User talk:Andrewa/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Swinging

I noticed that when you moved Swinging, you left a bunch of redirects like Wife swapping to point to the disambiguation page, Swing. You might want to fix some of those. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of work to do tidying up and possible restructuring the various DABS as well, the move was just a start, and there are a few more decisions to be made with regsrd to this, discussion for which started in the RM poll. It's unreasonable IMO to expect the closing admin to do all this, particularly when there's a backlog at WP:RM. Often I do more than I have here, but it's far better for the proponents of the move to do it... have you contacted any of them?

Or if you think they're urgent and important, why don't you fix them yourself? If you have already obtained the list it's less trouble for you than for me, or for the proponents.

I've fixed that one, and also added the new name to the DAB, as an interim measure at least. That was important and urgent, I missed that, thank you! But now that it's done the redirects don't seem all that urgent to me. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the amount of work to be done - I've been fixing disambiguation links for almost nine years, and I'm still only three quarters of the way done! I've fixed the rest of the redirects. Cheers! bd2412 T

VisualEditor Newsletter—February 2014

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some small changes to the user interface, such as moving the reference item to the top of the Insert menu, as well as some minor features and fixing bugs, especially for rich copying and pasting of references.

The biggest change was the addition of more features to the image dialog, including the ability to set alignment (left, right, center), framing options (thumbnail, frame, frameless, and none), adding alt text, and defining the size manually. There is still some work to be done here, including a quick way to set the default size.

• The main priority is redesigning the reference dialog, with the goal of providing autofill features for ISBNs and URLs and streamlining the process. Current concept drawings are available at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. Please share your ideas about making referencing quick and easy with the designers.
• A few bugs in the existing reference dialog were fixed. The toolbar was simplified to remove galleries and lists from the reference dialog. When you re-use references, it now correctly displays the references again, rather than just the number and name. If you paste content into a dialog that can't fit there (e.g. ==section headings== in references), it now strips out the inappropriate HTML.
• You can now edit image galleries inside VisualEditor. At this time, the gallery tool is a very limited option that gives you access to the wikitext. It will see significant improvements at a later date.
• The character inserter tool in the "Insert" menu is being redesigned. Your feedback on the special character inserter is still wanted, especially if you depend on Wikipedia's character inserters for your normal editing rather than using the ones built into your computer.
• You can now see a help page about keyboard shortcuts in the page menu (three bars next to the Cancel button) (T54844).
• If you edit categories, your changes will now display correctly after saving the page (T50560).
• Saving the page should be faster now (T61660).
• Any community can ask to test a new tool to edit TemplateData by leaving a note at T53734.

Looking ahead: The link tool will tell you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. The warning about wikitext will hide itself after you remove the wikitext markup in that paragraph. Support for creating and editing redirects is in the pipeline. Looking further out, image handling will be improved, including default and upright sizes. The developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments, some behavioral magic words like DISPLAYTITLE, and in-line language setting (dir="rtl").

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 04:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—March 2014

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on changes to the template and image dialogs.

The biggest change in the last few weeks was the redesign of the template dialog. The template dialog now opens in a simplified mode that lists parameters and their descriptions. (The complex multi-item transclusion mode can be reached by clicking on "Show options" from inside the simplified template dialog.) Template parameters now have a bigger, auto-sizing input box for easier editing.  With today's update, searching for template parameters will become case-insensitive, and required template parameters will display an asterisk (*) next to their edit boxes. In addition to making it quicker and easier to see everything when you edit typical templates, this work was necessary to prepare for the forthcoming simplified citation dialog. The main priority in the coming weeks is building this new citation dialog, with the ultimate goal of providing autofill features for ISBNs, URLs, DOIs and other quick-fills. This will add a new button on the toolbar, with the citation templates available picked by each wiki's community. Concept drawings can be seen at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. Please share your ideas about making referencing quick and easy with the designers.

• The link tool now tells you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. Pages that exist, but are not indexed by the search engine, are treated like non-existent pages (T56361).
• Wikitext warnings will now hide when you remove wikitext from the paragraph you are editing.
• The character inserter tool in the "Insert" menu has been slightly redesigned, to introduce larger buttons. Your suggestions for more significant changes to the special character inserter are still wanted.
• The page options menu (three bars, next to the Cancel button) has expanded. You can create and edit redirect pages, set page options like __STATICREDIRECT__, __[NO]INDEX__ and __[NO]NEWEDITSECTION__, and more.  New keyboard shortcuts are listed there, and include undoing the last action, clearing formatting, and showing the shortcut help window. If you switch from VisualEditor to wikitext editing, your edit will now be tagged.
• It is easier to edit images. There are more options and they are explained better. If you add new images to pages, they will also be default size.  You can now set image sizes to the default, if another size was previously specified. Full support for upright sizing systems, which more readily adapt image sizes to the reader's screen size, is planned.
• VisualEditor adds fake blank lines so you can put your cursor there. These "slugs" are now smaller than normal blank lines, and are animated to be different from actual blank lines.
• You can use the Ctrl+Alt+S or ⌘ Command+⌥ Option+S shortcuts to open the save window, and you can preview your edit summary when checking your changes in the save window.
• After community requests, VisualEditor has been deployed to the Interlingual Occidental Wikipedia, the Portuguese Wikibooks, and the French Wikiversity.
• Any community can ask for custom icons for their language in the character formatting menu (bold, italic, etc.) by making a request on Bugzilla or by contacting Product Manager James Forrester.

The developers apologize for a regression bug with the deployment on 6 March 2014, which caused the incorrect removal of |upright size definitions on a handful of pages on the English Wikipedia, among others. The root cause was fixed, and the broken pages were fixed soon after.

Looking ahead:  Several template dialogs will become more compact. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. You will be able to see the Table of Contents change live as you edit the page, rather than it being hidden. In-line language setting (dir="rtl") may be offered to a few Wikipedias soon.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on 19 April 2014 at 2000 UTC. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Move

Please move File:Logo of ((LaSiete)), a Spanish channel.png to File:LaSiete 2014.png. I was wrong field. Regards. Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 15:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been done 21:52, 17 March 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Logo of ((LaSiete)), a Spanish channel.png to File:LaSiete 2014.png without leaving a redirect. Andrewa (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Arctic ice pack

Why did you move Arctic ice pack? The Polar ice packs page was about both ice packs. Are you going to spit the artticle, ie one about Arctic pack only and another about the two? - Altenmann >t 07:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at the talk page? Talk:Arctic ice pack#Requested move seems to answer all your questions. Presumably you looked at the page history. What do you think the edit summary RM might mean? Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the talk page does a my q. However two letters 'RM' did't catch my eye, being placed in the very end. - Altenmann >t 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fallacies & AGF stuff

Copied here from WT:MOS:

[...]I'm not sure what sort of aspersion you're trying to cast by criticizing my argument on the basis of my having been involved in debates you characterized as "heated and controversial", but that's three different fallacies at once (guilt by association, ad hominem, and confusion of correlation and causation); not impressive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  09:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect I want to reject all four accusations of logical fallacy, and also the implied breaches of good faith on my part. But Let's try to focus on the topic at hand (I have restored the heading of this section, which you deleted, [1] I hope that this was simply an accident on your part... if not some explanation is due IMO).[...] Andrewa (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement with your reasoning has nothing to do with good or bad faith assumptions at all. I actually assume entirely good faith on your part, and that of Peter coxhead, et al., even on the part of the more tendentious pro-capitalization people at WP:BIRDS. I have no doubt that you and they believe that they are right and that what you and they are advocating is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. We all think that about their position we're advocating. There have historically been some people in the debate about whom this is questionable not because of assumption of bad faith but because their actions have exuded so much bad faith the assumption is no longer tenable, per WP:DUCK. Of the five who come to mind, two have quit the project and three have been indef-blocked (including the sockpuppet of one of them, too). I don't need to insinuate a vested interest or unsavory motive; the logical problems in the position the position you've been advocating on this are clear enough on their own that such character assassination would be superflous, as well as lame. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. That said, an assumption of good faith does not entail and assumption of appropriate practice and process in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. It is very clear that certain parties in this debate actually would like to see MOS completely undone or relegate to something like the status of an essay (I don't think you or coxhead go that far). They do not have bad faith in this desire, but their view of what is "good for the project" is radical and flies in the face of how the community operates, so I am not bound to respect it or treat it as anything other than inimical and irrational, even if it's motivated purely. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." This observation is highly relevant when it comes to the proposals and effects, not the motivations of people with varying degrees of anti-MOS positioning. It is not an assumption of bad faith to criticize a proposition as likely to have an effect that undermines already extant site-wide consensus.

Anyway, I raised three not four fallacies:

Criticizing my argument on the basis of it being associated with a debate you characterize as heated and controversial is classic guilt by association fallacy; it's an attempt to discredit an argument not on its merits or lack thereof, but because of an implied connection to something you think will or should be perceived as negative. This actually also makes it a form of argument to emotion fallacy, really.

Critcizing my argument on the basis of me personally being invovled in debates you characterize as heated and controversial is the ad hominem fallacy, i.e. attempts to discredit an argument based on personal association with something you think will or should be perceived as negative; it's fallacious, because who is making an argument isn't what determines its validity.

Lastly, insinuation that the position I taken in the current debate is itself "heated and controversial" on the basis of related debates having been so is a cause-effect confusion, in particular the fallacy of confusing correlation and causation. A connection of debates A and B to topic X, where B was heated (according to you), does not mean that A is also heated. Even if the alleged heat does appear in both A and B there is no proof they're connected to any particular cause like topic X; it maybe that you yourself are the cause, or it could just be coincidence, or your perception of heat may not be shared, etc. Furthermore, the underlying issue is the controversy; an argument about the controversy might get heated, but is not in and of itself controversial. (It could be in theory, e.g. if the discussion became so long that Mediawiki crashed, I guess that would lead to a controversy about the argument itself rather than its topic, but that's not what we're talking about here).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  03:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You make some valid points here, but they seem unrelated to the issue that you raise, which is that you claim to have found logical fallacies in my arguments and I don't think you have. The above hasn't changed my opinion on that. You seem to often misunderstand what I say. It takes two to communicate. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's me making the same "argument" as you: You claim that you did not make logical fallacies in you earlier discussion with me, but I think you have. Your one-liner response hasn't changed my opinion on that. I don't need to provide any rationale for what I'm saying, and can ignore everything you've said because I find it inconvenient to bother trying to understand you. You seem to often communicate unclearly. Have a great day.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

On a closely related note

Please read the remedies section of WP:ARBATC, and stop personalizing style/titles disputes by casting ad hominem aspersions in discussions on that topic. It's heated enough without you pouring gasoline on the flames. If you have a problem with my posting style or the concerns I'm raising not being central enough to your own interests, then take it to my talk page, don't accuse me. If you have a problem with MMM's refactoring, take it to that editor's talk page, or to WP:ANI if you think it's a serious attempt at sabotaging a poll; miring the discussion in personalized accusations even after you've already raised the concerns on the user talk page and so have others, is overkill and makes your comments about my own edits not being focused and constructive enough for your personal liking seem hypocritical. A separate concern is that your over-control of the focus, dimensions and direction of the debate, and even trying to police it as to tone and suggesting that you get to be the one interpreting the result and "ignoring" whatever input you don't think is topical enough, is liable to undermine any value it may have toward establishing a consensus. A third issue is your ongoing habit of baiting arguments, then refusing to address the criticisms you earn in the course of doing so. Dismissing them as irrelevant and not worth answering, or just rehash and nothing new; it doesn't fool anyone with an IQ over about 100. You don't get to decide what is relevant or correct. Your common responses that you simply refuse to answer someone's arguments because you deem them irrelevant or boring really means "I concede, but in a sour-groups manner", and everyone knows that. Doing it habitually is not going to win you any respect here. You like to declare that other people's posts are likely to be ignored for being off-topic noise. That kind of response by you is at the very bottom of the "does this matter?" list.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. Is the sanction at User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 76#Result of AE request (originally posted here) still current? There's no mention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Individual sanctions of its being lifted. Andrewa (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Softening a criticism

Hello Andrew, On WT:MOS, I critiqued your wording of the language for the RfC about capitalization of bird names. I wanted to let you know that I feel bad doing it and I don't want you to feel personally attacked. It's just about the process. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 18:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, I strongly support what you've said there. [2] Andrewa (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—April 2014

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on performance improvements, image settings, and preparation for a simplified citation template tool in its own menu.

• In an oft-requested improvement, VisualEditor now displays red links (links to non-existent pages) in the proper color. Links to sister projects and external URLs are still the same blue as local links.
• You can now open templates by double-clicking them or by selecting them and pressing  Return.  This also works for references, images, galleries, mathematical equations, and other "nodes".
• VisualEditor has been disabled for pages that were created as translations of other pages using the Translate extension (common at Meta and MediaWiki.org). If a page has been marked for translation, you will see a warning if you try to edit it using VisualEditor.
• When you try to edit protected pages with VisualEditor, the full protection notice and most recent log entry are displayed. Blocked users see the standard message for blocked users.
• The developers fixed a bug that caused links on sub-pages to point to the wrong location.
• The size-changing controls in the advanced settings section of the media or image dialog were simplified further. VisualEditor's media dialog supports more image display styles, like borderless images.
• If there is not enough space on your screen to display all of the tabs (for instance, if your browser window is too narrow), the second edit tab will now fold into the drop-down menu (where the "Move" item is currently housed). On the English Wikipedia, this moves the "Edit beta" tab into the menu; on most projects, it moves the "Edit source" tab. This is only enabled in the default Vector skin, not for Monobook users. See this image for an example showing the "Edit source" and "View history" tabs after they moved into the drop-down menu.
• After community requests, VisualEditor has been deployed as an opt-in feature at Meta and on the French Wikinews.

The drop-down menu is on the right, next to the search box.

Looking ahead:  A new, locally controlled menu of citation templates will put citations immediately in front of users. You will soon be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) is being developed. In-line language setting (dir="rtl") will be offered as a Beta Feature soon. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Monday, 19 May 2014 at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this on your own page, subscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

People's Park

Hallo, I see you've closed the discussion and moved the article which was at the base name to People's Park (Berkeley) ... but there are a lot of incoming links which were correct and now point to the disambiguation page (not as many as I'd hoped were fixed by updating the link in the {{Hippies}} navbox). Who's going to mend them? Have you got access to any particular gizmos which can get them done easily? PamD 15:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

They will be progressively fixed, by whoever undertakes that task... Hopefully by several people, and if you think it urgent (I don't) and important then hopefully you'll put some time into it. TIA

But such requests are quite common, so I think we need to tweak the RM instructions to remove the obvious expectation that the closing admin will do all of this tidying up themselves. Either that, or trout the admins who close such requests and accept the IMO inevitable consequence that they then languish in the backlog instead. Andrewa (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that in this case Zanhe (talk · contribs) has done a mass cleanup of the incoming links. On the other hand, an editor is now criticising the close and move, and may be along here sometime. PamD 10:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This RM was filed during Easter break and was closed with a total of three participating editors, two registered editors and one IP who arrived several days previous to the RM. For an article that has an enormous amount of actual incoming links (not template links) which I suspect represent more incoming links than all the other dabs combined, and for an article that has the top article traffic in the last 30 days and the highest number of English reliable sources on Google Books and Google Scholar, the move appears to need review. The nominator made a highly selective argument pointing to non-English sources and unreliable Google search results, in contravention of the primary topic instructions and best practices. All the nominator has to do is demonstrate that any one of these similar articles is as significant or more significant than People's Park in Berkeley. For some reason, this has not been done. All the nominator was able to offer by way of evidence was his guess that the parks in China are "probably more notable than the park in Berkeley". That's not a valid argument for a page move. When you go to Google Books and Google Scholar, you not only uncover more English reliable sources on the subject than the other parks (a requirement of a primary topic) but discover outright assertions of historical significance over and over again, more so than any other "People's Park" anywhere in the world. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

See my response on the article talk page. [3] Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Andrew, I would like to apologize for the way I refactored WT:MOS's birdy debate. People were already !voting, and an RfC really would've been helpful, because RfCs are our tools to reach lots of people at once. (I guess that people just saw a list of options and, rather than actually reading what you said, were like, hey! I like voting! Here's a list of options! Let's vote!) I could have said "hey everybody, stop voting, stop !voting, come down to this new subsection where I've filed this RfC!" but instead I thought, since your lead worked well for it, I might just throw the template in and hide the comments that were not germane to the RfC. Like you said, everything's all in the page history...

I did put in an invisible comment saying that I was the one to put that template there, but I should have signed the proposal in small text or something. I figured you would be fine with it and I didn't want to put myself in the middle of it. That was not an assumption that I should have made. I apologize. Red Slash 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(Sigh) thanks for the apology... You are far from the worst offender.

No, I don't think that refactoring the proposal after the poll had started was in any way constructive, frankly. But it was sufficiently informal that provided your refactor had been clearly signed and dated I'd have had no real cause for complaint, and I'd have hoped then that someone else might have seen it and commented on your action and perhaps even reverted it.

But yes, effectively putting my signature to your poll was really strange, even if as I assume you thought it was what I meant to say or should have said. And it led directly to me and others making some embarrassing statements. I don't think in a section as long as that already was I can be expected to reread the whole thing every time I reply to check whether there has been some tampering with my earlier comments, and others can't be expected to go through the history and see what I really said. They comment on what is there and bears my signature, and should be safe in doing that, and I should be safe in replying to them.

I can fully understand you not wanting to put yourself in the middle of it. There's some heat there, and I think there are many taking the same position. And that's much of the current problem IMO.

And what I'd really like is some help with that. How can we make it a safe place for honest, to the point comments? Andrewa (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I wish I knew. Thank you for your gracious response. I really didn't want to put my name on your baby--I didn't realize that you didn't at all mean to make it an RfC. I was frustrated--you can see it in my !vote--that we were (for like the third time) all talking and !voting but not in a way that was ever going to bring about a consensus. I also had been frustrated multiple times by going to the talk page for MOS and having to look around to actually find the poll. Which wasn't really a poll. Of course, all of that makes sense, because you never intended it to be a poll. But people took it that way, and voila.

I spent a few minutes looking through your responses on that talk page in between me RFC-ing it and you finding it out, and wow, yeah, I made you really look bad because you were talking about "when we have an RfC" and everyone else was like, "umm, are you high?". I'm so sorry. I really, really, really should have taken ownership of it; I just assumed a straight-up RfC was going to be the best thing. I'm extremely sorry. I'll go edit that talk page again and clarify. Red Slash 02:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a go if you like, but I'm more interested in moving forward.

You say I didn't want to put myself in the middle of it. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting that, but I fell that three anti-C editors in particular have made it a dangerous place for the pro-C ("the birders") faction to comment, and I'm not quite sure what to do about this. They're entitled to their views, and I'm not accusing them of bad faith or even disruption, although MMM has been accused of this on their talk page by another of their restringing victims, and SMcC is already under ARBCOM sanction to not violate AGF but does so repeatedly. I've discussed this on both their user talk pages.

MMM in fact turned out to be a sock of an already blocked user, and is now also blocked indefinitely. [4] Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't myself want to call this disruption because it's (mostly) borderline and the last thing I want is to escalate further, but I do call it distraction, and can't see how we can get a consensus that is accepted by both sides without some serious de-escalation.

If those who are so keen to enforce policy and guidelines would just obey it themselves, there would be a much better chance of getting somewhere. But it's often the case that the most rigid rule-quoters are the most flexible rule-benders themselves, and that's exactly what I see here. Andrewa (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I wasn't helpful with that. I really only see two possible reasons for pro-C: either because individual species really are proper nouns or because we really need to follow the organization's unilateral tendency to capitalize. And both are legitimate possible reasons, even though I think they're both wrong. I don't see why there's such an extended discussion there. (You're right that it is incredibly distracting, hence why I hid the extended discussion after your first comment--it was expanding to where a reasonable editor would have serious trouble even finding where to !vote.) I don't even mean this as a criticism. Why is there so much discussion? At some point you agree to disagree! Red Slash 02:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I came in late to the discussion, but what I have seen is misbehaviour that is borderline disruption but probably not RfC/U-able by three users, all on the anti-C side, making discussion all but impossible. One of these is now blocked indefinitely as a sock. Another is currently under sanction from an earlier ARBCOM decision not to violate AGF, but regularly does, and has been previously sanctioned for being long-winded but unfortunately that sanction has expired... Well, perhaps it would do no more good than the one concerning AGF. The third has accused the pro-C faction of shouting down their opposition in the past, and when I asked them to substantiate the claim they provided a long list of links, the first of which was to a discussion in which the shouting was all patently done by the anti-C faction, with commendable patience shown by the others who refused to be taunted and reply in kind. I didn't even look at the others I admit, but when challenged again they then waffled on about how it wasn't their responsibility to check the links, and modified their earlier comments to which I had already replied. Not impressed is an understatement.

Have a look at my off-wiki (well, my own wiki actually) page how to reveal yourself without really trying for a useful tool to privately use whenever AGF is violated. It explains why those fastest to accuse others of deliberately flouting the rules are the ones least likely to respect the rules themselves... exactly as in this discussion, as I see it.

This is not evidence in favour of capitalisation of course, nor am I suggesting that any of the other anti-C editors have misbehaved, including yourself. I don't agree with your view or some of your actions, but that's fine, let's discuss. But we probably need to deal with these tactics before we can have meaningful discussions either way. The whole goal of consensus is to achieve a solution accepted by both sides, but that shouldn't mean that one side can stonewall the other and let the worst man win. And it doesn't mean this at all of course. If we allow that, then there's exactly a 50% chance that we'll get the wrong answer, and (assuming the point is important) it will then just need to be overturned in time, assuming Wikipedia continues to prosper and improve.

There is evidence in favour of the capitalisation. But perhaps here is not the place for it. My attempt at a new direction is completely destroyed in my opinion, but your part in that was relatively minor, and there are now two other promising directions by other parties. I'm very interested to see how they get on, and am trying to support them. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: See #Sorrrryyy!!! below. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

bird names

I've made a suggestion at the afc that I now close it--could you look, and say if you agree? DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorrrryyy!!!

Andrew, I apologise for giving the impression in my reply to the RFC (though it was not worded as a response to the RFC) that I was referring to the discourtesies of the various participants (among which my own was no shining example of sensitivity and forebearance). Nor was I referring to your contributions as a spectacular performer in the ad hominem stakes. I am intimately familiar with the temptations to verbal violence that such controversies present. My own little diatribe was largely in reaction to what I saw as the sheer futility, especially at short notice, of any attempt at influencing, let alone steering, such a flood of largely pig-headed opinionatedness. Simply skimming it took longer than I could afford, and in the throes of my ADD I couldn't even summarise the (fairly frequent) sound contributions (repetitive though their tenor was), let alone the debate. So when I flipped my lid I just short-circuited the overall effect with my own shouting into the storm, even though I had resolved not to. I apologise again for not sticking around to say anything useful. And I repeat that I did not see you as a major contributor to the distasteful conduct. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoopsie! Sorry again, only now did I notice your instruction to reply on my own page. I'll think of a better excuse than being hurried really soon! JonRichfield (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@JonRichfield: On a related note, see #RfC above. The sample space is still small, but I now have two reasonable editors both explicitly saying that they don't want to contribute to the discussion because of the way in which it is being conducted.

IBM used to run on the principle that for every person who tells you about the problem, nine more knew they had the problem and didn't say, and for every person who knows they have the problem, nine more have it and and don't know. So 1% of occurrences are reported, or that's the theory. We may not quite achieve that ratio, but point is, the antics at this discussion are a big turn-off for a lot of people.

And my observation is that these antics are mainly (perhaps even exclusively) on one side of the discussion. That is one thing that got me involved. I don't go looking for fights, see WP:creed, but I do tend to stand up for victims.

And that's not saying that everyone on that side is misbehaving. Far from it. Most on both sides are behaving entirely properly. But there's very little criticism of those who are misbehaving, in my opinion. So again, I thank you for yours!

As Edmund Bourke is often quoted as saying (but may not have [5]) All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

And that's not to say that these antics will destroy Wikipedia. But rewarding them is not a good thing. There must be at least a suspicion that, if I'm right about the one-sided misbehaviour, it's a lot safer to be on the misbehaving side, so more people on one side are turned off by it, seriously biasing the results of any poll, and reducing the chance of its acceptance as being a valid (non-local) consensus. Difficult.

Which is one good reason I didn't initiate a poll, although someone else (again see above) put my name to it. Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewa: <siiigh.....>> Well, my sympathy. I wish I could offer something more constructive, but my imagination does not currently leap to a solution. However that exchange develops, I shall do my best to edit in notation as effective and appropriate as I can manage, irrespective of whatever MOStrosities emerge, but... JonRichfield (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Replying to multi-paragraph comments

Hi Andrew. This is just a friendly reminder to watch out for multi-paragraph comments when replying on talk pages. It appears you split up a comment to which you were replying in revision 603091534. In 608300182 I've applied what seems to me to be the best fix at this point: just copying their signature to the non-final parts of their comment. You seem pretty experienced with WP, so if you have any suggestions about better fixes (I couldn't find any guidance), please share. Thanks! --MilFlyboy (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I've looked carefully at your edit, and it seems unnecessary and possibly disruptive. I notice you have made several similar edits recently. I think by I couldn't find any guidance you mean that there's no justification for these edits in current policy or guidelines.

That's my opinion too.

To reformat the signed comments of others according to your personal preferences is not helpful in my opinion. It has done no harm on this occasion, but nor has it achieved anything.

Please stop.

If you notice a mistake in the format of my comments, a heads-up here is always welcome. Applying the best fix as you see it is not. It may well be, as in this case, that I believe that your opinions as to format are completely and utterly mistaken. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—May 2014

Did you know?

The cite menu offers quick access to up to five citation templates.  If your wiki has enabled the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" menu, press "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" and select the appropriate template from the menu.

Existing citations that use these templates can be edited either using the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" tool or by selecting the reference and choosing the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" item in the "Insert" menu.

Read the user guide for more information.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on the new citation tool, improving performance, reducing technical debt, and other infrastructure needs.

The biggest change in the last few weeks is the new citation template menu, labeled "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽". The new citation menu offers a locally configurable list of citation templates on the main toolbar. It adds or opens references using the simplified template dialog that was deployed last month. This tool is in addition to the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" item in the "Insert" menu, and it is not displayed unless it has been configured for that wiki. To enable this tool on your wiki, see the instructions at VisualEditor/Citation tool.

Eventually, the VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for these citations. When this long-awaited feature is created, you could add an ISBN, URL, DOI or other identifier to the citation tool, and VisualEditor would automatically fill in as much information for that source as possible. The concept drawings can be seen at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog, and your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted.

• There is a new Beta Feature for setting content language and direction.  This allows editors who have opted in to use the "Language" tool in the "Insert" menu to add HTML span tags that label text with the language and as being left-to-right (LTR) or right-to-left (RTL), like this:  <span lang="en" dir="ltr">English</span>. This tool is most useful for pages whose text combines multiple languages with different directions, common on Right-to-Left wikis.
• The tool for editing mathematics formulae in VisualEditor has been slightly updated and is now available to all users, as the "⧼math-visualeditor-mwmathinspector-title⧽" item in the "Insert" menu. It uses LaTeX like in the wikitext editor.
• The layout of template dialogs has been changed, putting the label above the field.  Parameters are now called "fields", to avoid a technical term that many editors are unfamiliar with.
• TemplateData has been expanded:  You can now add "suggested" parameters in TemplateData, and VisualEditor will display them in the template dialogs like required ones.  "Suggested" is recommended for parameters that are commonly used, but not actually required to make the template work.  There is also a new type for TemplateData parameters: wiki-file-name, for file names.  The template tool can now tell you if a parameter is marked as being obsolete.
• Some templates that previously displayed strangely due to absolute CSS positioning hacks should now display correctly.
• Several messages have changed: The notices shown when you save a page have been merged into those used in the wikitext editor, for consistency.  The message shown when you "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cancel⧽" out of an edit is clearer. The beta dialog notice, which is shown the first time you open VisualEditor, will be hidden for logged-in users via a user preference rather than a cookie.  As a result of this change, the beta notice will show up one last time for all logged-in users on their next VisualEditor use after Thursday's upgrade.
• Adding a category that is a redirect to another category prompts you to add the target category instead of the redirect.
• In the "Images and media" dialog, it is no longer possible to set a redundant border for thumbnail and framed images.
• There is a new Template Documentation Editor for TemplateData.  You can test it by editing a documentation subpage (not a template page) at Mediawiki.org: edit mw:Template:Sandbox/doc, and then click "Manage template documentation" above the wikitext edit box.  If your community would like to use this TemplateData editor at your project, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.
• There have been multiple small changes to the appearance:  External links are shown in the same light blue color as in MediaWiki.  This is a lighter shade of blue than the internal links.  The styling of the "Style text" (character formatting) drop-down menu has been synchronized with the recent font changes to the Vector skin.  VisualEditor dialogs, such as the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽" dialog, now use a "loading" animation of moving lines, rather than animated GIF images.  Other changes were made to the appearance upon opening a page in VisualEditor which should make the transition between reading and editing be smoother.
• The developers merged in many minor fixes and improvements to MediaWiki interface integration (e.g., edit notices), and made VisualEditor handle Education Program pages better.
• At the request of the community, VisualEditor has been deployed to Commons as an opt-in. It is currently available by default for 161 Wikipedia language editions and by opt-in through Beta Features at all others, as well as on several non-Wikipedia sites.

Looking ahead:  The toolbar from the PageTriage extension will no longer be visible inside VisualEditor. More buttons and icons will be accessible from the keyboard.  The "Keyboard shortcuts" link will be moved out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) and inline images is being developed. You will be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. VisualEditor will be available to all users on mobile devices and tablet computers. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Thursday, 19 June 2014 at 10:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Version control#Move request

FYI: since you closed this. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! See my comments there. Andrewa (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cindy Carol

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

Sole attribution is to IMDb

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor global newsletter—June 2014

Did you know?

The character formatting menu, or "Style text" menu lets you set bold, italic, and other text styles. "Clear formatting" removes all text styles and removes links to other pages.

Do you think that clear formatting should remove links? Are there changes you would like to see for this menu? Share your opinion at MediaWiki.org.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

The VisualEditor team is mostly working to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

• They have moved the "Keyboard shortcuts" link out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Within dialog boxes, buttons are now more accessible (via the Tab key) from the keyboard.
• You can now see the target of the link when you click on it, without having to open the inspector.
• The team also expanded TemplateData: You can now add a parameter type  "date" for dates and times in the ISO 8601 format, and  "boolean" for values which are true or false. Also, templates that redirect to other templates (like {{citeweb}} → {{cite web}}) now get the TemplateData of their target (bug 50964). You can test TemplateData by editing mw:Template:Sandbox/doc.
• Category: and File: pages now display their contents correctly after saving an edit (bug 65349, bug 64239)
• They have also improved reference editing: You should no longer be able to add empty citations with VisualEditor (bug 64715), as with references. When you edit a reference, you can now empty it and click the "use an existing reference" button to replace it with another reference instead. 
• It is now possible to edit inline images with VisualEditor. Remember that inline images cannot display captions, so existing captions get removed. Many other bugs related to images were also fixed.
• You can now add and edit {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and __DISAMBIG__ in the "Page options" menu, rounding out the full set of page options currently planned.
• The tool to insert special characters is now wider and simpler.

Looking ahead

The VisualEditor team has posted a draft of their goals for the next fiscal year. You can read them and suggest changes on MediaWiki.org.

The team posts details about planned work on VisualEditor's roadmap. You will soon be able to drag-and-drop text as well as images. If you drag an image to a new place, it won't let you place it in the middle of a paragraph. All dialog boxes and windows will be simplified based on user testing and feedback. The VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for citations. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments and adding rows and columns to tables.

Supporting your wiki

Please read VisualEditor/Citation tool for information on configuring the new citation template menu, labeled "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽". This menu will not appear unless it has been configured on your wiki.

If you speak a language other than English, we need your help with translating the user guide. The guide is out of date or incomplete for many languages, and what's on your wiki may not be the most recent translation. Please contact me if you need help getting started with translation work on MediaWiki.org.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 21:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas and Pacific Islands) or on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 9:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East, Asia).

To change your subscription to this newsletter, please see the subscription pages on Meta or the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

1976-whenever compilations

Thanks for recent comments on several RMs. I think your suggestion of "If the rules say that change the rule" may be more productive. I get the sense that some actual song/album article contributors are less opposed to the artist name being visible than might be expected, but it is only recently that WP Songs removed the Primary Song idea, so who knows. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

As Echo will already have told you, I mentioned your name at ANI. I take my hat off to you for your patience in that bird name mess. (no reply needed to this) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Solid body

Thank you for the reply! I am gratefully corrected. Clearly, prognostications are often wild speculation. I was likely digging for a response. In the last couple years, I haven't seen much talk appearing on Talk pages. No clue as to the reason. Hopefully my post wasn't annoying. That wasn't my intent. I could easily have looked up the origin of the article but didn't think to do so at the time.

I do grasp the origin and use of the term solid body applied to music instruments. Not to dispute you, but all acoustic pianos have soundboards and strings, although the strings are cast like bells and not drawn. Certain drums, such as the cajon, have soundboards and certainly the mbira, banjo, harp, etc. We might list scores of instruments. When electronic versions are developed, few if any of them are referred to with the words "solid body."

I see your point: encyclopedias are not fundamentally systems of classification but require vernacular language entry points. The emphasis is to embrace experience rather than reclassify it. At least that's what I think you're driving at. I get a little carried away by abstractions and a lot to learn.

I truly appreciate correction. Thanks again for providing some in a useful manner. I haven't yet wrapped my head around the encyclopedic concept. No Diderot here. Cheers! BellwetherToday (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:Creed, I think you might like it. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your eloquently worded argument against undue patriotic POV. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that you or what?

Is another using your name?[6] Is that in order? Is it a confession of trolling on that person's part? Qexigator (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are misreading that post. Nobody is misrepresenting me. they were just wishing me good luck, and I appreciate it. Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, it was not clear. I was not aware that you were intervening in tandem. In fact what either of you have been getting at has not been clear, but both seem to have a false notion about the images, for which I have given good reasons, whether you happen to agree with them or not, and, speaking of spades as spades, your suggestion otherwise is not in order. Qexigator (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "intervening in tandem", nor what was unclear about the post you questioned.

But more important, what suggestion is not in order, and why? Andrewa (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

in tandem as in riding one behind the other, or acting as if accomplices to attack another: but if not so, then not. Not in order: "This image and another were only added in order to justify removal of the more relevant image. We should not continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I have given reasons for differing from your notion of relevance, and undue attachment to that image. Shall we drop this and move on? Qexigator (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I had hoped that you would drop the allegation that the post to which you objected [7] was in any way improper, but you don't seem inclined to do that, judging by that last post. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I was not "[confessing] of trolling". Since what I said was too concise for you to understand, I'll explain it. When I saw the image you added, I assumed you added it to make a point, and I challenged it with sarcasm. You then added another irrelevant image and considered adding a third if it were possible. The post you are questioning is merely my reaction to what I interpreted to be trollish, followed by a statement that I intended to walk away from the article in order to not feed the trolls, and ending with a wish of luck to User:Andrewa to continue dealing with something that I could not. I walked away from Wikipedia for a few hours and decided I would stay on the article, however. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I say, I think we all need to read and follow Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)