![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Wikimania looks like it is coming to Cape Town in 2018. Would be interested in getting out to do some diving when I am down. I see it is your home turf :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Peter: I am leaving you this note to thank you for your support. Like you, I remain convinced that both of us are looking at this issue with our eyes more widely open than those who oppose it. I think you will agree that the "Project" isn't being advanced through narrowness of thought, and I just wish I knew how to better convince others of this. I also get too emotionally invested in such things, which is a personal fault of mine. Knowing that I am not alone in that wilderness means a lot, gives me courage. Thank you. KDS4444 ( talk) 08:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
![]() |
The 2016 Cure Award |
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.
You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.
Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:
On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
Hey Peter. Since you indicated you might help out once I nominated at the talk page, just a heads-up that I have done so. (There's been no posts yet at the nomination.) Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk)
You just reverted valid changes with important additional information on the Permit to Work page. For what reason? Just because something is "disputed" doesn't mean it isn't correct. There is valuable information on the page which informs readers of possibilities within the arena they might not know about. Please reinstate my latest edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Controlofworkspecialist ( talk • contribs)
"This essay may gain more traction if it appears less WP:POINTY." Disagreed. The essay is not pointy. The essay is truthful. If we make it less truthful or watered down it would then be less useful. Many editors regularly violate policy. If you disagree you can vote delete. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not using any definition for the word "some". If the source does not use that word then the article should not use that word. See "The word some is an unsupported weasel word because the source does not explicitly use the word some to support that word in reference to that content." Better? QuackGuru ( talk) 21:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I clarified the wording. Now there is no doubt. Original research is forbidden. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The essay says "This would in effect be combining material from different sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any individual source. Therefore, we can't state "Two reviews found..." unless an individual source stated it was "Two reviews..."." Makes sense? QuackGuru ( talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.Hello, Pbsouthwood. On behalf of Honor, I have submitted an edit request to add an infobox and short "Specifications" section to the Huawei Honor 8 Pro article, which I posted on the article's talk page. I am seeking an uninvolved editor to copy the proposed markup over the article appropriately, but despite my requests for help at 4 WikiProjects and pings to several editors, no one has made any changes yet. I prefer not to edit the article directly because of my conflict of interest. I see you are a member of WikiProject Technology, so I was wondering if you might have a moment to review the edit request and copy over the proposed markup. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason ( talk) 16:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again! Inkian Jason ( talk) 17:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It is difficult to know quite how reviewers will react at FAC, and most of the articles which I have nominated relate to animal taxa, but I was co-nominator of Sea which was the most difficult FAC i have been involved in. Of course, people will find problems with the article and you will need to respond fairly promptly. You will not necessarily agree with their views, but if you want the FAC to be successful, you will be best advised to be cooperative rather than argumentative. With regards to your article:
While working on the new physiology section, I discovered that we don't yet have summary level articles on Physiology of underwater diving or Physiology of breathhold diving, which would be high or top importance articles for WikiProject Scuba diving, so this exercise has already helped a lot in identifying this gap. This may slow me down a bit as I may have to consider the scope of those topics to ensure that Underwater diving is complete. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, Update:
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
Just FYI, but you can use
Template:efn inline, like <ref></ref>
and it avoids having to use the naming feature. It also automatically orders them if you happen to stick a note above a previous note in the article, without having to manually rearrange your list in the notes section. No big deal, it just makes things easier on you in the future. (I have an unhealthy obsession with the gratuitous use of notes in articles. See for example
Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 for basically efn pornography.)
TimothyJosephWood
22:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for thanking me for the edits to the Respiratory system article. Much appreciated. Cruithne9 ( talk) 12:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thought you might find this interesting, I just couldn't be bothered to find the references last time ;)
Pin Index Safety System#Safety
DemandAmbition ( talk) 16:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Scuba set, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Look, it's your responsibility, when reverting editions that you think are wrong, to revert ONLY those edits; not to ruin a bunch of unrelated improvements that happened at about the same time. So if something breaks links, then fix them, of course. But don't also "fix"/ruin unrelated things that don't need to be, and shouldn't be, put back the way they were. If you have a concern about the other things too, then voice those too so that they make sense as part of your reversion. If not, then leave the other stuff alone.
My edits there were not "pointy." They were real improvements made for the sake of actually improving the article:
The tense changes are ordered by WP:TENSE and WP:COMPNOW. It's Wikipedia's policy to write about things in the present-tense form unless it's absolutely known that every last copy of that item no longer exists. Leave that alone.
"Second-stage regulator" and "open-circuit diffuser" are hyphenated because "second" and "stage" form a compound modifier that act as one word to modify "regulator," and the same thing with "open" and "circuit" for "diffuser." So leave them alone too.
"Scuba muffler" doesn't need to be in quotes just because it's being referred to by a "called ________" phrase. So leave that alone too.
97.117.54.205 (
talk)
16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I did exactly that. I never said I had "superior" knowledge. I used the WP rules to improve the article--except for where links broke. I'm sorry for breaking links. But if you're going to fix those, then fix those and do no other harm. I already explained the reasoning behind those improvements. Now what part of "fix those links without breaking other stuff" do you not understand? Since when can't an editor who is reverting broken things just revert ONLY the broken things instead of throwing in unrelated undos at the same time?
And where are you getting the idea that my improvements are supposedly "pointy"?
And since when is it "strange" to use a template that is so commonly used? Did you not make those edits back like the template talks about? Is it not disruptive for you to go in and reverse other edits for no good reason even though you know it's your responsibility to only reverse the problems? What's so "funny" about using a template for that?
I did start a discussion about your problem at the article's talk page.
97.117.54.205 ( talk) 17:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pbsouthwood. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih Talk 09:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, got an edit conflict on the ice core FAC with my replies; hadn't realized you were still reviewing. I hope my replies don't give you an ec in return! I'll go get some coffee and read the paper for a bit till you're done. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
![]() |
The Content Creativity Barnstar | |
Well done on your first successful Featured Article, Peter. It is hard work, but the article and the topic of scuba diving have both been improved beyond measure by your sustained efforts! -- RexxS ( talk) 21:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Well done for your great work on Underwater diving. It's a beautiful article. You're a good writer and took the peer review process well for your well-deserved first FA. I hope it's the first of many. John ( talk) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
~The Wiki Tribble Award~
Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you! |
You're one of the few exceptional content creators and a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve the project. The recent promotion of Underwater diving to WP:Featured article is testament to your work. The rigors of getting an article promoted to FA is not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips endeavor. It deserves acknowledgment and accolades from your peers. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to create a quality encyclopedia, and for making editing an enjoyable experience. Atsme 📞 📧 16:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Wikimania looks like it is coming to Cape Town in 2018. Would be interested in getting out to do some diving when I am down. I see it is your home turf :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Peter: I am leaving you this note to thank you for your support. Like you, I remain convinced that both of us are looking at this issue with our eyes more widely open than those who oppose it. I think you will agree that the "Project" isn't being advanced through narrowness of thought, and I just wish I knew how to better convince others of this. I also get too emotionally invested in such things, which is a personal fault of mine. Knowing that I am not alone in that wilderness means a lot, gives me courage. Thank you. KDS4444 ( talk) 08:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
![]() |
The 2016 Cure Award |
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.
You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.
Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:
On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
Hey Peter. Since you indicated you might help out once I nominated at the talk page, just a heads-up that I have done so. (There's been no posts yet at the nomination.) Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk)
You just reverted valid changes with important additional information on the Permit to Work page. For what reason? Just because something is "disputed" doesn't mean it isn't correct. There is valuable information on the page which informs readers of possibilities within the arena they might not know about. Please reinstate my latest edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Controlofworkspecialist ( talk • contribs)
"This essay may gain more traction if it appears less WP:POINTY." Disagreed. The essay is not pointy. The essay is truthful. If we make it less truthful or watered down it would then be less useful. Many editors regularly violate policy. If you disagree you can vote delete. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not using any definition for the word "some". If the source does not use that word then the article should not use that word. See "The word some is an unsupported weasel word because the source does not explicitly use the word some to support that word in reference to that content." Better? QuackGuru ( talk) 21:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I clarified the wording. Now there is no doubt. Original research is forbidden. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The essay says "This would in effect be combining material from different sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any individual source. Therefore, we can't state "Two reviews found..." unless an individual source stated it was "Two reviews..."." Makes sense? QuackGuru ( talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.Hello, Pbsouthwood. On behalf of Honor, I have submitted an edit request to add an infobox and short "Specifications" section to the Huawei Honor 8 Pro article, which I posted on the article's talk page. I am seeking an uninvolved editor to copy the proposed markup over the article appropriately, but despite my requests for help at 4 WikiProjects and pings to several editors, no one has made any changes yet. I prefer not to edit the article directly because of my conflict of interest. I see you are a member of WikiProject Technology, so I was wondering if you might have a moment to review the edit request and copy over the proposed markup. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason ( talk) 16:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again! Inkian Jason ( talk) 17:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It is difficult to know quite how reviewers will react at FAC, and most of the articles which I have nominated relate to animal taxa, but I was co-nominator of Sea which was the most difficult FAC i have been involved in. Of course, people will find problems with the article and you will need to respond fairly promptly. You will not necessarily agree with their views, but if you want the FAC to be successful, you will be best advised to be cooperative rather than argumentative. With regards to your article:
While working on the new physiology section, I discovered that we don't yet have summary level articles on Physiology of underwater diving or Physiology of breathhold diving, which would be high or top importance articles for WikiProject Scuba diving, so this exercise has already helped a lot in identifying this gap. This may slow me down a bit as I may have to consider the scope of those topics to ensure that Underwater diving is complete. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, Update:
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
Just FYI, but you can use
Template:efn inline, like <ref></ref>
and it avoids having to use the naming feature. It also automatically orders them if you happen to stick a note above a previous note in the article, without having to manually rearrange your list in the notes section. No big deal, it just makes things easier on you in the future. (I have an unhealthy obsession with the gratuitous use of notes in articles. See for example
Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 for basically efn pornography.)
TimothyJosephWood
22:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for thanking me for the edits to the Respiratory system article. Much appreciated. Cruithne9 ( talk) 12:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thought you might find this interesting, I just couldn't be bothered to find the references last time ;)
Pin Index Safety System#Safety
DemandAmbition ( talk) 16:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Scuba set, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Look, it's your responsibility, when reverting editions that you think are wrong, to revert ONLY those edits; not to ruin a bunch of unrelated improvements that happened at about the same time. So if something breaks links, then fix them, of course. But don't also "fix"/ruin unrelated things that don't need to be, and shouldn't be, put back the way they were. If you have a concern about the other things too, then voice those too so that they make sense as part of your reversion. If not, then leave the other stuff alone.
My edits there were not "pointy." They were real improvements made for the sake of actually improving the article:
The tense changes are ordered by WP:TENSE and WP:COMPNOW. It's Wikipedia's policy to write about things in the present-tense form unless it's absolutely known that every last copy of that item no longer exists. Leave that alone.
"Second-stage regulator" and "open-circuit diffuser" are hyphenated because "second" and "stage" form a compound modifier that act as one word to modify "regulator," and the same thing with "open" and "circuit" for "diffuser." So leave them alone too.
"Scuba muffler" doesn't need to be in quotes just because it's being referred to by a "called ________" phrase. So leave that alone too.
97.117.54.205 (
talk)
16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I did exactly that. I never said I had "superior" knowledge. I used the WP rules to improve the article--except for where links broke. I'm sorry for breaking links. But if you're going to fix those, then fix those and do no other harm. I already explained the reasoning behind those improvements. Now what part of "fix those links without breaking other stuff" do you not understand? Since when can't an editor who is reverting broken things just revert ONLY the broken things instead of throwing in unrelated undos at the same time?
And where are you getting the idea that my improvements are supposedly "pointy"?
And since when is it "strange" to use a template that is so commonly used? Did you not make those edits back like the template talks about? Is it not disruptive for you to go in and reverse other edits for no good reason even though you know it's your responsibility to only reverse the problems? What's so "funny" about using a template for that?
I did start a discussion about your problem at the article's talk page.
97.117.54.205 ( talk) 17:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pbsouthwood. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih Talk 09:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, got an edit conflict on the ice core FAC with my replies; hadn't realized you were still reviewing. I hope my replies don't give you an ec in return! I'll go get some coffee and read the paper for a bit till you're done. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
![]() |
The Content Creativity Barnstar | |
Well done on your first successful Featured Article, Peter. It is hard work, but the article and the topic of scuba diving have both been improved beyond measure by your sustained efforts! -- RexxS ( talk) 21:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Well done for your great work on Underwater diving. It's a beautiful article. You're a good writer and took the peer review process well for your well-deserved first FA. I hope it's the first of many. John ( talk) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
~The Wiki Tribble Award~
Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you! |
You're one of the few exceptional content creators and a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve the project. The recent promotion of Underwater diving to WP:Featured article is testament to your work. The rigors of getting an article promoted to FA is not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips endeavor. It deserves acknowledgment and accolades from your peers. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to create a quality encyclopedia, and for making editing an enjoyable experience. Atsme 📞 📧 16:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC) |