Andy will contribute when he wishes and has time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a timely response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives: Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4

Look at the contribs for User:70.187.77.178 and then tell me that this was reversion of "good faith removal" of an AfD template. The fact that the user took the AfD out of the log might say otherwise, hmmm? MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: As soon as I made that Twinkle edit, I realized there might be a problem. I honestly don't mean any wrongdoing, and if my edit offended you, please forgive me. The editor's sole June 2 edit after my reversion looks to be productive, at least. Thanks for the notice. I clearly need to understand the limits of WP:AGF a bit better. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience countering unproductive edits, I've seen some absolutely insane edits from persistent long-term sockpuppets clearly meant to disrupt / gross-out / make a point. I saw this edit and assumed a newbie editor with no knowledge of policy on AfD, so I went a bit easy on the automatic Twinkle reversion. But again, thanks for the note. This is not the first time someone's pointed out my over-extending AGF. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended in the slightest; I'm concerned only because that reversion isn't listed as a reversion of a problematic edit by an IP. My overall thought is that once the AfD closes, the socking going on will also cease, but if I have to SPI afterwards, I'll have to explain that diff instead of just tossing it out there.

When it comes to IPs, I always pay attention to the edit history; generally, they're either full of vandalism or full of SPA edits, because people who legitimately want to contribute to WP will make an account at some point. People don't hide behind IPs, as a general rule, unless they have a need to, and that's usually not due to censorship, etc. 999% of the time, it's to avoid being tied to a username and being caught doing something they shouldn't be, like vote-stacking, disruptive editing, COI editing, and so on and so forth. My AGF is very short, because assuming everyone is naive is half the problem - we give people too much rope, and then have to clean up the mess. MSJapan (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: Fair enough. I've been in a good mood after taking a small wikibreak / break in general, and currently have a bit more "good faith" than typical. That'll go away soon, believe me, once I "remember" all the not-so-pleasant aspects of maintenance around here. In my view, cleaning up messes is part of the work, I don't think it's for everyone -- those who do do it are among the most responsible and admirable around here. If need be, I'll gladly explain this diff in any investigations. Thanks again for the note, and happy editing. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

Can you help me to understand why you changed the title of "Peasant Girl, spinning" to "Peasant Girl Spinning"? "Peasant Girl, spinning" is the original title assigned to the work by its author, Elihu Vedder. It is a convention is he often used in naming works in the late 1860s, and is also the title and orthographic format he uses in both his autobiography, as cited in the article, and in the inventory of his estate. What you have changed it is historically and art-historically inaccurate. As an Art Historian with a PhD on this particular artist, I feel the artist's own naming conventions for his own works should be adhered to. Sotheby's did, when they sold "Roman Model, posing", and so did the American museum which owns "Etruscan Girl, sleeping". Please can you kindly change it back to the original art-historically correct title used by the artist himself? I am very happy to discuss the matter further with you and I do appreciate your good intentions! Thanks! George — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melonplace (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Melonplace: Here is a revision prior to the move: Special:Permalink/710506193. I noticed that the article article refers to the work as Peasant Girl Spinning in multiple places, not "Peasant Girl, spinning", nor or "Peasant girl spinning". For example: Given it's date of 1867, however, Peasant Girl Spinning appears to be the earliest and the original example of these. This seemed to be a clear inconsistency. I intended to make it consistent with the move. Before the move, I attempted to check elsewhere for a reliable spelling of the work. 1 and 2 and 3 may not be 100% reliable, but suggest the spelling that the article has right now. Is the source for the spelling "Peasant Girl, spinning" reliably in Vedder's biography? Do you have an online link? I'll gladly move the article again if the spelling is absolutely clear. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Melonplace: Something on the side: I noticed you essentially published your article to the mainspace without an indication of a draft review. You removed the draft notice from the still existing Draft:Peasant Girl Spinning before you eventually did a cut-and-paste into the current article. This may need mitigation. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a general template of hybrid animals? --186.84.46.227 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, Andy W. those page need help, thanks for the heads up. redirect is probably a good idea (for the moment at least!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll keep you and Rekowo updated when I get to it. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: So I took another look at the articles in the category. I honestly don't think I have enough context (politically, historically, etc) to be confident in the content merges. Perhaps Rekowo might be able to help with it, but for now, I'm holding off on making changes. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging my redirects for deletion, Andy W., can I flag pages myself? -- Finnh54 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnh54: Yes, you absolutely can, if you'd like. Among the redirects you created, these 4: HTcPcP, HtcPcP, HtCPCp, HTCPCp still exist and are being discussed here. If you want them deleted, you can either post at the discussion, or by adding ((db-g7)) at the top of those pages. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnh54:, if you were interested in looking into other tags, check out WP:TC, WP:TDEL, WP:TMAIN, WP:TM/G, among others. Hope that helps. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 6#Template:RMpmc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hello, Andy M. Wang. I want to reply back, and say thank you for sending me a warning about a manual page move by redirection but by title correction. I had no idea that the move tab was still up along with the others. I wasn't fully paying any attention. My apologies for acting out in such an abusive manner on Wikipedia. I let this happen like many times in a row, but I swear never to let it happen again, or else I am banned for good. Good patience, from yours truly... DBrown SPS (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DBrown SPS: Hi, thanks for the really quick reply, and no problem. It actually seems to happen quite a lot, as there is a very big backlog of history merges here. Don't worry too much. The page has been tagged so an admin should be able to take care of it. Thanks, and happy editing. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If you look on the talk page for this entry, you'll see that I proposed changing the name way back in 2013, to deafening silence. Should I just move it as you propose, taking silence as consent? And do I have privileges to do so? Is the method idiot-proof, and will existing wiki links automatically redirect?Mikalra (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikalra: Hi. For the page Cloudy olive oil, I think Unfiltered olive oil is probably a better term. The template ((subst:Requested move)) could have been used for more visibility at the time, but yes, it does look undisputed for about 3 years now. You have move permissions, since you are at least autoconfirmed, even extendedconfirmed.

At the top of the page, near the "View history" (or "history") tab, there is a "More" tab that gives you the option to move the page. Specify a reason (maybe you can cite WP:SILENCE) and make sure the talk page moves with it. Existing redirects will not fix themselves, but Special:WhatLinksHere/Cloudy olive oil doesn't seem like there are any article-namespace redirects (except the target), so no double redirects need fixing. Don't think this would be a controversial move, so I say go for it. Hope this helps! — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mikalra (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you updated the formatting in the sandbox, and one of the things I noticed was that you moved the bolding so that it no longer surrounds the suffix when |blp=yes. Your edit summary indicated you were simply going off of the formatting at ((More footnotes)), which is fine. I also like streamlining templates. The thing is that in April, I made an edit request requesting that ((#if:(({1|))}|(({1))} '''[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about a living person]]'''| be changed to ((#if:(({1|))}|'''(({1))} [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|about a living person]]'''|. This was just because I felt that

This section about a living person

looked better than

This section about a living person

That is of course my fault, for not remembering to make the same edit request on ((More footnotes)). Assuming you don't have any opinions on the matter, would you like to fix that for the both of them? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Do you know many other templates are affected by this change? Yes, we should definitely keep ((No footnotes)) and ((More footnotes)) semantically in sync when possible. I'm currently inclined to wait an hour or two, because a change just went in for one of them, and I'd rather not make unnecessary processing on 80000+ pages for now. Just wanting to play this safe. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I'm not going anywhere. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Format updated here and here per your April edit request. Cheers, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. I noticed that you changed the ((High-risk)) template on Module:Reply to/doc from 125,000+ to 64,000+. When you did this, did you take into account the usage of the various aliases for ((Reply to))? By my count:

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I believe these aliases are all redirects, which means that their counts will always be strictly less than ((Reply to)), since a usage of ((Re)) increases the count of ((Reply to)) by 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now, I don't have much doubt about 64000+. (Also note that the sum of the counts of the redirects is also strictly less than that of ((Reply to)).) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the transclusion count tool take redirects into account? I assumed it didn't since the sum of all the redirects, 70887, is greater than 64285. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I'm honestly stumped, but I still don't think that's right. It could be due to caching and we're not seeing a live number. For example, I was under the impression that people use ((Talk quotation)) to make that green text, but almost always type ((tq)) when doing so. "Tq" has 11248, while "Talk quotation" has 11948. But back to "Reply to", there's good evidence for at least 64000, so I'd stick with that number. Keep me in the loop if you have other details. Can we ask about this at VPT actually? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. VPT sounds like a good idea. Did you want to take it there or should I? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]