User talk:Andrew Davidson

This is Andrew Davidson's personal talk page. Please edit this page to leave me a message but note that the Visual Editor does not work on such talk pages and so you will have to use the original Wikitext editor. The simplest way of doing this is to start a new section by using the standard link above or by clicking here. Old discussions and messages are subject to regular housekeeping. Archives are organised mainly by topic (see right).

Daily pageviews of User:Andrew Davidson A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

2011–2014 2015–2018 2019–2022 Accolades Animals Arbitration Deletion Did You Know? Education Errors Events and editathons Food and drink Geography and transport London Milestones News Permissions Seasons Women

Edit this box

If you think this article about a blues genre doesn't belong in Wikipedia, by all means second the prod or flag it under some speedy deletion criteria I've overlooked, maybe even move it to a disambiguated title, but redirecting it to an alternate meaning of the term is not an appropriate way to get rid of it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @McGeddon: I disagree as the redirection is a sensible way of resolving the issue. The prod tag suggests and encourages such constructive edits. It also states emphatically, "If this template is removed, do not replace it." Please revert. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was fair to IAR there, as it seemed perverse to remove a prod template from an article that both you and I thought should probably be deleted, but sure. I'll leave it to you establish talk page consensus for an immediate redirect. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Destroyer[edit]

After you mentioned it ... I thought it worthwhile to do this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought you might. I may return to the topic but I have a variety of leads to follow. Only The Shadow knows ... Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrew Davidson. Black Destroyer, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Black Destroyer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black Destroyer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the short story "Black Destroyer" was the basis for A. E. van Vogt's lawsuit against 20th Century Fox, as the plot of the movie Alien matched it so closely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Destroyer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Black Destroyer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of science fiction[edit]

Since you mention it I thought I'd link to History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950, which is currently at FAC; no need to review it (it seems to have sufficient support) but I thought you might be interested. Most of the magazines linked in the article have also been brought to GA or FA standard. If you can find improvements to those articles as you did for Marvel Science Stories, that would be great! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Christie: Thanks, I've added it to my watchlist and will take a look in my copious free time. Note that there was a series of van Vogt stories going through DYK recently and so I started the "Black Destroyer", which was notable as the story that started the Golden Age. I like that you can often find such classics online now, like here. One of my favourites is Sheckley's 1955 story, "Cordle to Onion to Carrot". It's not quite SF but it helps in understanding Wikipedia... Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's quite a coincidence -- I was thinking about that story on my morning commute; I've always liked that one. "Aspects of Langranak" and "Pas de Trois of the Chef and the Waiter and the Customer" are my two favourites of his; the first is beautifully self-referential about sf, and sad, in its way, and both stories are about the relationship between reality and perception in a way that few other writers have ever managed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I recall reading the second one but the first doesn't stick in my mind. I'll track it down again – it seems to be in print so Forbidden Planet (right) should have a copy. Thanks for the recommendation. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F&SF[edit]

Hi Andrew, a gentle nudge about this; no worries, if you do not have the time at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: Nudges are needed as my to-do list is bottomless here. Having dinner now but will have a rummage tomorrow. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: I'm getting warm as I found a box with a good run of F&SF and other magazines from the early seventies. The earliest issue of F&SF I've found so far is September 1960, when it had a British edition which cost two shillings. That contains a story by my namesake, Avram Davidson – "The Sixth Season". The difficulty is resisting the temptation to reread such buried treasures. I've brought out a few old issues of New Worlds too, as someone else is working on that. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you've gotten involved in a nasty dispute below, so there's no rush, but I thought I'd give you another quick reminder. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: The 86 issue is simple stuff compared to the F&SF challenge because I can access good sources for it without leaving my seat. I'll take another dip in the box room and see what I find. In the meantime, I'm wondering why this stuff hasn't been archived in digital form yet. The Internet Archive seems to just have a few bits and pieces and F&SF itself only offers back issues back to the 90s. I've got access to the BL but they only seem to have the British edition. CUSFS had a large library of magazines when I was there in the seventies. I'll give more thought to such other resources too. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that's appreciated. I think digitization of old magazines has been very piecemeal; there's some fairly obscure fanzines that are very easily found, and fairly well-known magazines that aren't. I found many issues of both F&SF and Asimov's on various archival sites, but not the ones I wanted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: I've found three runs of F&SF from various decades so far but not the late 1970s yet. As I feared, it's hard work like a sliding block puzzle as they're in boxes rather than shelved. As I'm not sure I've got the issue in question, I'm not going to focus on this so please don't wait on me. Making another online search, I find that Books from the Crypt have copies for as little as $2. Shipping to the UK seems expensive but I suppose it would be a lot cheaper for you. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, thank you. I do appreciate the effort, and yes, they seem quite affordable. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of sending this to AfD on the grounds it's got no reliable sources present, I can't find any of substance in a search except for this passing mention, and is basically a plot summary + trivia. However, I do remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bishop (Monty Python) so I thought I'd ask you first to see if I'd missed anything, and in fact there is a salvageable article hiding in this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was already at AFD where the result was a unanimous Keep. The absence of sources is not an adequate reason to nominate for deletion because such sources can be readily found and, in any case, there are sensible alternatives to deletion. I have plenty more pressing topics while you might attend to our Chuck Berry content – pages like "You Can't Catch Me", which also don't have any sources. Don't make me release the tiger. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• such sources can be readily found ... which brings me to my favourite AfD put-down at the moment. Now look, Mr Damson, er, Davidson, I've added a bunch (a bunch? supposing he's got a pointed stick?) of sources for "You Can't Catch Me" (why nobody else found the 15 minutes to do this in the last 7 years is beyond me), so throw me some ones for "Fresh Fruit" and I'll do the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The page is read on average about once every hour. But people don't add sources because doing so is difficult and, per WP:BLUE, they don't see any need for them. I might add some to the page but am wary that it's a trap, "... just pull the lever and the 16-ton weight will fall on top of him." Did you know that this was the first time that they used this prop? I have a source which confirms this in detail but will need some more goading to risk charging at you with it... Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a picture of today's lecture. I hope you can use this. Kelly is a great help in this sharing endeavor.

Clinton (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clinton45: Excellent – many thanks to you and Kelly for that. I usually take lots of snaps at such events but it was so hectic that I didn't think to arrange for someone to take any pictures or do it myself. That's a big favour I owe you, so please feel free to ask if you need any assistance with any of your endeavours here. Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It advised about the 'Ethical encyclopedia' talk in the last 'Upcoming events at Conway Hall' email, but it didn't say the talk was by the legendary Colonel. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @FeydHuxtable: This is just the start. I'll now be writing it up as a paper for the Ethical Record so you can read it there. We're getting some good crossover with that society and the London wikimeet so others may be doing talks too – for example, Leutha is lined up to do a talk about positivism. You should do one too – food poverty – the sharing economy? Please share your thoughts with those hungry for knowledge... Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Good to meet at Wellcome. Henrietta999 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help today, Andrew. I shall definitely be in touch in the future! Henrietta999 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Be seeing you. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Constance Wood[edit]

On 16 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constance Wood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Constance Wood was the first to install a cyclotron in a hospital, but was teased by one of her patients with a rat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constance Wood. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Constance Wood), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2,603 views.

DYK nomination of Hilda Lyon[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Hilda Lyon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hilda Lyon, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the hull of USS Albacore (launch pictured) had the Lyon Shape that was originally designed for airships by a woman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hilda Lyon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15,496 views.

Hello! Your submission of Full Fact at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note here you haven't addressed concerns that were raised shortly after the article was nominated over a month ago. In fact, you haven't edited that article at all, nor has anyone else. I think the time for DYK here has passed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll take another look. Andrew D. (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Full Fact, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Full Fact fact-checked the Brexit referendum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Full Fact. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Full Fact), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel (it still seems wrong to call you Andrew!), I am developing an article in my user sandbox and it is making use of Victoria's journals online. That is how I came across Queen Victoria's journals. As its creator, did you get a notification that it has been newly linked to, or will that only happen when I move my draft to mainspace? I'm just curious – I aim to keep a low profile in draft, trying to avoid unwanted attention. By the way, I still have fond memories of Dog and Duck, St George's Fields, as it has quite properly become, and its hilarious AFD. Long, long ago in wikitime. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: Hello again. I get lots of link notifications as I've written hundreds of articles but I've checked and your Glassalt draft doesn't seem to have triggered one yet. I think you're unwise to leave work for so long in your sandbox. If you should fall ill or otherwise be indisposed for a few months you might find that it has been deleted – there are fanatics combing through drafts and amazingly there is now a policy of deleting them after six months. My policy is to get work into mainspace as quickly as possible to avoid such deletionist disruption. This also avoids the waste of effort if someone else should work on the topic independently.

Queen Victoria's journals was started at an event at the Bodleian Library which helped to put them online. As a sequel, I started Queen Victoria's pets. There's some other Victoriana that I'd like to cover but need to visit the V&A to track it down and get some pictures. But there is another Victorian topic that I've been meaning to cover for some time and I'll take my own advice and get it started in mainspace before I forget. It's another place in Scotland...

By the way, I saw a reference to Longcat recently – any relation? That got deleted here but I'll keep any eye out for sources.

Warden (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I create rather few articles (apart from stubby ones) and they take me a long time. I'll do a practical experiment with notifications using my alternate account. I'm intrigued by your clues about a new Victoria topic. I'll ponder on what it might be. I've been reading around what she did in Scotland – she got around there (here, that is) quite a lot and the trains were a great invention. She also had the benefit of ponies, a yacht, and a whole load of servants. Thincat (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and no, I'd never heard of Longcat but I'll see if there's a suitable free image for my user page! Thincat (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kim Cobb, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Kim Cobb used coral to profile El Niño over seven thousand years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kim Cobb. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1,296 views

Hello! Your submission of Roma Agrawal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roma Agrawal, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that after playing with Lego as a child, Roma Agrawal designed both the tip and bottom of The Shard (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roma Agrawal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10,234 views

Hello! Your submission of Abbie Hutty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Warofdreams talk 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abbie Hutty, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Abbie Hutty hopes there really is life on Mars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abbie Hutty. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8,813 views

Hello Andrew: Thanks for your ongoing work to improve Wikipedia. Per your editing interests, you may be interested in the new WP:EAGER, an essay I created today. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northfield Allotments, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Northfield Allotments are claimed to be the oldest in London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northfield Allotments. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northfield Allotments), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4,062 views

On 22 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Stephen's Church, Ealing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bells of St Stephen's in Ealing (belfry and spire pictured) caused complaints, were later moved to the Docklands, and were finally installed in St Machar's Cathedral in Aberdeen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Stephen's Church, Ealing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, St Stephen's Church, Ealing), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6,804 views

Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_invoking_SCHOOLOUTCOMES_at_AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded there. I doubt that the discussion will be productive but it will provide a topical example for the coming discussion about the Future of Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly reference WP:CREEP in your numerous comments on policy, RfCs etc. Recent examples include the AN discussion concerning SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the RfC regarding Wikidata. Why do you always phrase it as if CREEP is some sort of policy when in fact it is little more than an essay? It seems to me at best disingenuous and at worst downright misrepresentation. Bearing in mind that you very clearly did not read before jumping to conclusions in the AN thread, I wonder if you have actually read WP:CREEP. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I've read it. It says that it's an explanatory supplement and this fine distinction is itself a good example of excessive rules creep. I saw some discussion recently about the huge number of policies and TLAs – they gave the amusing example of WP:LOO. DYK alone has 62 explicitly numbered supplemental rules. See also Parkinson's law. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• At DYK, its long list of rules has been reorganised and now the veterans complain that they can't find them any more. But WP:IAR is still policy and WP:CREEP is still an explanatory essay. And Parkinson's law is still a good guide to the evolution of Wikipedia. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrew Davidson. Columbine cup, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Columbine cup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Columbine cup was a masterpiece resembling the shape of a cluster of doves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Columbine cup. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Columbine cup), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought it was a bit of a coincidence that someone whose user page declared them a member of that WikiProject would show up at that discussion when I had not notified anyone of it, and was going to ask you about that until I noticed that you were also a semi-regular at the Village Pump, so mystery solved. But while checking for that I noticed we'd actually interacted several times before. Sorry for not remembering you, but honestly looking back at some of those AFDs your !votes seem a little questionable. I consider myself to be a mild inclusionist (as I said in thw VP reply to you I think a true "deletionist" would probably happily target a lot of my recent work as being on obscure non-notable topics that no one in the English-speaking world, even top scholars, has ever heard of), but I don't think we should have POVFORKs or articles that exist solely to push fringe theories (I say this as someone who basically started their Wikipedia career being accused of creating a POVFORK to push a fringe theory, so I'm hardly biased), and I think most people who would self-identify as inclusionists would say the same.

Here you referred to a thoroughly discredited Victorian hypothesis as "disputed" but "notable" in a merge !vote that eventually led to the list being merged into the article on the discredited Victorian hypothesis, which is reasonable, but it doesn't look like you did due diligence in checking whether the theory the page was promoting was considered fringe.

Here you started with a textbook OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and then started claiming that blatant works of historical fiction "seem fine" as sources.

And just last night you presented a "Buddhist concept" that no dictionaries or encyclopedias of Buddhism discuss as such.

In both of the above cases it seems like you didn't actually click the links provided or do the necessary legwork before !voting keep based on a philosophy that all pages must be kept as much as possible, without regard for the specific circumstances of the articles/topics in question (since in both cases the topics were already better covered elsewhere on English Wikipedia, and the lists in question were mainly non-NPOV WP:SYNTH forks). I don't know if you are still doing this at AFDs, as I am not a regular there either way, but could you please be a bit more careful in the future?

(Note that this is not a criticism of your general practice as an editor. In the above editorinteract search I noticed you and I had crossed paths elsewhere and both been in the same minority that I still think was very much in the right, although I'd rather not publicly disclose what that was. Just noting it here so you don't get the impression that I came here to attack you or that I think you're a "bad dude", at least not in the "save the President" sense.)

Also sorry for the length.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome and it's good to hear that you're an inclusionist too. But I didn't follow your reference to "Save the President" – is it this meme? I used to play the occasional arcade game but I'd never heard of Bad Dudes Vs. DragonNinja before. The one I liked best was Gauntlet which had an unusual collaborative format, in which you'd team up with strangers to complete the task. Rather like Wikipedia, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're on the money -- I figured if you didn't get it (and it's hardly aybabiquitous) Googling "save the president" would get it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I completely missed this. You really need to read over WP:NOT and stop defending fringe theory articles based on your personal anti-"deletionism" policy. This is just the places where you interacted with me, and I've hardly opened an AFD in years, at least not where I meant for the page to be deleted rather than simply opening a community discussion while being essentially neutral whether the pages should be kept/merged/redirected; I'm really wondering what a more thorough search of your AFD !votes when your involvement, which was based on personal preference and a misreading of sources like the above examples, led to a "no consensus" decision would show up. Are you just going to continue to dodge the question? Do you regret saying that "tanka prose" was an actual ancient Japanese phenomenon, that the "spirit of mottainai" is a "Buddhist concept" (which claim, I'm becoming increasingly convinced, is tied to this guy's use of the word in a book meant to promote his wood construction business), that the mythicist "list of dying and rising gods" was worth keeping/merging despite everything in it needing to be rewritten and verified in reliable modern sources anyway, etc. or not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, I would like you to apologize for, and retract, the groundless accusations against me you made here. I was very clear from the beginning that I had not been nursing a grudge for years -- I hadn't even noticed what happened in that AFD after I retired the alt account that opened it, until last week (and if I was really still holding a grudge for anything it would not be that the article survived AFD but that one of the "keep" !votes was advocating for a JoshuSasori sock, which I assume is not standard ARS operating procedure). Anyway, accusations of misbehaviour made without evidence are personal attacks, and are prohibited on English Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say that Hijiri88 has been nursing a grudge for years. It is quite clear that Hijiri88's activity is current and is in the nature of a spike rather than being prolonged. The point is that the issue that he was complaining about happened 5 years ago and so is water under the bridge. What's good is that we now seem to be moving on and discussing more current issues. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the above correction of your previous false accusation, but it would sound more sincere if you didn't deny you had made the false accusation in the first place. It may be water under the bridge for everyone who actually !voted "keep" in the AFD five years ago, but you didn't -- you showed up out of the blue a few days ago and said that I had wrong to post an article on a "Buddhist concept" (one I clearly didn't understand) to AFD and those who had !voted me down were right. (You still have not admitted you were wrong to call what in contemporary usage is more of a marketing term than anything deeper a "Buddhist concept", mind you; nor have you recognized that it's just a common Japanese word for "wasteful".) And (again) I wasn't aware that the AFD had not ended in "delete" until this week, because of the off-wiki harassment that forced me to retire that account. (The full history of how I happened across it is here.) I only just this week noticed that an AFD I had opened in good faith (not because I "am a deletionist", a point on which I note you have been very slow to correct your many comrades) and garnered some support (it was 3-1 in favour of deleting before the canvassing), was canvassed and steamrolled right before the one-week mark, then a non-admin showed up and completely botched the close -- and as a result five years later the article is still a mess. And ARS is still doing this -- with Swamp monster, you posted a "This article is at AFD -- you know what to do..." canvassing message after auto-!voting "keep" yourself, two more ARS members showed up and did the same, and all of you have been refusing compromise solutions, alternatives to the false "keep-delete" dichotomy, and requests to do the heavy lifting of fixing the article, even though fixing broken articles to save them from AFD is supposed to be the modus operandi of ARS. This all happened in the last two days; it is not water under the bridge from five years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Joan Benesh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joan Benesh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ballerina Joan Benesh married the man who suggested a better way of notating her dances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Benesh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Joan Benesh), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I'm an experienced editor who's mainly familiar with article creation and editing, and a bit confused when admin issues are raised, having rarely if ever come into the kind of conflict requiring admin warnings. I've just gone through what (for me) was a rather disturbing experience after trying to edit a page, but I can't see any policies that clearly apply to my problem. I noticed your neutral comments on the Dorothy Tarrant discussion I recently participated in, and since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about the matters I need help with, I thought I might seek your advice. It's alright to decline to get involved, although if you could at least point me in the right direction I would appreciate it very much.

Yesterday I tried to place a usage note qualifying the statement on the "Anno Domini" article that "BC comes after the year". I'd wanted to do this for some time, as I'd noticed in older reference material (which, as a classics scholar I tend to use a lot) it often preceded the year. I wasn't able to find anything about this in style guides, so I looked for encyclopedic references, and found the same practice in older editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Not sure just how strongly I'd need to support what was meant to be just a usage note, I wrote it identifying the EB and another standard reference work that uses this style, but as I wasn't satisfied with what seemed like a general reference, in my edit summary I mentioned that I was going to take it to the talk page for further advice and opinion.

No sooner than I had started writing out a note explaining the issue and asking for help, than my edit was reverted by one of that page's guardians. I reverted the deletion of my note, with a further edit summary, "please wait until I've finished posting on the talk page," but it was immediately reverted again, with the rather unfriendly note, "talk first, then post, maybe". So I finished posting my explanation of the note and my question about the sourcing, which I thought might at least be enough to justify the note until better sources could be located, and then reposted the note again. At that point, civility seemed to take over, and there was a reply to my talk page message by the editor in question. I thought that all of the points raised could be easily addressed by obtaining specific examples from the sources I mentioned, and perhaps additional examples from other sources, so I spent a few hours gathering some and setting forth what I hoped was a cogent argument from various sources.

However, before I could finish posting this, the note was deleted a third time by a new editor, asserting that "not a single reliable source" supported it, and a comment on the talk page claiming that the note violated WP:SYNTH. I strongly disagreed, since observing that something was one way and is now another, if both are properly supported by reliable sources, necessarily means that it must have changed, and the idea that it's unacceptable to say so due to WP:SYNTH is just absurd; IMO the question was verifiability, not synthesis. Did the sources I'd mentioned in the original note, and then on the talk page, show what I said they did? I thought it seemed beyond question that they did, but I went ahead and finished my post detailing specific instances and responding to the first editor's concerns.

As I was posting, and before I'd done anything else with the article itself, I received a warning on my talk page from the second editor involved, stating that I was engaged in an edit war by undoing other editors' contributions to Wikipedia without seeking consensus on the talk page, and was in danger of being blocked from editing Wikipedia for violation of the three-revert rule. Since I hadn't removed anyone else's contributions, and had only reverted twice, and had initiated the talk page discussion before the other editor had even gotten involved, I was shocked to be warned that I was in danger of being blocked from editing Wikipedia—something which I don't recall ever having been told before, despite having been involved in much more contentious discussions in the past.

What made the situation still more frustrating was the fact that the editor giving me this warning seemed to be an interested party, and had posted no similar warning on the talk page of the editor who had aggressively reverted the note as I was already taking the matter to the talk page. And, while I'm not sure if this is an issue, although it seems like it should be, the editor threatening to have me blocked from editing Wikipedia for edit warring isn't even an admin! Well, I finished my evidentiary post on the article talk page, then replied to the warning, saying point-by-point why I thought it was unjustified and improper. And then I went back to the article, looked at the note that had been deleted three times, and decided to revise what I was saying to a much shorter note, 1) avoiding the synthesis issue, and 2) cite clearly and directly to a number of reliable sources demonstrating that the usage had been different in the past (but without asserting that it had changed since then, since that was what apparently constituted "synthesis").

That was immediately reverted, instead of what seemed to me would have been the ideal solution (either helping me find better sources for something that abundant evidence clearly demonstrated was true, or tagging it with CN or Better Source tags), and the following description of my note added to my talk page: "I suggest that tagging as disputed, unsourced, and unimportant would be overkill; but all three tags would be justified". Now, by this point it's clear to me that collaborative editing seems to be out of the question; whatever I write and however I phrase it, no matter what I cite to, is simply being deleted as I add it, with no help whatever from the guardians of the article's purity; I pointed this out on the talk page, but since I didn't want to be blocked for edit warring I declined to make another attempt on the note itself, as I had no idea what I could come up with that would satisfy them.

I spent a restless night without nearly enough sleep, and still don't know how to respond. As far as I know, there's been no direct violation of a rule I could report; this doesn't seem to rise to the level of an administrator incident as far as I understand the concept (which is not very well); mediation also seems to be a step above the current level of the dispute; and a third-party opinion seems to be ruled out since there are three editors involved, and I'm not sure how to find someone neutral who'd want to get involved, but who'd be able to evaluate the evidence. Basically I'm at sixes and sevens when it comes to what to do here. So my bright idea was to find an admin who isn't connected with the discussion, but whom I might have bumped into from time to time, who could either have a quick look, or at least tell me what I ought to do next. Hopefully other than just abandoning the field, although that may just be my only option at this stage. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: Editors on Wikipedia can be quite fractious, stubborn and vexatious about any issue on Wikipedia – see WP:LAME for an amusing list of examples. Issues of style like this are especially likely to give trouble and you will find that the archives for our Manual of Style are full of intense battles. Anyway, my advice is to take it easy. An RfC may be the best way forward, was done at the Dorothy Tarrant page. They typically stay open for 30 days and so will take some time to arrive at a conclusion. I'll take a look myself when I get a moment. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my latest yacht article that I created.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC) This is a case where my Newspaper.com subscription really came in handy. The Wikipedia library is a good place to get some excellent subscriptions.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for trying :) Jesswade88 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to South Asian social groups, such as List of General Caste in Sikhism, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• These overblown templates claim that I have recently edited List of General Caste in Sikhism. This claim is false as I have never edited that page. What's going here is harassment – "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." This seems to be part of pattern in which Winged Blades of Godric makes personal attacks on me. For the record, it's worth noting that these seem to date from an incident at WP:NOT when I reverted their attempt to change policy without consensus. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they relate to your silliness at the AfD for the linked article. They are also valid notifications based on your intentions expressed there. You really do need to stop wikilawyering and wasting yet more of everyone's time before someone decides to topic ban you - a decision that I would happily support. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the number of years that you have edited WP, (a few of them with a sockpuppet), you ought to know that issuance of DS notifications, in the very exact manner I've done, are mandatory per ArbCom requirements.If you wish to seek an exemption for regulars from the templating, ARCA is that-way.And please provide diffs for makes personal attacks on me or retract your baseless accusations.And, for the record, it may be prudential to note, that despite your hyperbolic edits, the RFC was re-closed with the same result days later, resulting in the creation of the same policy.Cheers!~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In that first incident at WP:NOT, WBoG made the edit summary "Cut out the attitude...". This seems to be a personal attack because it suggests that I have an "attitude" – what the OED describes as "Aggressive or uncooperative behaviour; a resentful or antagonistic manner." My position is that I was reverting a change made with inadequate consensus – a fairly standard action per WP:BRD. Now, in WBoG's post above he makes reference to "a sockpuppet". This seems to be an irrelevant slur or smear. My alternate accounts are respectable per WP:VALIDALT which states "For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets." WBoG should please avoid such hostile language as it may be considered to be casting aspersions. Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Care to explain this? Or your memory is a bit hazy on the aspects?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Again WBoG makes a personal attack, suggesting that my memory is poor. I do, of course, recall the incident quite well. The admin who blocked me was desysopped for their improper action. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KWW was desyssoped for a host of reasons that included one bad block on CW but not the one I linked to.I think that you can do better than stating something roughly equivalent to--All blocks by desysopped admins are universally bad.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Kww was censured for his block of CW in 2012. He was then desysopped for his block of my AD account in 2013. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sup, AD. Just a refresher, yes the admin was desysopped—but only because they were WP:INVOLVED. And in the course of your unblock request you agree[d] to retire Colonel Warden, something you patently have not done. Two things, then, come to mind. Firstly, that if another admin had blocked you, they would not have been desysopped, and secondly, that you lied in order to be unblocked another refresher: I will retire the Colonel Warden account and you expect this to be minimal). Cheers. Happy editing! ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that "Serial Number 54129" used to edit as "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi". I'm still not sure why that name was changed but the point is that we should AGF in such cases and suppose that the change was made for good reasons. WBoG should avoid casting aspersions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, fascinating isn't it; you see what I did there though—change my username, rather than operate multiple accounts?  :) ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please provide diffs to support the WP:BLANK comments you made in the AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Andrew D. (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly economical with the truth, though. You end that sequence of diffs with that's where we are now, omitting a shedload of changes over three years that include reverts back to the blanked state by Widr, MusikAnimal, Rsrikanth05, Bgwhite, Serols etc. Given your encyclopaedic knowledge of encyclopaedic policy, do you not have a concern that so many regular contributors thought WP:BURDEN more important that WP:BLANK? One clue might lie in your ability to comprehend caste wars. Then again, never let truth get in the way of a good story, eh? - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a summary rather than a recapitulation of the entire edit history of the page and the point was to highlight the blanking not the edit-warring. The other point worth summarising from the edit history is that I have not edited the page in question myself. The statement made above by WBoG in his harassing template is therefore false and has still not been retracted. Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a disingenuous summary that presses home your ill-considered point that I was being disruptive at that article. As I say, several other people followed in the same vein. On the other hand, you have a history of poor behaviour at caste AfDs - there is even User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#Caste_issues above - and, frankly, if no admin is prepared to exercise their discretion here (or are sufficiently uninvolved to do so) then I think the next step is likely to be WP:AE. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sitush stated in the AfD that "your mention of BLANK above is the first time ever I have seen it". If it helps, I am quite happy to accept that Sitush made their actions in good faith, not being aware of the WP:BLANK guideline. My point about disruption is that such actions tend to disrupt development of the article by removing all the content and so providing no sensible structure for further improvement. It appears that Sitush is now editing the page in question in a more restrained way and so the issue seems adequately resolved. Andrew D. (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the issue is not resolved. You are once again trying to side-step things. I specifically said that I was giving you a chance to develop the article, as you suggested you might. But as it stands now it is no better than it was when you misled people at the first AfD using the same irrelevant sources that you are now claiming should once again ensure that the article is kept at the current AfD. BLANK is a guideline, despite your apparent disingenuousness in positing it as a policy, and you have been made aware that your argument for PRESERVE holds no water. Are you seriously suggesting that we should keep information that is wrong just because a topic might be notable? It is bollocks and you know it. This matter is going to WP:AE unless you agree not to become involved in caste-related matters because you are utterly incompetent in the topic area. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I state clearly in the para above that WP:BLANK is a guideline. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter or that it can be freely ignored. WP:PRESERVE is full policy being a shortcut to our editing policy, which I cited in the previous AfD. That policy explains our general method and makes many points. Among them, it explains that we contribute in different ways, "each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help." In this case, I have brought several sources to the table and am the only editor to do so. The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies is not irrelevant because it contains significant material about the role of caste in Sikh society. It is from a respectable university press and was published fairly recently. To reject such sources seems to set an impossible standard. How on earth does Sitush suppose we can develop our content if we can't have a reasonable discussion about such material. Andrew D. (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Squirming again, trying to back away from past deeds. BLANK was first mentioned by you at the AfD and that is where I announced that I had not seen it before. It was me who had to note that it was a guideline, rather than the policy that you implied, causing you to scramble around to find PRESERVE, which does not even support your point anyway. See you at AE. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And how dense can you be regarding Oxford? Caste in Sikhism is discussed at Sikhism etc; the source does not discuss "general castes" in Sikhism, which does not mean "all castes", as has been explained to you previously. Honestly, I am astonished that you persist in highlighting your incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sikhism#Sikh_castes actually contains a list of Sikh castes including the mercantile Arora caste which I provided in the AfD as a specific example. The Dalit castes are identified specifically and so the whole is consistent with my vision for this content. My position is that there are reasonable alternatives to deletion. For example, we might merge the page in question with List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism and, while the material is still small, have it in the Sikhism#Sikh_castes section. As and when the content expands, the material could be split into a page such as Castes in Sikhism as suggested by Cesdeva. This is the point and guidance of the policy WP:PRESERVE -- that we develop and improve the content by such means, not by deletion and blanking. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the very bog-standard and in no way harassing template says "for pages related to South Asian social groups, such as List of General Caste in Sikhism, which you have recently edited.", i.e. "pages related", and one doesn't have to take a giant leap of faith to imagine that editing an AFD about such an article falls under "pages related" to such a topic. There's nothing false, and nothing to retract. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That template provides a link to the page that one has supposedly edited. If the AfD was meant then that should be the link. Is he now going to officiously warn everyone who participates in that AfD? Will he now drop these templates on the talk pages of TRM and SN54129 for participating in this discussion about the matter? Andrew D. (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Won't it be good if you drop the wiki-lawyering stuff and instead move on to answer the query posed to you at the AFD and/or improve the article?! And, I never knew that if I choose to drop the sanctions-notice on a part. editor's t/p, I must follow it up by dropping them on the t/p(s) of all related editors.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The point is to pay attention to DS, and the warning is just to let you know that your edits will be subject to Arbcom's scrutiny, whether you believe the templates or your editing are valid or not. It's a favour to you to help you from getting blocked over something simple. I'd be thankful rather than rail against it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a case at Arbitration Enforcement that concerns you. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Andrew_Davidson. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded there. Andrew D. (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew dont be fearful of mean wolfs. they are teamtagging and gameing system. Just ignore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.74.77 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, out of curiosity, what are you planning on doing with User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes? You asked Sandstein to undelete and userfy it so you could work on it "soon" more than five years ago,[1] but the page has only been edited once, minor-ly, since that time. I'm considering MFDing it if you are not planning on working on it, as userfying pages that were deleted by community consensus and keeping them in your user space permanently is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/Event admission where a similar page was easily kept. There are many demands on my time and, per WP:CHOICE and WP:DEADLINE, I am free to work on this at my own pace and priority. But, as it happens, I have some material fresh to hand and so this is a good opportunity to make an update. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that MFD no one seems to have noticed that there was prior consensus to delete the page, and that you then requested the page be userfied specifically so you could do a particular task with it.[2] The wording used by both the nominator and User:Kudpung seemed very strongly to imply that they believed it to be an article draft you created in your user space and never got around to finishing.

Anyway, you should get consensus before restoring a page that was deleted by community consensus (the consensus to delete had nothing apparently to do with article cleanup or anything that AGF would say you must be able to address alone); if you do in fact intend to "finish" the draft, that is definitely something to bear in mind.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andrew. The WP:AE discussion here has been closed with the following warning: Andrew Davidson is advised that before commenting further in the Caste system in India topic area (broadly interpreted), they need to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. They are warned to only offer comments or article edits supported by directly relevant sources judged to be reliable and of high quality. Sources without recent consensus must be presented for review first. If the user intends to work on the draft User:Colonel Warden/List of Indian castes, which has been languishing for five years, that work is to be exempted from the restrictions mentioned, i.e. Andrew Davidson is allowed while it's still in userspace to offer weaker comments and sources there, provided this work gradually leads up to acceptable quality and sourcing, before it's offered for mainspace. Failure to comply with this warning will result in a topic ban or other sanction. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Sending positive vibes and recognising your contribution! Thank you. Srsval (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. The Women's Classical Committee has been good fun and I hope to do more for it when time permits. Andrew D. (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Naomi Parker Fraley, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Woozle effect delayed Naomi Parker Fraley's identification as the most likely model for We Can Do It! (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	A joy to review. Your article on Nicola Thorp, while short, sets an exemplary standard for start class articles in sourcing, writing style and layout. Please make more articles. I'll be following your contributions. Great work! Edaham (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks though it's The joy of all things that has done most of the work in this case. I started the page when rescuing another page about high heel policy which made a good DYK. Having been prompted by the many incoming link notifications, I'm now thinking to nominate Nicola Thorp as a sequel as it will make a good Where Are They Now?. Andrew D. (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not neglect to add a barnstar there also :) Edaham (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I enjoy reviewing articles which are good eye openers. Living as I do in China I had no idea about how current the high heel issue is. Ludicrous that women are still being bludgeoned with forced stereotypes in developed countries! Edaham (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review and barnstars. It's interesting that you live in Shanghai now. Note that there's an interesting page about China's own Foot Emancipation Society. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, I just wanted to thank you for looking over the Bernardo De Pace article. It was the first time I have been tempted to try a did you know for quite a while. I had forgotten anything I ever knew about the process and your feedback and quick response to its existence on the list was great. I just found two places to link to the BMG article you wrote. Thank you for writing it.Jacqke (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you E. Whittaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewitch51 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the invitation. I have replied by email. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, it's been nearly three weeks since Cwmhiraeth pointed out that the nomination of the two articles cannot proceed with the template affixed to the Tammie Jo Shults article. As far as I can see, you have two options: work on the article to remove the excessive use of blockquotes (which, while not added by you, are nevertheless in the article, and with the template it cannot be promoted at DYK to the main page) or drop the article from the nomination (by unbolding the link, which would be a shame since it's Tammie Jo who's the focus here). Please decide what you'd like to do within the next several days and post to the nomination, so the review can continue. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was waiting for activity at the article to subside and have updated it now. Andrew D. (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tammie Jo Shults, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tammie Jo Shults (pictured), captain of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, was one of the first female tactical fighter pilots in the US Navy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tammie Jo Shults. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tammie Jo Shults), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 26,176 views. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tammie Jo Shults (pictured), captain of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, was one of the first female tactical fighter pilots in the US Navy? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Southwest Airlines Flight 1380), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 13,505 views. Andrew D. (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your email, Andrew. Your support is very much appreciated and will give somethought to what you said. Thanks again, Stinglehammer (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Anita Corbin. Have you got a source for the list you added to the talk page? If "personal communication with the artist" it would be useful to say so. If anything published, it would be great to be able to link to it from a newly-created article to say that they were included. I'm looking at Sharon Nesmith who certainly ought to have an article... but must get on with some Real Life stuff first. PamD 10:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how come there are 103? I thought it was a list of 100! PamD 10:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: The list was compiled in stages from online coverage. I then got a picture of the list on display at the exhibition. I noticed the number 103 too but haven't fully reconciled the various sources. I started articles about Becky Frater and Katy Cropper (the shepherdess that got you started on this). I'll make some more passes through the list to check for missing links but not right now as I'm busy too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks: well done! I've created a redirect for Nan McCreadie to the article where she already got a mention. Too busy too. PamD 11:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a DYK all good to go "... that Frogmore Paper Mill is the oldest surviving mechanical paper mill in the world?" but I've missed the cut-off point by one day, unless I 5x expand it to 3.6K (over double the current size). Aaaaaargh! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, the creator moved from draft space yesterday. Hallelujah, we're back on! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Note also that D9 gives you some wiggle-room. Andrew D. (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed it. Hopefully somebody will SNOW close the AfD soon, and that'll be that. It's not often an obvious DYK hook smacks me in the face like that! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Godfrey's Cordial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Godfrey's Cordial, a popular infant sedative in Victorian Britain, led to numerous fatalities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Godfrey's Cordial. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Godfrey's Cordial), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of cottages in Dorset. Since you had some involvement with the List of cottages in Dorset redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  » Shadowowl | talk 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Andrew. I'm puzzled about your recent edit on La Manga Club. I don't normally request deletions but this is one of the poorest 'articles' I've read on Wikipedia and 'delete' was the most positive thing I could say. I note, but wasn't influenced by, the fact the originator has had most other articles deleted. I don't know if you believe I failed to follow proper procedure or you really think the article is worth saving AND can be improved. If the latter then I beg to differ and think it should go to a vote. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @JRPG: I am familiar with the place as it is a notable resort and sporting facility. The article is far from the worst that I have seen and is certainly improveable. Before starting a deletion discussion, please familiarise yourself with the deletion process WP:BEFORE. For example, alternatives to deletion should be considered. One sensible alternative would be merger to its location: La Manga. I would still prefer to retain the page separately though.

• A tussle over this would be tiresome. It would be more congenial to discuss other topics mentioned on your user page such as Fortran and Chess. I myself started my career using Fortran at an engineering business. That was a while ago but, more recently, I partipated in the Mind Sports Olympiad where I was pleased to meet an old acquaintance, Bill Hartston. One of the events there was diving chess! As you have swimming experience too, perhaps you should give it a try next year.

Andrew D. (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We should note that matters have moved on as an observer has escalated and is now edit-warring about it. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, thanks for a speedy reply Andrew -a tussle was unlikely if it's not an advert though contents still seem bizarre. On a different topic I've played Glenn Flear though I don't remember the result. To my shame I turned down a request for a large English white pig breeding database circa 1972 largely because our machine was optimised for maths and had a grossly inadequate memory for such a task. I might add a bit to my talk page -pity there's no reminiscences page for geriatric software engineers! JRPG (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew,

Good meeting you yesterday and learning about your interests.

Here are links to my Wikidata presentation containing the examples I showed and my user page with some of my artwork.

See you around,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, as you actually inserted this photo claiming it was better than nothing I am linking you to the rfc. Talk:Doria_Ragland#Photo Govindaharihari (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. I see you reverted back to your photo without discussion, with an edit summary of fix image when what you realy did was change the long term stable image https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doria_Ragland&diff=929237212&oldid=928741871 I think the photo chat thread on the talkpage opposes your change. Please feel free to open a new chat, for the time being I have replaced what was the consensus in the previous chat from 18 months ago and was stable as I understand it. Thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The situation was not stable as an IP editor had changed the image link on 30 Nov. The link was then to an image at Hello magazine and that was not valid for several reasons. As the article image was then broken and not displaying, I fixed this by changing it to a valid free image. I made a fresh search for free images but didn't find any new ones and so changed the link to an existing version. The more tightly cropped version which Govindaharihari has now placed is inferior in my view but that's a matter of taste and de gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara P. McCarthy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara P. McCarthy disagreed with philologist Rudolf Helm about whether or not Lucian originated a particular form of satiric dialog? The nomination discussion an