User talk:Andrewa/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Andrewa! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Astrology aspect

I tried to add Yod into an appropriate section. Thereafter, someone deleted it. 70.105.240.19 (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Was it perhaps like this edit which has a misleading edit summary and is unsourced? Andrewa (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

In Natal astrology, Yod can be found under aspect patterns. 70.105.240.19 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Pacific Light Cable Network

Thanks for your comments on the talk page. I've created the article Pacific Light Cable Network as a stub; you might want to expand it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Model designators" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Model designators and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Model designators until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Kriti

Hello, can you please revert your recent page move of Kriti to Kriti (musical composition) and reopen the discussion. This closure seems premature, and the move is flawed as it implies that Kriti is a musical composition, rather than the form that underlies many thousands of compositions and the centrepiece of most Carnatic performances. The musical meaning is clearly the primary meaning, with long-term significance over the YouTube video, and the island is normally called "Crete" in English. The page title appears to have been stable for 18 years, so should not have been changed without adequate discussion. I see no attempt to seek contributions from projects related to music. The only comments were from someone making remarks about page views without explaining what significance they might have, and from another person giving no reason at all. My view is that the musical term should remain at the base name, but if it is decided after proper discussion that disambiguation is needed, then an appropriate disambiguating term must be found. Thank you. --188.28.133.216 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this here, that is certainly the correct thing to do.

But I think you do have a few things wrong. Firstly, you say changed without adequate discussion when the normal discussion period had elapsed, and two experienced editors had supported the move in that time, with no opposition. I am more than happy to participate in proper discussion, but I think that discussion should be on the basis of what our policies and practices are, rather than on your personal opinions of what they should be. I'm sorry if that is harsh.

Pinging WikiProjects and previous participants is certainly a good idea, within the limits of canvassing, and had I relisted the RM or otherwise participated in the discussion I might well have done so. I often do. But I can't see any requirement to do it in this case. If you think it should be required, feel free to propose that too.

So my closure was based on the arguments presented, and I believe it reflected them and that there had been adequate discussion to justify this.

But the new arguments you are raising deserve to be heard, and thank you again for raising them here. It is a good start. I suggest that the next step should be to discuss them on the most appropriate article talk page.

So I have raised it at Talk:Kriti#Some new arguments to consider. Andrewa (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I have commented there. --188.28.133.216 (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thalia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Good catch! But it was fixed before I got there. I have thanked Rodw for doing it for me. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)

Hi Andrewa, Thank you for your contributions to the discussion, here. No-one appears to have picked up on your suggestion for a plural form of "Cross-country skiing competitions". I'm wondering if you might consider contributing to a consensus around the singular form at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#How about "Cross-country skiing competition"? before the discussion closes, since there are several editors who have recommended that form. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Get back to me if I can help any further. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Bach cantata

I am not sure that you see the problem I see: The proposed name Cantatas (Bach) points at the List of Bach cantatas, and that makes sense. To use the name for an introduction article is misleading. Bach cantata is an article that is no longer needed, do you understand? The introduction is now found in more specific articles, and the super-detailed list at the end is only for specialists. It could have any name, from Cantata (Bach) (for its 2010 beginning) to List of Bach's cantatas according to the BWV of 1998 (for what Francis Schonken added to it in 2020). The article that remains needed for the average reader is the other, and better with the traditional redirect, consistent to cello suites and motets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps JackofOz is also interested? In a nutshell: nobody needs the article Bach cantata, - the relevant article is presently called List of Bach cantatas, and I wouldn't mind if THAT would be renamed Cantatas (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, having these side discussions away from the main debate is very unhelpful. If you now acknowledge that "Bach cantata is an article that is no longer needed, ...", the place to state that is at the debate about the name change, not anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It was stated at that discussion, on 16 February: "We should not move the present article to Cantatas (Bach), because that is - as it should be, consistent with Cello sonatas and the others - a list of the works with a short introduction." Bach cantata, a long introduction, is not needed, and articles don't link to it any more because we now have better introductions in other articles, which I also listed on 16 February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Have it your way, you always do. But in the end, consensus will triumph. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict:) If you think this would help on the RM page, please feel free to move it there. I believe it's only a duplication, but may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• The above copied to Talk:Bach cantata#Requested move 15 February 2022. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Melodic percussion instrument for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melodic percussion instrument, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melodic percussion instrument until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Futurikon logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Futurikon logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The image was only orphaned because the article for which it was uploaded had been boldly and unhelpfully edited to remove the image.

I have fixed that, and it was good to get the heads-up as to this unconstructive edit.

But it is a shame that the bot does not check such recent edits and give at least more than seven days notice of deletion. In this case, deletion would just have further damaged Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of SATB for deletion

I noticed that you left a comment on the article's talk page, so your input in the current deletion discussion would be much appreciated! Why? I Ask (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

And the result was a sound keep. Ridiculous nomination IMO, it should be a stub or redirect at least, neither of which require AfD. Thanks for the heads-up. Andrewa (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Flapamba

I thought you might get a kick out of this, but I unmerged the flapamba page after uncovering more suitable sources about it (including its inclusion in several reference works and an entire article on its use written by the The New Yorker). After looking at the past discussions, including those on the original creator's talk page that you were involved in, I have to say it's always sad when expert editors are pushed off of Wikipedia by editors that know little of the field and don't do their due diligence to find sources. (Although, in all fairness, some of the sources were not around in 2013 when the discussion was held.) Why? I Ask (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you have been busy! Have you thought of joining WikiProject Percussion? (Or have you already?)

Yes, Wikipedia is not perfect. And we can never be better than our sources.

And percussion articles are particularly problematic, and not just for that reason. Perhaps some of the drummer jokes are true.

My father, a metallurgist, used to look at my cymbal catalogues and their claims of secret alloys and say "and do they also sell dehydrated water?"

Last I looked Paiste claimed to have an alloy that was both secret and patented. I checked the patent. It's not secret. But I guess their brochures help them to sell cymbals.

If you are a drummer you may find my pages church drum kits and nothing could be dumber interesting. Andrewa (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really plan on formally joining any WikiProjects, although I will notify the projects' talk pages about certain concerns and add their respective banners to article talk pages. Furthermore, I have been busy sourcing every instrument page, starting with percussion, albeit at a slow rate. My largest sourcing contribution thus far has been the seventy-four citations on the vibraphone page (with new ones being added weekly). And thank you for sharing your articles! Why? I Ask (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

List of current IPL team rosters listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of current IPL team rosters. Since you had some involvement with the List of current IPL team rosters redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd34 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources

As I noticed you on the talk page, please check this out and let me know what you think.

2012 Yale University systematic review and Harmonization

A Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2 life cycle assessment emissions from nuclear power determined that.

"The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."

It went on to note that for the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor:

"Harmonization decreased the median estimate for all LWR technology categories so that the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh"

The study noted that differences between emissions scenarios were:

"The electric system was dominated by nuclear (or renewables) and a system dominated by coal can result in a fairly large ranging (from 4 to 22 g CO2-eq/kWh) compared to (30 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh), respectively."

The study predicted that depending on a number of variables, including how carbon intensive the electricity supply was in the future, and the quality of Uranium ore:

"median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Road Case/Flight case merge

Agreed. I think that someone looking for encyclopaedic information on this topic would not differentiate between a flight or road case and would want all the information available in one article. Indeed, it would make Wikipedia more concise to merge. A visitor may not know there's any difference anyway, and not look for the other article at all.

What is the procedure for getting a merge to happen once it's been flagged on a talk page?Black Stripe (talk) 14 July 2013. — Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis

There is currently another vote taking place on the talk page of Cuban missile crisis whether to recapitalize the name or keep it in lowercase. You participated in the 2012 vote, and may want to voice an opinion or comment on this one. I'm writing this to the voters from 2012 who may not know about this vote. Randy Kryn 19:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please create, if possible...

...a Wikipedia:Don't be too politically correct essay. Georgia guy (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Percussion instruments used in worship has been nominated for deletion

Category:Percussion instruments used in worship has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing newsletter 2022 – #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

New editors were more successful with this new tool.

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Aqsa

Discussion moved to User talk:Andrewa/Aqsa. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Making the job harder

I've moved this message off of the topic talk page as I don't want to it to go further off-topic. We should comment on content, not on commenters. I was quite surprised to read your comment. If you’re referring to me on the recent talk page discussion… could you please clarify any actions that were taken that weren't immediately fixed as soon as any objection was raised? Regarding the survey section, had there been guidance posted suggesting not to comment in the survey section, I would have followed that guidance. Instead, I followed the practice seen in every move discussion I've been involved in. If you were referring to me, I strongly object to the factually incorrect insinuation that I have tried "to make their job more difficult", or insinuating that my comments should be discarded. I have not tried to make anyone's edits more difficult, quite the contrary in fact. Perhaps I should be more patient, rather than posting and then revising, revising, revising, but there is no malicious intent. Drsmoo (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Drsmoo, can you give the actual edit you are explaining? It seems at first sight to be yet another breach of the talk page guidelines.

I did not mean to comment on your motives and would have been glad to clarify that. Just on the effects. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the edit of yours I’m referring to. You wrote “people who try to make their job more difficult know that they don't have much of a case.” How should one interpret the usage of “try” as not a comment on motives? And there is no “valid reason” that any policy and source based comments should be discarded. Anyway, you seem like a nice and interesting person. I am just surprised by that comment. Drsmoo (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Sting (percussion) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sting (percussion), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting (percussion) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The [subscribe] button shortens response times.

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds excellent. Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I really like this subscribe button. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Slow Dance (poem)

The article Slow Dance (poem) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:N

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCBC

Wanted to thank you for your kind comments about this at Talk:KVUE. Rewriting that guideline was an...effort. I wanted to reply to something you said about the guideline: I can imagine instances where a defunct or renamed station would be primary or at least would be the reason that an active station were not primary.

One issue we deal with in call sign titling is that page names can sometimes change at the drop of a hat. It is not uncommon for us to have round-robin swaps, chained moves (B→C before A→B), etc. (This is why links to redirects to call sign-titled pages should be avoided.) I have pagemover just to handle cases like this.

The way the guideline is written now, a defunct station cannot be the undisambiguated topic unless no current station uses the call sign, e.g. WUBC. I'm trying to figure out what a guideline looks like for this. The theoretical example I'd give is KTTL. KTTL is already kind of unusually titled; we normally title stations by their final call sign (KMCS, for this station) unless there is a sufficient notability case. (KTTL's is among the most clear-cut, to the point that two years after, the AP had "FCC Staff Supports Settlement Of KTTL Licensing Case" as an article.) If a new KTTL were put on the air and notable in, say, Wyoming, we'd move the existing KTTL article. Should that be changed such that, in rare cases, a defunct station may be primary over an extant station? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Percussion instruments used as theatrical sound effects has been nominated for deletion

Category:Percussion instruments used as theatrical sound effects has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Percussion instruments invented since 1800 has been nominated for splitting

Category:Percussion instruments invented since 1800 has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Percussion instruments by tradition has been nominated for deletion

Category:Percussion instruments by tradition has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (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 cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Andrewa!

Happy New Year!

Andrewa,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Talk:Anne of Kiev#Requested move 31 December 2022

Since the RM is not a vote, would you post the rationale the decision was based on? Thanks.  —Michael Z. 17:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it's not a head count. You might note that I set up that particular shortcut and that I use it a lot!

I formed the opinion that no policy-based consensus to move was possible. While I did not discard your several posts there, frankly they didn't add much to the discussion.

Thank you for raising it here, and if you want to take it further you can now go to MR. But I don't recommend it.

Again frankly, I don't think you have a case, and it might even be at least borderline tendentious editing, for which you have been previously sanctioned on Kiev/Kyiv issues. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not re-arguing or disputing, am I? That said, it would be my right to do so without being threatened with administrative action for it. Please don’t be so quick to assume a dispute, much less bad faith.

I’m asking you to write a rationale at the top of the closed RM, as such decisions are referred to as precedents, and a written decision benefits the community. A lot of points were raised that can affect many other articles. Without any feedback as to which were considered, it is square one and continual potential for more, possibly needless, RMs.  —Michael Z. 19:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I was assuming good faith, but that assumption is now wearing thin.

Just as I was considering NHC, despite your suggestion that I was not.

Yes, I think this is borderline tendentious editing, and covert re-arguing or disputing by yourself. If you don't agree with this, all I can say is, I tried. You will notice I actually thanked you for your post here. That's hardly being threatened with administrative action. But just to clarify, if I had any intention of raising any behavioural issue, then or now, I would in the first instance raise it on your talk page as is required of any such action. I do apologise for not making that clear before. I didn't consider it necessary, and I was wrong in that assumption. I was actually hoping to avoid administrative action against you by others, which has occurred over similar issues in the past, and is not a good thing for anyone. Is that quite clear now?

No, there's no call for a better closing rationale in my opinion, and you are correct, this could be taken as a precedent, and I hope you will try to understand it and even to see it as that when you consider raising RMs on Kiev/Kyiv issues in the future.

But as you also say, with the minimal closing summary, it's not a very good precedent, and I didn't intend it as one.

If you agree with the close but think a better precedent would benefit the community, you might raise an RfC to clarify the reason that this RM was rejected, and I will gladly contribute to it, as I hope will others. Again, I don't recommend this, as I don't think it will achieve what you want, but I could be wrong and it's the proper way forward. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

To further clarify, I didn’t expect a decision to move and fully accept it, but neither agree nor disagree with its logic because I don’t know what it was. I am not trying to challenge it. I believe some of the rationale against was invalid, and would have liked to have some insight on the decision recorded, especially to head off the use of those arguments again, citing this as a precedent. Anyway, I guess that’s not a serious danger and I thank you for taking the time to respond.  —Michael Z. 21:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

So you think it was both a good close and an expected RM result, is that what you are now saying? Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

OMG!

Ha! Sorry about the youthful "OMG", but the fact is, I do sometimes feel like a teenager when I talk with you. And now I know why. I just noticed that your anni date is March 3rd, the day before my partner's birthday, and the year 2003! So you are coming up on your 20th with Wp. Not only do I wish you the Happiest of New Years, also the Very Happiest of Anniversary Years, as well! U da B's knees, Sir Alder! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Editing news 2023 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

Some of the upcoming changes

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Official Name is Gurugram

Hi to whomsoever it may concern. We cannot retain former names of cities, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. News paper articles can write anything, they just take info from wikipedia, it is called mirroring of wikipedia. Coming to books and articles, there are still millions of articles calling cities as Bombay and Madras before their official name change. You cant take it as a standard, and forcefully rub your opinions on other editors. Your personal interest with Gurgaon instead of Gurugram cannot be endorsed by other editors. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in (Gurugram District) - https://gurugram.gov.in/department/municipal-corporation-gurugram/ And why are you endorsing somebody's personal preference of keeping Gurgaon in Infobox Fostera12 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This post duplicates Talk:Gurgaon#Official name is Gurugram. – Uanfala (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

See my reply there. Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move format

Hi Andrewa! Hope you're doing well. I just closed your requested move from 16 March as successful. Just as a note for next time, the usual format for requested moves does not include separate survey and discussion sections. An easy way to open RM discussions with the standard format is with the Twinkle user script. Best, EpicPupper (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, but as far as I know this format is still supported, and if it is not then the talk option should be removed from the Requested move template. As this template is always substituted this would not pose problems.

But I chose the option deliberately in this case. I don't often use it but this RM had the potential to have some long discussions. In such cases I think it is sometimes useful to have a separate section for discussions. In this case it wasn't necessary but that is in hindsight.

I did try Twinkle in the past but found it more trouble than it was worth. Andrewa (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Technical move request" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Technical move request has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27 § Wikipedia:Technical move request until a consensus is reached. BhamBoi (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I just found your WP:creed and Wikipedia:The Parable of the Ants and I really like both of them. (BTW, does the latter have a snappy WP: link? It really needs one.) I will try to keep asking myself, which ant am I? Thank you. GRuban (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Just created one at Wikipedia:antp but other suggestions welcome. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion on Talk:Bugatti

I just started a move discussion directly related to a previous one which you participated in. Would you be interested in joining? Marisauna (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Earthwood

The article Earthwood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

earthwood not notable on its own

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mbdfar (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Wrong" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Wrong has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 10 § Wikipedia:Wrong until a consensus is reached. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Moltex Energy

Hello, Andrewa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Moltex Energy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Old IP indefs

Hi, Andrewa. I've been going through old IP indefs, and came upon a trio by you: Special:Contributions/206.180.81.2, Special:Contributions/209.80.150.137, and Special:Contributions/87.41.52.6. These are all schoolblocks, but it looks like at least 2 of them have since been sold or reassigned to other school districts. The 2nd and 3rd are also currently redundant with temporary rangeblocks, so can be handled at that level without needing to get into single-IP indefs. Would you object to my unblocking these 3? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin, good suggestions.

Done. Andrewa (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Morgan Jones

Morgan Jones appeared in the original Star Trek TV Series. Could this be added to his Wikipedia page? Marcusexp (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Morgan Jones? In Star Trek? Do we have sources for this? If so, yes of course. But why don't you do it yourself? Andrewa (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Morgan_Jones confirms this but is probably an open wiki, if so not considered a reliable source. Andrewa (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Assignment: Earth credits Morgan Jones as Col. Jack Nesvig in the sidebar under Guest appearances but gives no source. Andrewa (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Marcusexp, I'm nervous about this. The many appearances in open wikis may be citeogenesis based on our own article Assignment: Earth. Raised at Talk:Assignment: Earth#Possible citogenesis. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Line call

The article Line call has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

seems to be just a dictionary definition

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Document mode for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Document mode is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Document mode until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Moving Draft:William John Titus Bishop

Dear Andrew,

I have been informed by a number of editors that the page Draft:William John Titus Bishop is ready to be moved. However, as I myself have less than 500 edits, I am reluctant to do so myself. Would you still suggest I move the page, or is it possible for you do this on my behalf?

All my Love,

TopG1985

Topg1985 (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Please link to these comments by a number of editors, or at least list them here. I'd like to discuss this with them.

The draft doesn't look ready to be moved to me. Many of the issues reported by previous reviews are still to be addressed. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Andrew,

The editors (or people claiming to be editors) approached me on sites other than Wikipedia itself, so I am afraid I cannot provide links. I thought it best to be cautious.

If it is not too much of an inconvenience, would you be able to suggest which issues should be addressed to improve the draft?

All my love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You have not been nearly cautious enough in my opinion. Your claim that that you had been informed by a number of editors that the page Draft:William John Titus Bishop is ready to be moved appears to be quite simply false. Perhaps you were somehow misled? Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your response. I have been informed by a number of editors that the page is ready to be moved. If it is not ready to be moved please may you be kind enough to inform me of the necessary improvements to the article?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You could start by removing all references to primary sources from the article, and also the material sourced from them. https://theright.fit/creator/william-b-4 for example appears to be a primary source.

I doubt that there will be much left. But if there's enough left to make a good stub that would be good progress. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Raised on user talk

See User talk:Topg1985#Pointless repetition and WP:FORUMSHOP. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)