User talk:Mdann52/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Your submission at Articles for creation: New Zealand Music Commission has been accepted

New Zealand Music Commission, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"EU research and innovation for the environment"

Hi,

I was wondering if you could help with my page, it's the first time I'm trying to post an article on Wiki and it seems rather difficult. So first of all you mentioned you did some cleaning up already, I'm afraid I can't see the differences, so perhaps you could provide more details about that in particular and then in general about making it sutable for Wiki.

Best, Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.6 (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"EU research and innovation for the environment"

Hi,

I was wondering if you could help with my page, it's the first time I'm trying to post an article on Wiki and it seems rather difficult. So first of all you mentioned you did some cleaning up already, I'm afraid I can't see the differences, so perhaps you could provide more details about that in particular and then in general about making it sutable for Wiki.

Best, Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniamo (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Soniamo: my main changes were formatting links so they rendered properly; Your formatting caused them to break. Unfortunately, it appears this is not sutable at all for Wikipedia, as it seems to read like an essay into the subject, as opposed to an encyclopedic article. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot to fix "bgcolor" markup

Hi Mdann52. I was wondering how things were progressing on this. Is there anything I can do to assist? Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@DH85868993: I've been doing this on and off, and am having some difficulty with it, due to the issues RedRose flagged up. I'll play around a bit more before giving up though. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. You can read translations.

Recent changes

• You can test a new system to see math using MathML. Go to your display options and choose "⧼mw math mathml⧽".
• You can add badges in Wikidata for quality articles and featured lists. [1] [2]

File information cleanup

• You can join a wiki project to help tools read file information. It will help people reuse files.
• See how to fix metadata. You can fix it by adding markers to templates and adding templates to files.
• You can see a list of files missing machine-readable information on your wiki.
• The files missing readable data are also in these categories: no license, no description, no author or no source. [3]

Problems

• Developers fixed a security problem. If you use Internet Explorer 6, you won't be able to log in any more. You should use a newer browser. [4]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf4) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 21, and on all Wikipedias from October 23 (calendar).
• 10% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. You can also test it as a Beta Feature. [5]
• If you add the same parameter twice in a template, it now puts the page in a tracking category. [6] [7]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pembroke College

Could you close this for me? Thanks! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-44

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

• There was an issue with files from Commons on October 21. You could only see those with names between 140 and 159 characters by visiting Commons itself. [8]
• There was a problem with cut and paste in VisualEditor in Firefox. It was fixed quickly. [9]
• There was a problem with editing math in VisualEditor. It was fixed quickly. [10]

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will now come to Wikipedia sites every Wednesday, instead of every Thursday. [11]
• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf5) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 23. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 28, and on all Wikipedias from October 29 (calendar).
• VisualEditor now uses autovalues for templates if they are in TemplateData. [12] [13] [14]
• VisualEditor's menu items now show their shortcuts beside them. [15]
• VisualEditor now opens faster when you click "edit". [16]
• The rules for plurals in translations changed in some languages. Interface translations are currently not being updated from translatewiki.net; this process will start again on November 6. [17]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Swiss Swedish Origin Legend

Hi Mdann52, you undid my changes in Swiss Swedish origin legend. The Reichenau glosses are dated there early 15th century. Sincd 1906, however, this dating has been corrected, and subsequent authors consider the glosses as a having been derived from Olai. I added a reference to the literature. I would appreciate if you could undo your 'undoing'. Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying; using edit summaries means reverts like this are less likely to happen. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS bot help?

An uploader is asking for help, in two ways. First, how handle permissions on 4500 or so past uploads. I don't do bots, but you do. One challenge is that I looked at some of the most recent uploads, which are Pd image, so it isn't as simple as tagging all uploads. There may be a way to distinguish, but I want to see if you have time/willingness before taking the next step. The uploader also asked about future uploads. Someone recently posted how to create a custom template to handle that, and I will look at that later today.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I can sort out both bits if you want. The first can be sorted by skipping any pages with a pd tag on, which should be easy enough with a spot of regex. I can also do the second if you wish. What ticket number is this? --Mdann52talk to me! 13:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

ticket:2014102710013186

Although note I still have to clean up a small issue regarding a mismatch of copyright holder and emailer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Ok, that will be fine. On another note, is it possible for you to reply to Ticket:2014091710035746, asking them the dates they uploaded the files in question between? I've started looking at it, but it appears to be a muddle. I've already written the code to resolve this one, so just need to get a BRFA passed over on Commons, and all should be fine. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-45

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• The "Special:Cite" page is now called "Special:CiteThisPage". That way, you know it's to cite the page, not to add a reference. [18]
• You can no longer use the insource: keyword for text searches. It caused issues with the new search tool. It will come back later. [19] [20]

Problems

• There was a bug in VisualEditor with Internet Explorer. It hid tools like the link editor when you opened them. The bug was fixed on Monday. [21]
• Issues with the new search tool caused geo data code to show up on pages on Monday and Friday. The mobile "nearby" tool was also broken. The problem is now fixed. [22] [23] [24]
• HHVM caused server issues on Thursday. They are now fixed.

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf5) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 29. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 4, and on all Wikipedias from November 5 (calendar).
• Some wikis have icons at the top of a page to show if it is protected or featured. Icons show up using CSS. You can now use the <indicator> tag in these templates instead to add the icons. [25] [26]
• VisualEditor now tells you if you're editing a re-used reference. This helps you avoid changing it if you just want to add a new one. [27]
• The icons in VisualEditor's template editor tool for adding more fields are back, along with other fixes. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
• After November 6, all wikis will have the tool to edit TemplateData. [33] [34] [35]

Future changes

• The new search tool will come to the last wikis in the coming weeks. This includes Wikipedia in French, Chinese, German and English. [36]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015

Hello Mdann52. You undid my work in Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015. The content was not based on unverifiable speculation. The internal selection has been confirmed officially by RTBF [37] and EBU [38]. The Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 article is written with similar if not the same grounds. Looking to hearing back from you. Thanks for your attention. Xelaxa (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xelaxa: the red flags were raised for me as the article seems to also refer to Albania, so I thought it was a generic page (that issue has since been fixed). --Mdann52talk to me! 07:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

13:06:07, 5 November 2014 review of submission by Herongor

• Herongor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nathaniel David 'Nat' Coalson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editing question Herongor (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Hi, thanks for the feedback on this page last month. Until more independent links can be sourced, do you think it would be acceptable if I resubmitted a much more edited down version so that the content that remains does not rely too heavily on the subject's own web pages?

@Herongor: Yes, that sounds like a step in the right direction. If you want a hand with this, drop me a note, and I will see what I can do. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mediation committee

Would you be interested in applying for membership on the Mediation Committee? I'm Chairperson there and would nominate you if you are interested. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I would happily apply, yes. Hopefully, my experience in this field both on-wiki and in real life (although often informally) would be useful to the committee. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Good deal. If you've not done so already, you need to go to MEDCOM and read the Policy, the Procedures, and the Guide linked from that page in the top bar. Once you've done that, you need to take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Nominations/Form to see what you'll be answering. If you're still interested after doing that, leave a note here and I'll submit the nomination form and let you know that it's up so that you can go in, make your opening statement, and answer the questions. Thank you for considering this. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: After reading them, I'm still happy to stand. I will draft the answers as soon as possible, so this can be put up as soon as possible. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Nominations/Mdann52. Good luck! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Re Dispute resolution noticeboard#India Against Corruption

For background see this explanation which I have left on the filing user's talk page and this long-term abuse entry. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-46

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• You may see a new tool on the mobile site of the English Wikipedia. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata. [39] [40]
• The MediaWiki API now shows information in a nice format. You can translate it in translatewiki.net. [41]

File information cleanup

• Reminder: You can help fix file information on your wiki. It will help robots understand the information. After that, it will be easier for you to search files and re-use them.
• You can join two IRC chats this week to learn more about the file cleanup project. One will be on Wednesday at 18:00 (UTC) and the other on Thursday at 04:00 (UTC). You can ask questions during the chat if you need help to fix files on your wiki.
• You can see a list of files to fix on the Labs tool. You can report bugs and ask questions on the talk page.

Problems

• Wikimedia Labs was broken for a few hours on Thursday. It was due to a hardware problem. [42]

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf7) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 11, and on all Wikipedias from November 12 (calendar).
• You can now use more editing tools for tables in VisualEditor. You can add rows and columns, merge cells, and edit table captions. [43] [44]
• The style and insert menus in the toolbar of VisualEditor now show fewer tools. This helps you see the most common tasks. You can see all items by clicking "More". [45]
• The way windows inside VisualEditor work has changed. VisualEditor should be faster and have fewer bugs. [46]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Also, 'grats on your nomination to the MedCom. Also, seeing as I'm already here, note that I replied to your note on my talk page.

Hello, Mdann52. You have new messages at Lixxx235's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy editing, Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 20:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdann52 Hi, I have sent you a message a while ago regarding my draft EU research and innovation for the environment I am lost on how to procede and make it better for publishing, could you please advise?

Best, Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniamo (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

About Welcome tag

Thank U ! sir for your help.  :-) --aDHi..Talk 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification

User:Mdann52 Please consider this formal notification per Wikipedia guidelines that I am requesting that you cease and desist with your inaccurate edits to RightScale.Angelatripp (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Angelatripp, consider this a notification that Mdann52 is acting well within his rights to remove copyrighted material from Wikipedia, as it is against the rules to directly copy from other sites. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Primefac If you are implying that I have have infringed upon a copyright, please cite verifiable evidence to support your claim so that I can correct alleged issues or kindly cease and desist with unfounded remarks. Sincerely, User:Angelatripp (talk 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Angelatripp, kindly look at this page (the last instance of the page before Mdann52 removed the text), which shows the article contained a fair amount of text (highlighted for convenience) that was directly copied. When you redo the check with the current version of the page (after Mdann52 removed the copyvio) you'll see the highlighted text is only 2-3 word phrases (which can't be simplified any further). You are more than welcome to re-add the text Mdann52 removed, provided you write it yourself and don't directly copy from other sites. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

GG

You were reverted. Also noted at the ANI thread you just closed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• The POV discussion is as recent as today and it took me less than a minute to find it. Note that the talk page is archived at a 1 to 2 day interval and all topics are active within a day. The tag was not within the pervue of ANI, rather WP:DR is the policy that governs content. That policy states there are specific avenues for disputes and ANI is not one of them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Whether or not it was the "right venue" is irrelevant. A wider consensus has emerged, and with no real fixes in a month, it seems the tag is not doing it's job. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that the tag hasn't driven consensus but it also hasn't solved the POV dispute that still obviously exists. Removing the tag really just creates more drama. --DHeyward (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Drama is only created by those who wish to create drama. The tag is designed to bring attention to the issues; As the tag has been present for quite a while now, and the claims are still going back and forth, as an outside observer, the consensus and common sense approach is to remove it. It's like tagging an article for more references when none exist; It's kinder to either AfD it, or not bother tagging. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't edit the article and occasionally edit the talk page. You are correct that the tag isn't helping resolve the dispute. --DHeyward (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Again by the way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't see it in the edit summaries, my apologies for initially reverting you, Mdann52. starship.paint ~ regal 09:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have not got any notifications of you reverting me, I guess I didn't even notice.... --Mdann52talk to me! 11:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note and say thank you. I have tried to point out to these people, many times, that the removal of the tag does NOT mean that all discussion on POV issues on the talk page cease. I expect we will still discuss those matters, as dozens of editors on dozens of hot-button article talk pages do every day. All the tag removal means is that the initial "there are POV issues so serious that we must get more input immediately" phase is over; 5 weeks was enough. Thanks again. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have said on other issues in the past, sometimes the easiest way to resolve these issues is to ban one or two people from the article; I think this would help quieten cases such as this down a lot quicker. Anyway, let's see how this goes; the full protection will give some time for discussion, but unless new points are brought up, I believe this may go on for a long time yet.... --Mdann52talk to me! 13:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your edit to WP:ANI was what you meant to do. — Strongjam (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you please explain to me by how you are defining consensus? That thread had a majority of users, including uninvolved users such as myself, favoring a keeping of the tag. I can understand a "policy trumps consensus" view, but I don't understand how that can be viewed as a consensus.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For me, policy supported arguements are given more weight in determining consensus in cases such as this. Also, when evidence of a problem is lacking (ie. The point about the tag being there for ages without anything really being done) led me to believe there was no case for retention. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hatting reopened

Hi Mdann. I have reopened the section you hatted re disruptive editing at ANI. The last edit before your hatting was from an editor attempting to find information he had been asked for by others. He said " I will find the exact link where the admin said he felt threatened. Give me a minute please.". When he returned he found himself shut out. He surely has the right to provide the information and present it with the request it refers to. Moriori (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC Close

!vote, but I object to baselessly dismissing a 2-to-1 result as "no consensus". Alsee (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Baselessly? Are you kidding? If you think they was any kind of consensus, then you need to read it more carefully. I absolutely endorse the no consensus close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, If someone goes ahead and makes the edit, are you going to support that there is no consensus to revert it? Alsee (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alsee: if you feel my close is inappropriate, feel free to raise it at WP:AN. However, let me explain the rational a bit further. I close discussions per this policy, and because of this, I consider the arguements presented; Not just vote count. Consensus on Wikipedia is not judged just on vote counts. Also, 2-1 results at WP:RfA have been closed as no consensus before; Before a major software change, we really need 70% or more support. I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion. Of course, if you want further explination, feel free to come back, but as the RfC's author, it would probably be inappropriate for you to revert the close (I would not if I had started a RfC). --Mdann52talk to me! 07:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you consider the arguments presented in the original RfC? This RfC was basically asking, "Do you still agree with that?" Two to one, the answer was yes. --2601:9:3D00:93B:1D24:C6F0:6B9F:A8AC (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To a degree, yes. However, most of the arguments presented in this RfC and the previous one are identical on both sides, so I gave the more recent RfC more weight, especially considering the changes made since the original discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I note your invitation to go to WP:AN, but I'd rather deal with this amicably. The policy you cited is exactly what I was referring to. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. He or she is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. There is no indication that vast numbers of support arguments should be discarded. Responsible Wikipedians considered the issues. Considered the WMF statement. Considered the changes that were made in Media Viewer and promised future changes. Debated. Two thirds (a very predominant 2-to-1) reached a clear conclusion on the issue. I do not think "no consensus" is an accurate summary of a clear outcome. Alsee (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No consenses != clear conclusion. A major change in software, be it enabling or disabling, needs a clear consensus, which is usually judged as 70%+ approval. I have not disregarded the majority of keep votes - I give weight to arguments, so everything is considered, however those repeating arguments (ie. per X, y and z), or stating rational, get less weight than the original point, although I still considered them. Until we can get wider participation in this sort of debate, in any case, consensus will always be hard to judge, but that is another kettle of fish entirely. In this case, I read the whole discussion, and my overall judgement was no consensus. I have self reviewed that since you came here, and my decision has not since changed. I've asked a couple of uninvolved (or as uninvolved as you can get anyway) editors to take a look at this on IRC, and they broadly agree with me about the close. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably also noting the consensus is not to implement this at this time; This should not detract from the previous discussion. The only consensus here is not to implement at this time. I can clarify this if you wish. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you disregarded people repeating arguments ("per X, y and z"), did you also disregard repeating the argument that it should be kept "for the readers"? --2601:9:3D00:93B:BC2D:FB48:4363:7A9A (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

yes, I gave that less weight as it went on. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a long time writing and re-writing this. Chuckle. The issue is that you did not close on question that was asked and debated at RfC.

Before the RfC the community had in hand an uncontested RfC with a staggering 93% support to set Media Viewer to opt-in for logged in users, and overwhelming 83% support to set it opt-in for logged out users. Implementing that RfC was diverted when the WMF instituted Superprotect, retracted Superprotect with a message from the WMF director returning javascript control to the community and requesting that the community work together with us before making changes to site-wide JavaScript, and instituted a Community Consultation Process.

The community was no longer concerned with the question of whether there was a consensus for Media Viewer opt-in or opt-out. (The question you closed on). The dilemma the community needed to resolve was what to do when the community had in hand a resolved and overwhelming RfC, and what to do with it after the WMF first blocked then apologized and then returned control to the community with a request to work together before making changes.

The question at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC (with question 2 being to work with the WMF before implementing the previous RfC). The brief preamble specifically cited Superprotect and Media Viewer Consultation as critical background to consider, in case anyone was unaware of the conflict. "Reaffirming" the previous RfC was specifically so that people could Oppose to avoid conflict with the WMF (even if they Supported the original RfC), so that people could Support in order to demand respect for a standing community consensus on the issue despite risk of conflict with the WMF (even if they Opposed the original RfC), so that people could consider the Media Viewer Consultation outcome to have invalidated the previous RfC, or any other relevant concerns in a complex and highly charged situation. And yes, it left people free to Affirm or Reject the previous RfC for the same pro/con Media Viewer reasons that established the first RfC.

Huge numbers of responses clearly did not view the RfC as re-litigating the case but as holding to the original outcome, and/or giving arguments wholly or partially directed to whether the original outcome continues to stand as valid, and/or the issue of community-WMF conflict. If you're not seeing that in the responses then I am willing to point out samples or go over them systematically. The community had a clear consensus that the original RfC stands as valid and that the original RfC should be held to even at the risk of WMF disapproval. The question two responses were slim, but they support trying to work with the WMF before implementing the original RfC. Alsee (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a hint to the RfC on the MV/About page in MediaWiki. This strange closure is imho against the communities, not at all as forceful as the extremely hostile actions by the WMF against the communities in enWP and deWP show their utter contempt towards the community, but not warranted. edit by ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 11:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC) you're right, Alsee

♫ Sänger, I initiated the latest RfC so you know I'm not your enemy. The closer is not part of the WMF, he's just a editor who happens to view Media Viewer as beneficial. I would like to make an effort at positive discussion with him. As a favor, I request you remove your hostile comment here. If you do remove your comment then I request that you remove this comment (mine) at the same time. Alsee (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Alsee and ♫ Sänger, this editor User:Mdann52's incredible decision to ignore clear consensus and claim none exists as pretense for closing the RfC in manner seen could be interpreted by a reasonable person assuming good faith as a sign of astonishing incompetence, or something else entirely. It leaves one gob-smacked, because, despite this user's farcical claims otherwise, "The community had a clear consensus that the original RfC stands as valid and that the original RfC should be held to even at the risk of WMF disapproval." JDanek007^Talk 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann I came here and tried to discuss this with you constructively, like we're supposed to. I even defended you when someone jumped in angrily. I requested that he remove his hostile comment as a favor to me, because I wanted to promote a positive constructive atmosphere between us. I find your latest behavior to be unacceptably rude. We were engaged in dialog and you obviously knew I was expecting a response to my last post. If you considered my last comment unworthy of discussion, that's fine. But a minimum I believe it warranted a note informing me you were done. For several days I was patiently and actively checking in here looking for your response, and you wasted my time. You simply ceased responding to me or anyone else. You clearly have no interest in further discussion. To avoid wasting any more of my time I am accepting you invitation to move this discussion to WP:AN. I am going to take some time drafting and improving my request for review on your close. I'm more concerned with making a high quality review request than a hasty review request. I will notify you when the request is submitted. Alsee (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

When I have hostile comments made towards me, I think its more than fair to disengage. Last time this happened, any responded I made were turned against me, so I decided disengaging would be the best way to stop this escalating. Just to clarify, I have no plans to revert or radically change my close. In any case, I've spoken to someone in the WMF since, and was told whatever happened with MV, they stand by their previous statements that MV is here to stay. I'm not saying continuing this is a waste of time, but nothing useful is likely to cone from this, and risks causing more drama than it's worth. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of hostile comments? Alsee (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever say you were making hostile comments? Per your own admission, there was one further up this thread, so I'm trying to disengage to prevent any more. You might be wise to do the same; the WMF has made it clear that disabling MW is not an option, so persuing this further is just going to cause a lot of drama with no possible outcome apart from the status quo. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation, I was considering if I had missed something. I was thinking that if I had made hostile comments then it would be fair for you to disengage with me. If someone else makes hostile comments then I do not feel it was fair to disengage-me-without-notice. It helps that I now understand why you disengaged, but I shouldn't have taken collateral damage. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE: I have completed my review request and submitted it at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Media_Viewer_RfC

I am genuinely curious what you think of my reasoning. I regret that we were unable to get a full discussion going, Sänger was rather unhelpful. I would like to aim for a discussion or disagreement at WP:AN, rather than a battle. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your wine enthusiast image switch

Hello Mdann52. I don't particularly understand why you would upload an image [47] with dubious licensing template and otherwise incorrect information and replace a preexisting one [48] with the meaningless rationale "photosubmission", orphaning the original image and go through the process of nominating it for speedy deletion, unless you were really offended by the existing image, but that seems a stretch. I can gather no motivation to revert this set of edits and hold you to provide justification for them which would have been appropriate, I'll only suggest that maybe in the future you might seek to spend your time on more constructive edits. deMURGH ^talk 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Murgh: The copyright holder requested the file was uploaded via the WP:OTRS, so as it was the "photo submissions" address, I tagged it as such. Normally, I link back to the ticket, however I seem to have not done so in this instance, but I will do so now. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

All right. Thank you for the expanded rationale. deMURGH ^talk 13:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)