isn't exactly credible. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• WSC, please reconsider and speedy delete Božidar Bobby Gabershek, or allow Drmies to do it. Per WP:SPEEDY regarding A7, "The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." Clearly, the claim that Gabershek is a "A highly distinguished martial artist" is not credible, not to mention the fact that it's a huge violation of WP:PEACOCK. Two editors did a thorough search to try and find even one reliable source and came up completely empty. The article is simply a promotional fan page. At one point, it had the name of Gabershek's company in the article five times! Now it's down to three. :p Please delete the article. Even the article's frustrated creator has said "Just delete the page". Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are many many highly distinguished people whose careers are not covered on the Internet. I have reassured the author that offline and non-English sources are acceptable here, perhaps we can persuade him to stay and for he or others to provide sources. Perhaps an AFD debate would determine that this chap merits an article, perhaps it wouldn't. I have no strong opinions either way and no intention of participating in the AFD. I just believe that this is a sport where it is possible for people to be so distinguished that they merit an article here, so such an article merits a proper AFD discussion rather than a speedy deletion. The fact that people have tried to find a source and failed would mean that this would be an uncontentious prod or AFD, but if you need to check for sources then it isn't an A7 candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted the following in the other discussion, but I'll re-post here for your convenience:
Chequers, you seem like a great guy (I assume), but I think your reasoning is quite a stretch in this instance. The article is obviously just puffy, promotional nonsense with absolutely nothing to back any of it up. Even admin Drmies looked at it and concluded right away that A7 applies because the assertion ("A highly distinguished martial artist") is pure hype and has no credibility. Even the article's creator, who added it just hours ago, gave up and said to delete the article. So, frankly and with all due respect, I think it is ridiculous that the article still exists. I urge you to look at it again and do the right thing, rather than delaying the inevitable. Please ask yourself one question: Would the article have a snowball's chance in hell of being saved at AfD? Be honest. ;) In any case, I appreciate your response. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I declined a speedy deletion tag, I didn't vote Keep in an AFD debate, there is an important difference. If we made "in my judgement as an Admin it would be deleted at AFD" a valid speedy deletion tag then your question would be relevant. But I'm not sure that I'd want to be an admin in such circumstances. The original author is now convinced that we aren't interested in non-English or non-internet sources, and I hope that we can reassure him and persuade him to stay. Judging by his assertion on his user talkpage that the chap is important to the Yugoslavian history of the sport then the article does have slightly more than a snowball's chance in hell. But it would need someone with the interest in the subject and probably the language to source it sufficiently to rescue the article. I'm not volunteering for that, and I wouldn't have batted an eye if the article had been prodded or taken to AFD with a rationale of "unsuccessfully tried to source it". As for the assertion ("A highly distinguished martial artist") - IMHO there are such people, I have no personal interest in sport and am happy to leave it to others to determine which Martial Artists survive AFD and which don't. If the article had said ("A highly distinguished teenage aspiring martial artist") then I'd have deleted it A7, just as I have deleted thousands of articles that do meet the speedy deletion criteria, including ones on the "most beautiful girls in the world" and various unsigned bands that will be the next big thing in xxxxxx providing they can recruit a drummer and find an agent. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 19:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the decline, I have a lot of respect for you. Wikipedia is lucky to have an admin who puts such careful and reasoned thought into his decision-making, and treats others with patience, respect, and professionalism. For the record, I don't think a bio should ever be approved if it has zero sources. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, that's why God gave us BLP PROD, a couple of years ago. So it'll be gone in a week anyway, if nothing is added. For the record, I did not say "total hype"--for all I know the guy lives in my neighborhood, and he has guns. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@IP, thanks, though in my book replacing an A7 tag with a BLPprod is just correcting the method of deletion rather than declining a deletion. @Drmies, It wasn't God that created BLPprod, a compromise like that could only come from evolution and compromise. Hence the truly messy bit about even the crappiest source sufficing to avoid a tag but a reliable source being required to remove one. I think I was channelling Lloyd George and his wonderfully messy compromise over Ireland when we got the BLPprods going, and that was possibly the most inelegant policy change I've ever supported. But in this case it is a straightforward source it or it goes, and whilst there are people who rescue BLPprods doing so with offline sources in SerboCroat is a challenge - if the chap who started the article pulls that off then he will be a real asset. ϢereSpielChequers 22:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Drmies, I didn't mean to mischaracterize your meaning. You opined that "A7 applies" and that the assertion "isn't exactly credible". I just summarized that as meaning the assertion was "pure hype". :p I mean, let's be serious, the term "highly distinguished" is a blatant violation of peacocking, particularly when there are zip, zero, zilch sources to back it up. In fact, for a few moments I was actually wondering if Gabershek even existed, or if that photo was even him. But I just said to myself, "AGF". Haha. In any case, I think you and Chequers should be a comedy team; Chequers will play the straight man and you will definitely be the comedic foil. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WereSpielChequers. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 17:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 17:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For patience in teaching a fellow Wikipedian the ins and outs of WP:SPEEDY ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 17:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input and guidance would be appreciated

Hi WSC! :) If possible, can you please comment in a disucssion I'm having on admin Drmies' talk page. I think I may have stumped him, so he's looking for input from others to help us on this matter. Thanks! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for thinking of me, but I'm one of the organisers of this weekend's GLAM Wiki conference, so unless I get stuck on cloakroom duties for a quiet afternoon I'm not going to be able to get involved in that. ϢereSpielChequers 06:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Another admin already resolved it. Thanks and have a great time! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Share the cookies

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi WereSpielChequers/Archive 20, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

?

Thank you for your attention. but I'm starting ... still do not know what are the benefits of wikipedia. or being a wikipedian. About graduations are long?

~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GinDePietro (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Boil

Hi, would you mind if User:Tony1 and I try to copyedit, format, and reduce the length of your piece? Nothing against it (I personally love it), but we've found that having too long of an article diminishes reader interest and lowers the amount of true critical discussion that it generates. You are of course free to reduce it as well, or object if we remove a particularly pertinent point. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy editing and formatting would be very welcome, truncation makes me nervous. How many words are you proposing to reduce it by? ϢereSpielChequers 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We were hoping to bring it down by a quarter at most, so I suppose what we are asking is that you take out two, maybe three, of your weakest arguments. If you can't, we'll make it work regardless. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just trimmed 3% and I only got halfway through. I can't guarantee 25% but it gives me a target. ϢereSpielChequers 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. If you've gotten it down to a point where you aren't comfortable cutting it any further, that's fine. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping

[5] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers mate

Hello, just wanted to thank you for your time, energy and post on my page. Really appreciate, cheers mate (SavageHennry (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC))

Autopatrolled

Hi WSC. As I am out of touch a lot lately, could you please point me to the discussion where consensus war reached to reduce the threshold from 50 to 30 articles? Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor assist please

Hi Were - I've been away from wikipedia for a while, want to archive my posts but forgotten how. You won't remember me but you elevated me to Reviewer status so you're the man to assist. If you could pop on my talk page and archive my stuff I will be most grateful. And PS lol - I'm back Mark^Dask 11:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! and done a year for you. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Were - glad to bee back - and your courtesy in the matter of my request is no surprise. Mark^Dask 23:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank You!

	Level Headed Insighful Reflection
	Your Going off the boil? essay is, IMHO, one of Wikipedia's finest examples of the Wiki on the Wiki. Thanks again : } Kevjonesin (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 06:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow up on dedicated admin accounts

That thread got kind of long and I think you were the only one very interested in discussing my idea. I'm sure you are familiar with the security concept that you should use an account with minimal access whenever possible, such as not doing normal user tasks as root on a unix-style system. To combat your technical criticism, what if it were possible to modify the software so that it were easier to go in and out of "admin mode"?

Regarding the idea that it's giving up on the "no big deal" concept, that's true to some extent. Like I said in my initial post, it's a compromise from both camps, the no big deal camp and the big deal camp.

The gain is that by seeing that most actions of "admins" are actually still done as a regular editor explicitly not claiming any extra status for the action, the perception of admin status as a big deal will be diluted. What we lose in exchange for that is the hassle of changing accounts/permission levels, and the acknowledgement that admin actions are kind of a medium sized deal. Gigs (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's sad when the only response is from a critic, and yes there is a theory that one can achieve better security by having special permissions that are on a separate account that is only logged into in emergencies. I'm not a fan of that system, though I accept it might make sense for things like controlling nukes. For general use it detaches responsibilities from main accounts and risks having a shared sys admin account. I doubt that the latter applies to us, but the former risk does apply. I don't want admin accounts hidden on separate logs to everything else. I think we already have too many complications with extra accounts, and I say that as someone with a (WMUK) work account and other declared socks. I've now pretty much stopped using my low security account for internet cafes as secure login and IP editing make it redundant. But having yet another class of accounts doesn't strike me as wise. For us there is the additional argument re transparency - your proposal would lead to numerous incidents where actions were less well scrutinised because there were two accounts to look through. I see this leading to all sorts of bizarre arguments as to whether something should have been done under one account or another, and even excess disclosure. For example the next thread after this is telling me that I have an email. If I had to do admin actions under a separate admin account then would responding to that tell people whether the query was to me as an admin or as an editor? I can see many disadvantages to this proposal - no advantages as I'm not aware of any incidents where this would have prevented an accidental block or deletion.

I'm not convinced that the idea would be improved if it were made easier to shift in and out of admin mode. You'd still have people saying that something was done under the wrong mode, many good ideas languishing unimplemented so you'd also have people criticising the investment in creating said modes. Remember we have a limited budget and capacity for software changes, and each time we choose something other than say improving the way we handle edit conflicts you will have people like me saying that it would have been better to do some bigger win things like changing the software to halve the number of our edit conflicts.

However I do agree with the idea that taking a contentious power away from admins would make RFA less contentious. I see most of the contention as being about blocking and deleting. Deleting because we give admins to much discretion re deletion and when overly deletionist admins slip through we have problems; Blocking (and unblocking) because of the longstanding issues about incivility and vested contributors. Realistically we need to do too many deletions to restrict which admins can do them, but blocking and unblocking the regulars is much rarer. I'm pretty sure we could upbundle the blocking and unblocking of accounts with >100 edits to the crats without overloading them, and that should make a RFA a much less toxic place. ϢereSpielChequers 06:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, but I'd say it should be more like > 1000 edits. One problem with that suggestion is that it goes back to the whole reason RfA standards were raised in the first place way way back when, that trolls figured out it was pretty easy to get admin if you made 1000 edits and kept your head down (per the old article that was on ED). The serious troll would just make 100/1000 pointless edits before going berserk. Gigs (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW- I'm not sad that the only response was you, I always enjoy discussing this kind of thing with you even when we don't agree. Gigs (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it may have been higher, maybe even a thousand when I first floated the idea. But think about trolling, the line between trolling and being awkward and or contentious is somewhat grey, I'd be very cautious about judging between trolls and the awkward. vandalism is hyper common and pretty straightforward to identify and block for, but trolling is more awkward and somewhat rarer, I'd prefer to restrict troll blocking to fewer highly trusted editors such as crats. That's why I'd set the threshold as low as possible, 100 is about the right level, few vandals can get to that point, anything else should require a judgement call re blocking. ϢereSpielChequers 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It could work, as long as there's an emergency clause allowing a short term block of a regular by any admin to stop ongoing severe disruption, with a follow up drama board discussion, similar to the policy on blocking admins. Gigs (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that sometimes there wouldn't be a crat around to deal with an incident. However a steward or global sysop could step in if we had a rogue editor who had to be blocked urgently to stop a vandalism spree. But that wouldn't be an annual event. Otherwise my thinking is that the tools would have to be programmatically restricted, otherwise people would make "good" blocks citing IAR. So my view is that either you upbundle or you don't. A rule based restriction would breakdown. ϢereSpielChequers 17:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Email

 Done

Please check your inbox. Rivertorch (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 06:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

EngVar

Hi. Thanks for your continued attention to the page about younger administrators (assuming we still have any).

As a minor point which I don't plan to pursue further, while I'm familiar with the principle of WP:ENGVAR, I think that any younger American editors reading the page might actually be confused at first by the spelling "paedophile" as opposed to "pedophile." I fear that knowledge of the alternate "ae" or ligature spellings is rapidly dying out here, especially with respect to less common words for which people aren't used to seeing variations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi NYB, I suspect that a lot of US based readers are surprised by non US spellings of English, it may even contribute to our relatively low US editorship compared to here in the UK. My preferred solution would be to make different spelling styles, along with AD/BC v CE/BCE and even metric v non metric measures display choices. We have the technology to do it, and whilst there would be a lot of work involved, I think we'd stop biting a trickle of goodfaith newbies who just aren't familiar with those other variants. It could also lead to dramatically better machine translation if we had hidden templates which showed the true meaning of ambiguous words like muffler, exhaust, bonnet, pants and so forth. ϢereSpielChequers 20:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nod. And I remember myself reaching for the British-American dictionary the first time one of my ArbCom colleagues opined that a pending request was outwith our remit... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

AGK I presume; that is Scots, probably mostly used by lawyers. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There was a relevant discussion earlier this month at WP:VPT. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Pity I missed that, yes there are words which can only be converted by dint of a human being saying which meaning of pants, match, scores or football applies. But once that has been done the machine translation from Wikipedia to any other language will be much more accurate, and lots of our readers are using such translators. More importantly all the newbies who we currently warn of from doing engvar translations we could be enlisting to go through words such as bonnet and say when they are headware, a chili pepper or the part of the car that Americans call the hood. Now that it is technically feasible I think we will take a while to explore all the pitfalls and build consensus. Most importantly we need to survey our readers, am I correct in thinking that this would be appreciated by hundreds of millions of them or are the numbers far less than that? ϢereSpielChequers 05:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A Badge for you!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thanks for the great answer to my question! Matty.007 10:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 6

Thank you for attending the fifth Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. I intended to send this message on Monday, but I've been a bit busy, sorry.

Several of us would like to continue with the monthly plan, since trying to make a two-monthly cycle fit into the University terms doesn't work very well. A page has been created about the sixth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetups are at: London, 16 June; Manchester, 22 June; and Coventry, 7 July. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it was pointed out to me that 7 July 2013 collides with Coventry 8, who have a prior claim to the date. Since nobody has (yet) claimed 14 July for any UK meetups, I have decided that Oxford 6 should be held on 14 July 2013, and not 7 July as previously advertised. In this way, those who wish to attend both may do so. I hope the revised Oxford date is convenient for you; and if it isn't, why not give Coventry a try? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid that is the second Sunday so it clashes with London. ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mocius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laodicea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

VE

Do you know if they are going to replace the current editor with VE? (see comments here) --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we will be able to opt out, but judging from the user testing I'm not convinced that they will get it to work. I joined in the user testing for a while but the bugs overwhelmed the bug fixers to the extent that five of the reports I made would up archived without response. That doesn't inspire confidence. I've been waiting for the visual editor for years, I'm really keen that we implement one, and very upset that the current project is in such a mess. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Try this

Can you just try my script? It's bug free. What it does is change the appearance of links, with a special color and underlines it, zooms in a little bit to make things look neat. Here's it: importScript('User:Andrew Stiff/hover.css') Andrew Stiff (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

London 70

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:London_Wikimeet_16_June_2013.JPG Philafrenzy (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phil Rice

The article Phil Rice has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create the article so am somewhat offended to receive this template, as I suspect are the half a dozen others who've edited that article. Especially as the person who prodded it first removed the links, instead of checking back in the history for a sourced version. Now admittedly the only sources I've found are a couple of regional newspapers, but it isn't BLPprod material, though I'm tempted to AFD it and am suspicious that a platinum selling songwriter would be so hard to source.. ϢereSpielChequers 07:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong page

Hi WSC. I don't know if you even noticed, but I erroneously edited one of your sub pages. I've removed what I wrote - nothing egregious in any way at all and nothing important or secret, but notes to myself rally. It happened because I edited something in one of my sub pages that had a graph of yours transcluded to it. I inadvertently clicked the wrong 'edit' tab and started editing your page with the transcluded graph and saved it. Appologies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I always assume that an instantly self reverted edit is one that hasn't happened. ϢereSpielChequers 11:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Very pleased

to see you've become a member of our UK staff - I know you'll be a valuable asset. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you to say that. ϢereSpielChequers 11:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats from me as well. Not that it helps me here in the US, but I'm always glad to see people I respect have good experiences. — Ched :  ?  14:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hiring

Hi, Would it be possible to ask/hire you to edit a certain article? It is already done previously, but it only needs some updates. I will leave my contact details once you have replied. Cheers

It's certainly possible to ask, and if it relates to Easter Island, the Magonid era of Carthage, Georgian pre-christian history or is an English hillfort then as a Wikipedian volunteer I may well be interested. But wide though those interests are, I suspect they only encompass a tiny fraction of human knowledge and the odds are slim that the article you are interested in happens to fit that list. Ask/hire implies that you might possibly have a conflict of interest in the subject, if so I would suggest simply going to the discussion page of the article and adding a comment at the bottom of the page explaining what you'd like changed and the source of that information. Providing the source is independent and reliable then somebody is likely to make the change or explain why we don't think it appropriate. If you put a note on the discussion page and don't get any response after a week or so then I'd suggest adding {{helpme}} and that will get someone along PDQ (look for a tab marked discussion at the top of the article). Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 19:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm both greatly honoured and slightly troubled. Since I don't actually speak a word of Arabic it would probably be much safer if all the edits I make in Arabic were checked by someone who actually speaks Arabic. ϢereSpielChequers 17:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

GLAMWiki Hangout

Hi there, you signed up to present during the GLAMout today. We are doing the GLAMWiki Hangout (glam out) on Google Hangouts. For me to add you, you need to add me to your Google Plus circles. I'm mproffitt at g-mail dot xom (hopefully you can work that out). If you only want to watch and not present, just look for the link on the GLAMOut page. Merrilee (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Hi WSC. How can I found out who is going to Wikimania from the UK chapter? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I don't think there is one single list. but if you want to meet someone about a specific topic I can to set something up. Otherwise I'd suggest looking at the signup list. ϢereSpielChequers 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with finding nice people to have dinner with in the evening ;) Joking aside, the usual chapter & meet up attendees generally have the same topics at heart so I was just wondering who will be going. I can't find a copmprehensive sign up list anywhere, so perhaps i won'rt know until I get there. If you do know of anyone, do ask them to look out for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Try this list. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm on that list myself, but there seems to be an overwhelming number of Americans (understandable), Germans, and Italians - not that I've got anything against them and I would love to meet them (again), and I also speak all their languages, but I was rather surprised at only 9 entries from the UK. Not that everyone will bother to put themselves on that list. It's not mandatory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You know some of the UK people going from your time on the scholarship committee. If you're looking for dinner companion, then count me in! :) KTC (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

minor edit messages

Hiya, I've started a proposal to change one of your interface messages. ;-) See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Three different minor_edit messages. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}}

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

Commented there. thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 07:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

I am sorry that your expectation of a personal response to every single message you posted at VisualEditor/Feedback was not met. All of your messages were all read, even if you were unaware of it. Thank you for posting the useful feedback. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi WhatAmIdoing, and thanks for the apology. Actually I wasn't expecting a response to every message I posted there, just to the bug reports. And I appreciate that when a project is so far from ready that extra testers just mean many more people spotting the same obvious bugs then it isn't the developers fault if something comes out of beta testing too soon. Or if the testers feel their time is wasted because the devs are too busy fixing known bugs to comment on new bug reports. I suppose part of the issue here is that my experience of user testing is with colleagues whose time has to be treated as valuable, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to ask them to test something with known bugs not yet fixed, or at least not without warning them of known problems. Or to insult them by ignoring their feedback. ϢereSpielChequers 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your feedback wasn't ignored: it was actually read and acted on. It just looked like nobody cared. This is unfortunately a case of appearances being deceiving by making the situation look worse than it actually was. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that appearances look bad. It may well be that all of the bug reports that I made simply needed a response along the lines of "already reported as bug *****", but the other aspect that leaves me and I expect others feeling ignored is the way this was rolled out despite us pointing out that it had failed beta testing and wasn't ready for rollout. But instead we've disrupted the editing of thousands of editors, got them to try slow buggy software and then when they report that the best they can be told is that we've known about that for months and are doing a major rewrite to address that. Of course once that rewrite comes out then it will need a fresh round of testing, good luck on recruiting volunteers for that. ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for helping me! Margaretwmiller (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the beer. ϢereSpielChequers 17:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Buckethead (disambiguation)

Hi WSC, I found one other one so thanks for saving it. I left a comment for you at Talk:Buckethead (disambiguation) Widefox; talk 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Harriet Law

I'm over at Wikimania (where it's 01:30 and I should really go to bed) but I thought I'd do a bit on the Conway Hall editathon remotely. I found a red link but now see that it wasn't actually a free topic and so I've been wasting my time duplicating the work of another editor - tsk. I abhor sandboxes, user pages, incubators, AFC, &c. for this reason. Articles under development should all be in mainspace so it's clear who's working upon them. Andrew Davidson (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I rather agree with you re sandboxes, but sadly some people have been scared off mainspace by our deletionism problem. Anyway, thanks for your work on this. I was making the tea and sorting out IT problems for 6 tables of editors last night, and am now tring t sort some loose ends. I think there was a bit of overlap between the two versions, but yours was referenced. Hope you enjoy HK ϢereSpielChequers 18:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm back now and have picked this up again as it's heading for DYK. Reviewing the sources, I find that the userspace draft which was merged into the history contains too much cut/paste from the uncredited source Harriet Law (1831-1897). For example, the entire paragraph starting "In 1859 she became a salaried lecturer for the secular movement." seems to be a straight copy. Perhaps the editor meant to rework this in his userspace but we shouldn't have this in mainspace. I have edited the latest draft to remove the copyvio but please can you revdel some of the history such as the userspace version as we shouldn't be giving credit for such work. Andrew Davidson (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Good spot. Have referred the contributor to OTRS. ϢereSpielChequers 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving Georgia

Hi WereSpielChequers, this discussion might be of interest to you. Best Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will comment there. ϢereSpielChequers 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will comment there. ϢereSpielChequers 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey WereSpielChequers. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkey Cafe

See [6] - can you tell Kristine. She hasn't edited for a couple of weeks. Ta Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Bonded Neo

The Bonded Neo article is rife with gratuitous capitalization, not the least of which is "Neo" and "Bonded Neo". I can find no indication that this is trademarked, so it does not appear to be a proper noun, and should not be capitalized. However, a few years back you took a different view "(moved Bonded neo to Bonded Neo: caps plz)" with no explanation. I can't move the article now, and would like to find out what drove that choice before I go looking for an admin to reverse it. Cheers! Chris the speller ^yack 15:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris and welcome to my talkpage. I don't agree that a business name needs to be trademarked to be a business name, and I've no experience with Chinese trademarks. I assume from the edit summary that I would have checked the link on the page to see what they called themselves and then moved it. Looking at the link on that page I can see a prominent use of Neo and if the site had that when I moved it that would explain why at the time I thought Neo was correct. However I'd agree that they don't seem to be consistent now, and I can't remember whether their website was consistent when I did the move. So if you think that Neo is incorrect then file a requested move on it and we can debate the matter on the talkpage. From a cursory search I think it probably is Neo rather than neo, but the test that matters is how reliable sources refer to them, if they predominately use neo then I'd not object to a requested move. ϢereSpielChequers 19:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The link you provide goes to a web site in broken English that lists "Horseshoe Magnets" and other generic terms capitalized. The external web page in the article (a different company) uses mostly 'neo', when it does not appear in a heading (title case). This is apparently a generic term. Since you're an admin, can't you just fix it? Chris the speller ^yack 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think that neo would be a better name then file a requested move and make your case. - An uninvolved admin will then make a call. ϢereSpielChequers 15:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Meta:Wikimania project domain

Hey there! I'm trying to refuel your proposal: 1, 2, 3, 4. Just letting you know. :) I've also posted it on some mailing lists... Rehman 13:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nominate an editor

At Editor Cerebellum's talk page you said, "Every now and then some of us go on trawls of editors who have contributed over 50 articles and it never ceases to amaze me how many neglected colleagues we encounter in the process.' WP:WER/Editor of the Week is looking for exactly that type of editor. We endeavor to give the Under the Radar type editors the credit they deserve. Your nominations would be gladly received. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Buster, that's an interesting thought. I like to think that the note I leave when I tell people I've appointed them autopatroller is itself a nice note to get. However it would be good if you guys had a look a few months later and rewarded the ones who still edit. Looking at my log i is now over a year since I last did a trawl and appointed some article creators to be autopatrollers. If you fancy going through those I did then and looking at their latest efforts i'm sure you will find several who would appreciate editor of the week or some other acknowledgement. ϢereSpielChequers 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got email.

{{You've got mail}} --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

replied 134.247.61.190 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Editing

Hello WereSpielChequers, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 13:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ϢereSpielChequers 13:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

'Crat activity

In parallel to your concerns about our ageing pool of admins, I created this. Feel free to comment on its tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti vandalism

Over the past couple of days I have stopped several rampant vandals on a spree dead in their tracks. In the past you have mentioned several times that there may be a case for extending the use of the blocking tool to sufficiently qualified vandalism fighters under special circumstances. Whether I am in favour or not of such an unbundling or the creation of yet more users rights, I feel the time may just be right to make a formal RfC proposal. I'd be happy to do this and then just sit back and let the RfC run its course, or you can do it, or we could do it together, but the RfC statement/proposal would have to be very carefully worded to prevent the discussion going off the rails as most RfC have a tendency to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, will think about this. But I won't be free to take this on this fortnight. 91.221.145.48 (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not that it matters much where you are at the moment but you probably inadvertently made a bunch of edits today without logging in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually that was quite deliberate. I was in an airport departure lounge using a free WiFi connection, so for security reasons I just edited as an IP. As per previous experiences and my general observations, and directly contrary to the myth, my edits all seem to have stuck. I think that an RFC on unbundling a limited unblock needs to achieve the following in order to break previous logjams:

1. Some statistical analysis showing whether we now need to do this. Several examples from yourself would be good. But perhaps we could get ScottyWong or some other programmer to produce an analysis of AIV reports and admin actions over time showing whether the average admin response time at AIV was slipping and how bad it sometimes gets. If such a report shows that we no longer have sufficient active admins at certain times of the day then an RFC would be worthwhile, as indeed would be a call for candidates. Of course it could show that we haven't yet hit real problems and that the occasional long AIV gaps are no worse now than in 05, 07, 09 or 11. I would be surprised and slightly reassured at such a result, and would suggest rerunning the report every quarter until either the drought ended or there was a strong enough case to support an RFC.
2. A solution to the disequilibrium problem - whereby someone with this right gets involved in an incident in which both a newbie and a regular merit a block but they can only sanction the one who can't have been expected to know better. This was one of the strongest arguments against this in the past, I think the best response is to say, this should be rare, and I would advise that rather than block the newbie they should defer the whole incident to a full admin.
3. We need a name that doesn't hint either at this being admin lite or uses something officious sounding like vandalfighter. It may sound silly but the wrong name can torpedo this sort of proposal. In absence of a good name for this I would suggest we start an RFC where the name and the role are different sections of the debate. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, you're probably right about response time to AIV not being particularly long. I don't systematically work at AIV by any means and I usually come to it through pages cropping up on my watchlist. When I do go there, I haven't noticed any particular problems, in fact right at this moment AIV is empty. At the end of the day, those vandals on a 1-edit-per-minute spree will soon get reported and blocked sooner or later and their edits will be reverted. Scottywong who has been a great help in the past with providing stats for us is in semi retirement and does not have time. The idea I had was just a thought knowing that in the past you had been a fairly strong proponent of unbundling this tool for anti vandalism purposes. I'll keep an eye on things though, and if it gets out of hand I'll come back to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about Scottywong, I will see if I can find someone else. I honestly don't know whether or not AIV yet has sufficiently frequent backlogs to justify this unbundling. But AIV is fundamentally different to other areas such as CSD. CSD could operate OK even if most of the time it had a growing backlog and was dependent on the US evening to clear a daily backlog. If AIV was regularly getting half hour gaps between AIV reports and blocks, with vandals on a spree for half an hour after even if it was only happening a couple of times a week, it would be unacceptable. That might involve as few as 1% of accurate AIV reports, but it would be demoralising for the patrollers and risky in terms of publicity. That's why I believe that AIV is our canary in the coal mine when it comes to admin shortages. ϢereSpielChequers 15:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When I do go to the AIV page (about 3 or 4 times a week), I'm always surprised at the relatively high number of inappropriate reports. ClueBot has a much better record of false positives. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't studied the phenomena properly, but I get the impression as with NPP newbies start with a high error rate, but unlike NPP they get the hang of when to do it properly. However I worry at the increasing treatment of unsourced addition of info as vandalism. Is that what you are seeing at AIV? ϢereSpielChequers 07:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. It seems to be more like cases of insufficient warnings or no vandalism since the last warning - that kind of thing, but I'll pay more attention in the future to see what the trend is. BTW: see WT:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, reassuring that people still get the difference between vandalism and goodfaith stuff, even if they are being more ruthless reverting it. I don't suppose you can remind me where the stat came from about admins v non admins !voting at RFA? I spent an hour or so looking for it yesterday. I think it was part of what Scotty did in 2011. ϢereSpielChequers 06:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We created a huge amount of tables and stats here, and there are more tables and extrapolations on its talk page. The big table (which I asked Scotty to make) at 'How they voted' is IMO, where most of the info can be extrapolated, but because RfA voters are so transient, and because that table is now nearly 3 years old, it desperately needs updating - not that the actual trends in it are likely to have changed much. There is also a recent thread at WT:NPP I would like you to take a look at if you have a moment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phil Rice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• He is part of a successful songwriting and performing partnership with [[Rick Guard]].<ref>[http://www.lep.co.uk/news/big-interview-rick-guard-1-98968 Lancashire Evening Post retrieved 17th

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello from CarbonWHO

Hi WereSpielChequers,

Thanks for guiding me on this Wikipedia sphere : )

I actually have a question needing some hints from you. On my first page created the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, I created two new tags as Building Energy Code and Energy Audit Code. I wanted to produce that two pages, as I hate those "page does not exist" message. But the info with me on the two subjects are all in PDF files. I don't like linking too many PDF on a wikipage. But I don't have time to digest and summarize those highly-technical files. Can I just copy some essence content from the files, as a starter for the two pages, and let other people enhance them over time?

CarbonWHO (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi CarbonWHO, you are very welcome. Firstly don't worry about whether a source you use as a reference is a pdf or any other format, what matters is whether it can be treated as a wp:reliable Source. So look for independence, neutrality and authoritiveness - has it been peer reviewed is more important than whether it is a pdf or what language it is in. As for starting articles small, I do that myself sometimes, just make sure you have one, better two really good sources and then you can start an article with a paragraph. However you need to look around first as there may be something we already have that just needs a HongKong section, or needs something added to it. I know little about the subject that you are writing about, but you may find that if you just want to add a sentence then you can add it to the existing article Building code, and Building Energy Code and Energy Audit Code only need spinning out as separate articles when they've grown a bit. Oh and I'd be careful about the phrase "copy some essence content" as we don't copy stuff from other sites unless they have a compatible license and we go through some legal hoops. Better to say "write something that sums up the essence of those sources" which is what I assume you meant. ϢereSpielChequers 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Seth Gamble

This article was barely edited before protection, and has been still barely edited since. Lower to PC? --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni Carmazzi

This article has been barely edited before and after semi-protection. Lower to pending changes? --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In both cases I consider that semi protection has worked to protect these articles from IP edits that added controversial unsourced material. However we do now have pending changes, so if you are willing to watchlist these articles I am willing to move them to lower the protection to PC. ϢereSpielChequers 08:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

We already have Special:PendingChanges. No need, but you can watchlist them. George Ho (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, how long must I watchlist them for future changes? George Ho (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

When you start thinking how long then hopefully you will realise why I put the indefinite semi-protection on them. There are people who are in the news for some transitory thing and where temporary protection suffices. Othertimes when we don't know why someone has become a target our best option is to protect indefinitely - in these two cases that seems to have worked and on reflection I think it best to leave as is. ϢereSpielChequers 07:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignore WP:PP and enable level-two pending changes perhaps per WP:IAR? George Ho (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is a great rule for unforeseen circumstances. However this is a foreseen circumstance. There is a clear consensus in the community against using level 2 pending changes even for BLPs, and semi-protection exists as an approved alternative. Now I can foresee a situation arising where legit IP editors wanted to improve an article and were making good suggestions on the talkpage. But that isn't happening here. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni Carmazzi could probably be deleted at AfD. Doesn't pass athletic SNG and I don't think the small Brady controversy raises his level of coverage enough to meet the GNG. Gigs (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I defer to your or frankly anyone's knowledge of sports in the colonies:). So I wouldn't try to defend it if someone filed an AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} JMHamo (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maulana Abdul Hayy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks ... and asks about the English wikipedia

Thank you! a question whether the English pages have the correct information right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exequiel333 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Exeqiel, Which pages are you talking about? we have 4,400,000 articles, I suspect a large proportion are fairly accurate. As to the articles you have edited, I can run a quick eye over to see if they read correctly in English, but they aren't in a subject which I know well enough to check. "Juice only 4 games before he returned to Racing and demonstrate its good staff marking to rivals" Doesn't make sense to me, are you sure you mean juice rather than just? As for "In his last years with the club almost down but managed to get the goal in which your computer is safe." I'm not sure what the computer connection is to football. ϢereSpielChequers 17:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy...

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

oops Victuallers (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing WSC Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

Merry Christmas! :-)

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi WereSpielChequers, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks GeneralUser ϢereSpielChequers 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Buster! ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A question

Hi, and thanks for your copyediting on SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm. I had a question about this edit though - I was under the impression that you shouldn't start a sentence with a numeral. Am I mistaken about that, or are years different because you wouldn't spell out "eighteen ninety-five"? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, I'm not aware of such a rule, though that doesn't mean there isn't such a rule. But if there is such a rule I would hope that starting a sentence with a year was one of those allowed exceptions. ϢereSpielChequers 23:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are plenty of those erroneous grammar "rules" that float around - maybe that's one of them. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25