User talk:Schwede66/Archive 16

Files etc

Hi! I noticed in your RfA that you might be interested in some things related to files, so I wanted to drop a line and encourage you to get involved in one of the areas I find to be a very nice diversion from the stressful administrative work on enwiki. OTRS is always in need of volunteers, especially to handle tickets related to image permissions. Let me know if you're open to the idea, and I'll provide more information. Administrators are especially invaluable as OTRS agents because they can view deleted files, and it's clear you're soon to be one. I've been engaging in a sort of shadowing/training program for new agents recently, so I'm happy to help walk you through an introduction to permissions tickets if you decide you're interested in that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I've dealt with OTRS volunteers a lot over the years and yes, that's an area where I'd be happy to help out. Let the RfA run its course first, though. Schwede 66 22:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Any time you can spare for OTRS would be valued whether or not you pass RfA, of course. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 2017!

Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: Thanks, Rosie. Same to you. And thank you for your glowing report card at RfA. Schwede 66 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to User talk:Jack501

Hi there. I came to inform you that I undid your edit to this user's talk page. {{admin help}} is for requesting help from a single admin. The problem you noticed in this user's editing is not one that can be decided by a single admin at this place. If they are a sock as DrKay suspects, WP:SPI is the right place. Otherwise, use WP:ANI or another noticeboard, not only because requests from {{admin help}} are oftentimes not noticed for a long time and thus are not useful when immediate action is required. NB: Since I have no knowledge of the kind of edits you objected to, I did not take any action. Regards So Why 20:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: The notification was in regards to the talk page warnings under the same heading, and the diff showed that the editor is continuing with those edits despite the warnings. I would have thought that a "single admin" can deal with that; the previous admin had given the last warning. I'm unaware of any sock investigations (and yes, several admins would be involved with that, I suppose). Please let me know whether you will deal with it; no point posting at ANI in that case. Schwede 66 20:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the warnings but I can't see a clear policy breach that would warrant an immediate block without any discussion or consensus. As such, I prefer to err on the side of caution and let the rest of the community weigh in. Problematic edits can always be reverted. I have been out of the game for too long to be familiar with the specific problems you noticed but as I said, feel free to use ANI to request some action. Possibly I'm wrong and some other admin will take care of it immediately. Regards So Why 20:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; have drawn it to DrKay's attention (who appears to be online). Schwede 66 20:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bike Auckland

If you have some time at some stage to spend to update the Bike Auckland page, that would be appreciated. I did update the name, and add the new logo but am a bit hesitant to do yet more myself, for reason which I am sure you are aware. Not urgent but maybe if you get around to it some day... Ingolfson (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Why don't you stick a few refs to use onto the talk page, and I'll come along and deal with it? Have watchlisted the article. Schwede 66 08:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Schwede66!

Happy New Year!

Schwede66,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, Donner60. All the best to you as well. Schwede 66 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Schwede66!

Happy New Year!

Schwede66,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr Rubbish computer. Have a good 2017, too. Schwede 66 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implosion of Radio Network House

Hi Schwede66. I've tagged a statement in the lead of Implosion of Radio Network House as the wording is challengable, and is not supported by sources as written. I've left a note on the talkpage. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: That article hasn't received much attention from other editors, so thank you - I shall have a look. Schwede 66 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

Will do, thanks for the advice Racingmanager (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porter

Thanks for the comment. The father of the house matter came from some research done a decade ago - but it may take a bit to resuscitate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaw99 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Field Porter has been dead a long time, so I suppose there is no hurry. :) Schwede 66 03:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hey

hi. may the force be with you!--Wyatt2049 | (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, i soppourted you in the RFA. Hope you win. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Schwede 66 18:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.H. Oliver

It is not vandalism to remove a wikilink that does not exist. Suggest you create the story for this high school if it means so much to your article. Rogermx (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rogermx: You are correct—your action did not constitute vandalism—but also note that I never accused you of vandalism. Reverting another editor's edit is a normal process of interacting on Wikipedia. Have you followed the link that I gave in my edit summary? Wikipedia:Red link is a useful read, and whilst I linked to a subsection, I suggest you read the whole page. Feel free to ask further clarifications. Schwede 66 17:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

Hi Schwede66, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for both your new place on WP:RFX100 and for your near-unanimously-supported nomination! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin help pages are most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 18:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I put in my notes last July "might be an okay RfA, but not great". How wrong I was. :-/ .... have fun with the mop and bucket. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Haha, yes. Makes me smile to think back to that comment (and I'm trying not to be too smug). I thought I'd say thank you to a few people and I guess posting that on my RfA page after it has closed is ok. Schwede 66 18:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA

Congratulations on passing! —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved. I didn't !vote at your RFA so as to remain impartial after I commented in an official capacity but if I hadn't I would have supported your application unreservedly. Mkdw ^talk 19:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to have you join the rather small pool of Kiwi admins.-gadfium 19:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gadfium. I guess it's been a long enough apprenticeship. Regarding your RfA query, no, we have never met in person, but maybe we should when we have the opportunity. Who are the other Kiwi admins; is there a list somewhere? I know of Moriori and Grutness. Who else is on the team? Schwede 66 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Good Olfactory is the only other active one as far as I recall. User:Davidcannon, User:Master Thief Garrett and Robin Patterson are intermittently active and rarely if ever use the tools. User:Nick-D is an Australian who is well-informed about NZ.-gadfium 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also User:Brian and User:Tristanb who are not very active.-gadfium 03:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gadfium. That's not too many active users then! Schwede 66 03:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Congrats! Always good to have another Kiwi here. I'm still around but less active now days Brian | (Talk) 07:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Schwede66! Good luck! J 947 21:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, my friend, and welcome to the mop and bucket brigade! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations also from me Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Have fun with the tools! -- Shudde ^talk 10:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A belated congratulations, and thanks for your efforts to maintain and improve the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

congrats

Congradulations on adminship. Good luck being an adminWyatt2049 | (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I thought it appropriate to say a few thank yous. First up, it was Anna Frodesiak's (misplaced) notice that prompted me to put my name forward at the optional RfA candidate poll. I got a good prodding from Ritchie333 (nothing wrong with that!), and Kudpung had some useful general advice for the eventual RfA process. They eventually became my nominators and they skilfully guided me through that process. But before anything else could happen, I thought it wise to tidy up a prior account with the Arbitration Committee, and quite a few of their members offered good advice. Once the RfA proper had started, the community was rather supportive of my application, and it's clear from some of the comments that quite a few editors did quite a bit of digging before commenting. Thank you everyone for investing the time to do some background research and then comment. Some of the comments I thoroughly enjoyed. Thank you to those members who put questions to me (Lourdes, Leaky caldron, and Ottawahitech); that's an important part of the process. I wouldn't have minded a few more questions, though.

But now it's done, and it's up to me to live up to the expectations of the community. I shall give it my best shot. And when I fall short, please don't hesitate to let me know. Schwede 66 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, not only for getting the mop, but also for demonstrating that not even a serial opposer could find anything to conjure up. If you are going to launch into much routine admin work and forensics, there is a bunch of extremely useful scripts here that I personally find indispensable. I didn't write them, but kudos to the people who did. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was waiting for them, Kudpung. But they didn't show. Thanks for your scripts. I see it contains User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js and I've already got that one, but it stopped working a couple of weeks back. Well, it does work, but only very intermittently. There are a few other things that have struggled in the last fortnight (e.g. Twinkle loads sporadically only; 'User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js' is mostly down), and the 'Cite' link has fallen off my toolbar. Is there a server problem at the Wikimedia end, or is it just my account? If the latter, where would I go to ask for help? Schwede 66 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I just tried the prose size script and it worked. J 947 22:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask is the script author - if they are still around. I think most of the ones in my js file are working - at least, if any are not it would be just two or three I rarely use or which have since been supplanted by core software features or better scripts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66, if prosesize isn't working, try DYKcheck. It counts prose, but it also gives a bit of extra information. I've never had trouble with it. And congratulations on your new mop! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BlueMoonset – that's exactly what I'm doing, and thankfully DYKcheck is working reliably. But I wonder whether there's something going on that does need fixing, given so so many of my gadgets are struggling. Not having the cite tool is a major drawback for a content creator like me... Schwede 66 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Congratulations on the successful and well-deserved outcome to your RFA. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you!

Congratulations on becoming Wikipedia's newest administrator! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed
– almost ten long, sordid, why-didn't-I-find-a-better-hobby years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable. I'm sure you've done it already.)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

Katie^talk 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

Thanks, Katie - that's much appreciated. Yes, I do have an admin question. I prodded an article in July 2016 and it got deleted; the subject was close to the notability threshold but wasn't quite there yet. She subsequently received a lot of media attention and did rather well in the 2016 Auckland mayoral election, and I commented at some point that by then, she would meet notability criteria. The article has just been recreated. My query is: should I offer the previously deleted version as an article in draft space, so that the useful bits from half a year ago could be added to the new version? Schwede 66 22:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker), I think you should, even though I aren't an admin. J 947 22:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You can certainly do the draft space thing, but I'd do a history merge. Go get the good stuff out of the deleted version, add it to the article, then do the history merge. The first time you do a histmerge is the hardest. It really is straightforward, but if you have trouble with the technical side, let me know and I'll do it. :-) Katie^talk 23:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: Ok, I've dug out the old content and transferred everything that is useful to the new article. Looking at history merge, I guess my case is similar to a 'manual case' that is 'easy'; the special page is not available to my case. The difference, if I understand it right, is that I now need to do the following:

Delete the current version.
Restore the previously deleted version.
Restore the current version.

Correct? Schwede 66 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. When you go to restore it (click on 'restore X deleted edits?'), the history of both versions will be there. Simply restore (you don't need to check any boxes with a complete restoration) with a rationale of 'history merge' or some such, and magic happens. :-) Katie^talk 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic indeed! Thanks, Katie. Schwede 66 00:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard, Admiral Admin

Congratulations. You'll do fine. Your first DYK promotion to Queue was done correctly. There is no mistake that cannot be corrected. Don't worry. Get the mop moving. Here's a couple of helpful links, if you didn't already have them:

Happy mopping. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maile. I didn't think that I would break things beyond recovery, but thought it best to ask for a check since not all the instructions were straightforward to follow. Good to hear that I got it right. Schwede 66 23:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

good sports

Thank you for quality articles such as Barrhill, New Zealand, for sports articles, for adding infoboxes, for serving as an admin, adding new energy to DYK, after you provided 200 articles yourself, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such lovely words. Much appreciated. Thanks, Gerda. It's nice to reconnect. Schwede 66 10:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you!

Congrats on becoming Wikipedia's newest admin!! EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

A lot of new admins this year! If you fancy coffee over tea, then allow me to roll up my sleeves and serve up a pipin' cup of 'joe, made from only the finest coffee beans, ground with a hand-powered coffee grinder, filtered through a real French press, and served with the love only a true barista can provide... Okay, so I'm not actually a barista, but I do make my own coffee at home, and I hope you enjoy this cup as much as I enjoyed making it! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan usage

Schwede66, why did you put an orphan tag on the Electoral history of Arnold Nordmeyer article? Other articles link to it. I have undid that edit. J 947 05:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me; it was suggested by AWB and all I did is hit the save button (so, yes, it was me). But when I look, it seems AWB got it right. What other articles link to it from mainspace already as far as you can make out? Schwede 66 05:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. There are heaps: Arnold Nordmeyer, Walter Nash, Norman Kirk, three New Zealand electorates, Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, Saul Goldsmith, and a lot more. J 947 06:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles link to Arnold Nordmeyer, but not to Electoral history of Arnold Nordmeyer. Schwede 66 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's because of the page move. J 947 06:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. When you move a page, the process automatically leaves a redirect behind. I suggest you put a "see also" section on the Arnold Nordmeyer article that points to the electoral history article, and then it's no longer an orphan. Schwede 66

Thanks. J 947 06:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done! J 947 06:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in your edit above, you didn't date your comment. J 947 06:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that happens when you use three tildes instead of four. Schwede 66 06:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Why don't you use the four tilde symbol below the editing area? That's what I do. J 947 06:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had never even noticed that! Good idea. Schwede 66 06:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised that you've edited for close to seven and a half years yet never noticed that! J 947 06:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schwede, I just dropped by to say congrats on the "promotion". But also, wow, I had never noticed that button either!! Mattlore (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your contributions to the DYK project as an administrator. It's a role that's needed, and you've shown a willingness to learn and contribute to the project that shows you'll continue to be a boon. Congrats on the tools, you've clearly been using them well, and thanks for the work! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the accolades. Much appreciated. Schwede 66 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi there, I sent you an email on behalf of the Signpost. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!: Happy to help. Have you got a word count in mind? Schwede 66 05:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity is always appreciative, but we will be quoting rather than reproducing in full, so take what you need. Go Phightins! 16:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!: I haven't had an acknowledgement that you noticed the ping when I wrote the piece as requested. Could you please let me know that you've seen the draft?

Date ranges on electoral history articles

You should have a look at all the electoral history of NZ politicians articles as they don't use endashes. Also, how do you do an endash? J 947 18:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a button in the edit window; a little to the left of the signature button :) The two dashes there are endash (left) and emdash. Schwede 66 18:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I remember once seeing a emdash under the editing area, which I thought was an endash, only to find out it was an emdash. J 947 18:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. J 947 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK subpage parameters for DYKmake

Schwede66, if the entry in the Credits section of the prep or queue does not have a "View nom subpage" link next to it when it's a DYKmake (DYKnoms do not have this link), then the subpage field is necessary and should be added, as you did earlier today. If the name of the article in the DYKmake exactly matches the Template page name of the nomination, then the subpage field isn't necessary; otherwise, it is. Multi-article hooks will need subpage parameters for all or all but one of the nominations, depending on how the template page is named. Let me know if you have any questions about this. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks, BlueMoonset. That's how I remembered it, but I thought I'd check with those in the know, just to make sure that everyone gets their credit when credit is due. Schwede 66 22:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Schwede66, can you please reassess Town of Dunedin by-election, 1859? I have just expanded it and nominated it for DYK. J 947 23:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that William John Dyer is noteworthy enough for his own article? J 947 00:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that having a main (as opposed to child) entry in Guy Scholefield's 1940 Dictionary of New Zealand Biography establishes notability. I see that Dyer is listed on page 224. Schwede 66 01:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that he had an entry in that book! What about we each create a userspace page for him then merge our copies together into an article? J 947 01:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; that sounds like doubling up. You start an article and I'm happy to chip in when you tell me that you are done. Schwede 66 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. J 947 01:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. J 947 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say above that Dyer is on page 224 of the 1940 Dictionary of the New Zealand Biography. However, when you expanded Dyer's article you cited page 220. Why is that? J 947 22:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One or the other is wrong; feel free to fix. 1940 DNZB is online. Schwede 66 23:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was page 224. See here. I have changed the article accordingly. J 947 23:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just nominated Dyer for DYK, giving credit to you as well. J 947 01:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might. J 947 19:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. The two results tables showed different info... Schwede 66 19:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article about the April 1865 Bruce by-election. Henry Clapcott was a candidate and the candidate that demanded a poll. However, the results only show the two other candidates, Dyer and Arthur John Burns. Do you know why? Also, Clapcott has an entry in the 1940 DNZB. Can you please reassess the article as well? J 947 02:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is needed in the April 1865 Bruce by-election article to get it to B-class? J 947 00:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

Hi, I helped build Prep 6, and I was wondering why you made this swap? As it is, there were far more non-bios than bios in the set, and your swap also added a second nature hook. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yoninah, nothing personal and sorry to upset the balance; it was due to this request. Better add to the discussion there to keep it all in one place if you have further thoughts. Schwede 66 17:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson boo-boo

Oopsy...this gaffe arose out of using my Nelson paper stub as a template, then getting hauled away by the spouse before completion... Thanks for fixing. Bjenks (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bjenks Haha, my spouse sometimes 'causes' those issues, too. Schwede 66 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're crossing edits

Schwede66, I was just moving the Prep 3 lead hook to Prep 6, but I see you've moved in the Prep 1 hook instead. Do be sure to shift around Prep 6, so you don't have two bios as the first two hooks. I hadn't saved any of my moves after removing the Prep 6 lead and getting it back into the special occasion section (which included exiling the koboni hook to Prep 4), and will leave everything to you so I don't interfere with anything you're doing. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Sorry for that. How does Prep 6 look now? Schwede 66 08:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back to you; I got off my computer right after posting the above. Looking at Queue 6 now, it looks fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I thought that must have happened. Schwede 66 17:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Facebook

Please desist from using Wikipedia as a social media site, as you have done at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. A bit of humour is all very well but this discussion has been closed a few times. As an admin you should be setting an example of how to use project talk pages properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, if I had not left the early post in the thread, I would have reminded you of 3RR, but felt that I wasn't uninvolved. Lucky for you. Schwede 66 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should re-familiarise yourself with WP:ADMINACCT before making such threats. Please use your position to set an example, not to pander to the whims of those who use encyclopedia talk pages as a chat forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I’m a little bit puzzled why you feel you need to remind me of accountability for admins. With regards to the Extremely disappointed thread, I was the second editor to respond in a light-hearted manner to a light-hearted post. That response was my only post. I chose not to further involve myself in the discussion, and I’m unsure why you see reason to post on my talk page about that.

What I did observe, though, is that you closed the discussion several times: first here, and then after being reverted by ~~various~~ [one] editors, you reverted once, twice, a third, and even a fourth time. I chose not to post about your violation of WP:3RR on your talk page because I had left an early comment in that thread and thus did not think that I was uninvolved, and I thus considered that it was not my place to point this out to you. I consider me choosing not to post on your talk page about 3RR was lucky for you because there are certainly editors who have your talk page on their watchlist, just waiting for the opportunity to have a block imposed on you. But either way, choosing to not remind you of policy isn’t a threat.

In my book, you undertaking four reverts on the same thread is even worse than a simple 3RR violation, as I would perceive it as inflammatory behaviour. No doubt you will remember that ArbCom found in October 2016 that you had engaged in "inflammatory behavior". I expect from you that you do not engage in behaviour that ArbCom recorded as fact in its decision. Schwede 66 08:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note you omitted that the reverts of my edits were a clearer violation of 3RR. Interesting. I also note that you acted unilaterally and against consensus when removing the link from what you and one other editor deemed to be a low quality article in a DYK hook. This was despite being requested to restore it and then being requested to make similar delinking edits in three subsequent sets. Which for some reason you refused to do. Perhaps you have your reasons but the behaviour is way below that expected of an admin. You are accountable and should respond when requested to do so. Your refusal to do so is a clear violation of WP:ADMINACCT. You should also remind others that talkpages are not chat forums, and to set an example yourself of encouraging such chat off project pages and, if absolutely necessary, onto talk pages. Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to the facts. The closures were not reverted by "various editors", they were reverted by a single editor. I was far from alone in noting this juvenile discourse was unnecessary and should have been ended by a responsible admin (e.g. ":Please, continue! Always fun to see people belittling a living person for personal amusement. Glad BLP has a humor and disagree with politics exception!", e.g. "I'm one of those people that doesn't get the joke. Wikipedia welcomes your edits but there are other venues for your off-topic discussion"). The sooner you remember what the community has charged you to do, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve gone back through the diffs and yes – you are right – all other reverts were from just one editor. I had not noticed that while that was going on, thus my statement above was inaccurate (and I’ve struck it out), and I apologise for that. Having considered the issue further, I’ve decided to report your actions to AN3 in light of the October 2016 ArbCom findings about your behaviour, so that this goes on record.

If you wish me to respond to the link removal issue, please say so and I will do so on the DYK talk page at the relevant discussion. Schwede 66 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late to be conciliatory when you're doing your best to get be banned from the site, so do as you please. Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've been an administrator for a few days. Congratulations. I don't think we've met before. With the benefit of 9 years of adminship behind me, might I make a couple of comments? (1) Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance is worth reading. Saying to one person involved in a dispute that he's in breach of 3RR but you're only going to report the other party isn't impressive, since the EW noticeboard looks at the behaviour of all parties. (2) When the dispute died down hours and hours ago (after I stepped in), what is the point of reporting anyone? Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive, after all. As the heading at WP:ANEW says "This page is for reporting active edit warriors" - note the word "active". Best wishes, Bencherlite ^Talk 20:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your congrats, Bencherlite. I've certainly seen your name around, and the Editor Interaction Analyser reminds me where: at DYK (I'm pretty sure you were already active there when I was actively submitting DYKs until a few years ago), and WikiProject Rowing. Given that I've had the tools for less than a month, there's most certainly heaps to learn, and any feedback put to me in line with good WP etiquette is gratefully received. I don't think that one ever stops learning, so taking in feedback isn't something that will (or should) cease over time. Regarding the above, I hear what you say – thank you. Regarding the heading that you quote, the fuller version is "active edit warriors and recent violations" (emphasis as per the original) and I did read that carefully before I posted there. What is your understanding of "recent"? Schwede 66 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Bencherlite will enlighten you as to his thoughts. But in the meantime, do consider the fact that you set out to (a) ignore me when I requested you make comparable changes at DYK (b) target me and not another editor who had made four reverts (c) warn the other editor that he may be spoken about but yet you did nothing. Not a good start for adminship I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent" is a fact-specific situation. I'm not going to give hypothetical examples. This particular situation, though, had gone past the point of being a "recent" one. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comet Hale-Bopp.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Comet Hale-Bopp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William John Dyer

Apoligies, I misread the article as "Dyer was several times Mayor of Milton and a member of the Otago City Council.[1][14] He stood in the Waihola electorate for the Otago Provincial Council in May 1863[14]". Which would have meant he belonged in both the general cat and the provincial cat. Mattlore (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all; sorry for reverting. Schwede 66 03:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Congrats!

Serves me right for not being involved much in WP these days - I had no idea you were standing for admin, otherwise I'd have added my wholehearted support. As the saying goes "I though you already were one..." Congrats! Grutness...wha? 23:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Grutness! "I had no idea you were standing for admin" - I guess one doesn't go canvassing :) Schwede 66 05:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Am sorry for being short-tempered about your reverting an edit a few weeks ago. Many of us Americans have been in a bad mood since last November. Thank you for being so courteous. Rogermx (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rogermx, the 'incident' can't have caused lasting damage as I have no recollection of it. I can certainly understand where the bad mood comes from. Either way, thanks for the apology (even though I don't know what that's for). Schwede 66 00:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can promote the next prep to queue?

Schwede66, we're over an hour overdue for a promotion to the main page, and while there are preps ready, we need one promoted to queue so it can be picked up by the bot. Any chance you could take this on? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Ok, will swing into action. Schwede 66 01:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Schwede66,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 806 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congratulations ... and ask a favour

Hi Schwede66

I am sorry that I only just spotted your RFA, and regret that I didn't see it in time to add my enthusiastic support. We have interacted several times over the years, and you have always been a conscientious contributor and a thoughtfully courteous collaborator and consensus-builder. My idea of a model admin .. and I'm delighted to see from the overwhelming support at RFA that so many others see you in the same light.

So please accept my belated congratulations. I am sure that you will do great job as an admin.

And now that you have the mop, may I ask a favour of you?

The reason I spotted your RFA was that I was I doing some thinking in relation to a post by Marcocapelle at WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion.23Discussions_awaiting_closure about the for more admins to close WP:CFDs. So I thought I'd look to see whether CFD featured in recent RFAs. (Answer: no <sad face>). But then I saw your name on the list of successful RFAs ...

Is there any way that you could be persuaded to help out a bit? Pleeeeeeeeeese! <grin>

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the congrats, BrownHairedGirl; much appreciated. Yes, every now and then, I have a snoop what's going on at CFD when something at WPNZ article alerts interests me. And I've certainly noticed that you are very active in that space. To be honest with you, though, I think I'd find CFD work rather uninspiring. It pains me to say this, given that you've given me so much support over the years, but I probably wouldn't last very long. So I'd rather not get your hopes up. I hope you understand. Schwede 66 09:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand. There are many topic areas and procedures on en.wp which don't interest me, so I avoid them.

It's all part of the freedom of being a volunteer project! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, did it reach you this time? Schwede 66 01:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My neighbour appears to have reduced his consumption of carrier pigeon pie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Flynn

Hello Schwede66, I totally disagree with the choice of the nickname "Jim" ;-) for the title of the English Page, and I gave my opinion on Talk:Jim Flynn (academic), best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unhelpful to start three separate discussions about this. Keep it in one place. Schwede 66 23:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Petra Hřebíčková

Schwede66, could you please check this to see what's left for the nominator to do, and answer the questions there? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented on the template. Obviously, my intention wasn't clear, so thanks for the heads up, BlueMoonset. Schwede 66 01:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About World Club 10s

Kia ora, Schwede66, and thank you for your comment on that article's talk page.
I guess an explanation goes like this:

there was this edit that added World Club 10s to the Rugby tens article
I started the an article about this club rugby completion, with references.
Looking at the references I included and a plain google search, I now question whether this somewhat intermittent inter-club competition meets WP:EVENT

What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shirt58 I see. Without knowing that background, it does look a bit confusing, doesn't it? Schwede 66 17:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It does indeed look confusing. Someone should tidy it up. (And a small confession: one on the main reasons I haven't got Pay TV is that I would spend all my free time watching professional club rugby union matches, like those played in, erm, the World Club 10s. Please don't tell my mates at WikiProject Rugby league I said this. There is some history of antipathy between the two codes... )--Shirt58 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Flynn (2)

Hello Schwede66, Thank you for your help and the link. I hope that I've done things properly (Talk:Jim Flynn (academic)) . Kind regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William John Dyer

On 21 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William John Dyer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite originally contesting the 1859 Town of Dunedin by-election, William John Dyer did not participate in the poll called afterwards? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William John Dyer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William John Dyer), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Schwede66,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 806 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent IP vandal

I would like you to monitor IP 27.252.143.154 and block him for vandalism. He has in the past few hours made disruptive edits to Parnell Railway Station, Westfield Railway Station, Newmarket Railway Station, New Zealand, Britomart Transport Centre, and List of Auckland railway stations.

This IP has been a huge problem since the middle of last year. He appears to have a major interest in Philippine articles, but from time to time he disrupts Auckland articles, particularly those about Auckland railway stations and shopping malls. His edits consist of bad-English additions and the addition of street addresses and post codes to malls. He also likes to add Start date templates to malls and sometimes changes them back and forth between Birth date and Start date.

Ajf773 (who also watches Auckland railway and mall articles) and I managed to get him blocked several months ago, but he simply changes IP address and starts again. It's time-consuming to go through the process of presenting a case with diffs at the Vandalism board, and it really needs an admin like yourself who can act quickly when his vandalism is spotted. I have his IP address on watch. When he changes it, his attacks quickly become obvious because I watch railway and mall articles. He is on about his fourth IP address since middle of last year. This guy is very persistent, never adds a summary, and comes back to articles where he has been reverted to do it again. Akld guy (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akld guy, that's a really perplexing situation. The Philippine contributions look rather useful, but the Auckland stuff is disruptive. Keep posting warning templates; I'll keep an eye on it. Schwede 66 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773:, you have been mentioned here and may like to comment. Thanks for your interest, Schwede66. Akld guy (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akld guy has summed it up well. The editor has used countless IPs to edit content in a disruptive way and does not respond to warnings on user talk. It also appears some of the edits they have been making on the Philippines related articles are also being continually reverted. We are keeping up with reverting any disruptive content as best we can. Ajf773 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773 and Akld guy: IP hopping is a tricky thing. Keep warning the user. But you also need to explain to the user what's wrong with the edits. If you've explained this before on other user pages, make a link to it. Going forward, it becomes easier, as the history of IP hopping will become clearer. It's unreasonable to block somebody who is disrupting in some parts without there having been some discussion first. Schwede 66 20:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I see we are back to square one where we need to assemble evidence and present a case. I had hoped for a pro-active admin who would monitor this guy's activities and see the damage for himself.

Take a look at Onehunga Branch where you will see at this edit on 8 August 2016 where he removes the {{auckland onehunga line}} template for the first time. Continue scrolling ahead through the edits. Notice how he removes the same template multiple times under different IP addresses from August through to January, despite being told in edit summaries when being reverted that Onehunga Branch is part of Onehunga Line and therefore the template is correct. Yet you expect us to start from scratch and warn him??? This guy is a pest who needs stopping. Ajf773 and myself know his modus operandi. What does it take to get you to be pro-active? Akld guy (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akld guy No, you misunderstand. Post a copy-edited version of your latest edit above onto the talk page. Point out to the IP that this has all been mentioned before. That's all that needs doing. I want there to be evidence that a warning was given; in fact this is evidence that numerous warnings have been served. Schwede 66 22:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows his understanding of English is very poor, but I will go through the motions. Akld guy (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make it a big item. Something short and swift will do. Schwede 66 07:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what the pest has just done: here. How am I supposed to communicate with this non-English speaker who never responds. Akld guy (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akld guy I don't have the impression that I have explained myself clearly yet. So here's something a bit more thorough. The user is obviously not using a static IP address. They may not do that themselves, but some networks are configured that way that every now and then, you get assigned a new IP address. Hence, blocking the user isn't a very permanent solution at all, as in a few days' time, they may have been assigned a new IP address. The reason that I suggested to you that you post a note on their user page that links to previous notices (that have gone to former IP accounts) is that you can then easily show that it's the same user due to the behavioural match. So once it's been established that IP xyz is the same user as IP abc, and they always turn up with a new IP address a few days later and show the same disruptive behaviour, we don't have to go through the process of issuing a few levels of warning. We can then just say "ah, here's the same user again" by having the links to the previous accounts and block them on their first disruptive edit. Without there being a link from the new account to the previous accounts, we cannot block a user immediately. Hence, you need to post on their talk page and make links to previous IP accounts. The point is not so much to communicate to the user (the user may or may not understand what you have to say), the point is to have the procedural stuff in place so that we can block whenever the next account pops up and repeats the disruptive behaviour. Clear as mud? So get on with posting something. If you are unclear about anything, please ask. Schwede 66 07:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. You're asking me to do a whole bunch of assembling diffs and won't get involved until I present sufficient of them to satisfy you. Even then you may or may not act. You're not showing any initiative here. I'll just leave things as they are and revert virtually every NZ edit he makes because nearly every one is disruptive. It boosts my edit count. It adds extra server load on WP's servers, for which they want donations to cover expenses. Laugh. Don't bother replying. Akld guy (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the editing history of Rainbow's End (theme park) since July 2016. Akld guy (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought you told me to forget it? I did. It wasn't difficult, because your conduct on this page isn't becoming of two editors having a civil discussion with one another. You may want to ask at WP:ANI for assistance. Schwede 66 17:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tell you to forget the whole affair. I told you to forget your suggestion of posting the note on the IP's Talk page. I'll continue to post examples of the IP's disruptive edits here so you can see what he's doing. Please confine yourself to addressing that issue. Don't shoot the messenger. Akld guy (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today's disruptive edit: here. He's not even competent in English. Akld guy (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IExistToHelp

Not sure the article you were referencing, but this has been an issue in the past. Not trying to step on toes, but a bit of stronger counseling might be in order :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Schwede 66 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WPDAB

Hi,

re: Talk:Mussafia‎ - on the same occasion I was recently advised not to add WPDAB to talk pages without actual talk; see here for detail and ref to guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem Nobody has told me. In that case, I'm guilty-as. Schwede 66 20:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has told me - That's the major problem with changes in policies and guidelines; and this is not the first time I was caught surprized. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism

Block 86.135.10.83 immediately. This SPA has made vandalism edits at Patricia_Harmsworth,_Viscountess_Rothermere and there is every reason to think it is the same person who has been vandalizing the article for months under different IP addresses. Don't argue with me or ask me to issue warnings. There is no excuse for this behavior. Akld guy (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

27.252.143.154

27.252.143.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

I'm not really sure what it was that enticed you to block this IP address in the first place, but they appear to be engaging in disruptive behavior once again. I came accross this edit filter showing them adding unsourced BLP material to an article. You may want to keep an eye on their edits. Thanks! 208.54.5.196 (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I have the IP's talk page on my watchlist so if you post warnings there, I'll follow up accordingly when need be. Schwede 66 09:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montague Close

The article should probably be a double entry - the liberty (linked from a couple of other WP pages) and the Worshipful Company of Glaziers (who have a hall in the modern street of that name). There is slightly more information on the equivalent London Wiki page [1] so 'merge, link or otherwise develop' as you wish. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've dealt with it as part of new pages patrol and don't intend to do anything further. Schwede 66 01:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyright infringement note re Margaret Butler (sculptor) on my talk page

Thank you for your polite and helpful note on my talk page bringing to my attention the reverting of my edit to the Margaret Butler (sculptor) article. Unfortunately I am unable to recall the circumstances of my contribution. However I hasten to reassure you that any infringement of copyright was unintended and not done maliciously. I will endeavour not to repeat this error. Should you discover any other edits where I have inadvertently infringed copyright please do not hesitate to revert the same. I appreciate the work you do policing Wikipedia. Sincerely Ambrosia10 (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protect a page

Can you please do me a favour can you protect Fiji Prime Minster Frank Bainimarma wiki page. Thanks

Frank Bainimarama

Frank Bainimarama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Jvfmgnlllj (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Schwede 66 05:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 'High level of IP vandalism'? I don't think so. J 947 04:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand National Party leadership election, 1986

Thanks for the Updates on New Zealand National Party leadership election, 1986. I just made a new page New Zealand National Party leadership election, 1997 if you can help that would be really Good.

Torygreen84, you cannot create pages that are devoid of content and for that reason, I have deleted it. Please use the Article wizard to create pages. I'm happy to help, but please go about it the right way. Schwede 66 03:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My uploaded Commons images are only visible in their categories when I am logged in

I have recently uploaded six images to Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolphin's_Delight.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ExtravagaNZa.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fernlandia.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flat_White.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Crux_of_the_Matter.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triple_Cross.png

Each of these images has been tagged with the Commons Categories 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand' and 'Proposed flags of New Zealand'.

When I am logged in and I visit the Commons pages for 'Proposed national flags of New Zealand' at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_national_flags_of_New_Zealand and at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_flags_of_New_Zealand, my images appear, but when I visit the pages after I have logged out, my images do not appear, unless I once again log in.

Can you resolve this issue for me, or explain how I may resolve it myself?

Kind regards,

NZ_Flag_Maven NZ Flag Maven (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Flag Maven, I have no idea what's going on, but the place to ask is the help desk. Schwede 66 07:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance IP is back

The nuisance IP is back as 121.75.42.59. He laid low for a while, but is now back to editing Auckland mall and railway station articles. Some of his edits are worthwhile, others indicate a lack of familiarity and are just a nuisance. The biggest problem is that even when reverted with an edit summary explaining what he did wrong, he still comes back later and tries to change it again. That makes him a pest. Akld guy (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the Talk Page and Assess for Debbie Griffiths

Hello!

Please take a look and let me know if you can help with the following article Debbie Griffiths. Not sure 100% if it is up to standard or not. Maybe a Stub?

Thanks! --TheDomain (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheDomain I have bad news. When you write bios (or any page), make sure you capitalise proper nouns only. Adding categories is part of the job. But the real problem here is that the subject doesn't appear to be notable. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Schwede 66 08:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schwede. No that is fine. I fully understand. Have been editing for awhile! Was too early. You are welcome to delete. Thank You for your assistance! --TheDomain (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added back to the draft for the time being. Could the re-direct be deleted? Or the Article Page? Thanks! --TheDomain (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. Schwede 66 22:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date format on Green Light (Lorde song)

Hey Schwede, just letting you know that when you edited Green Light (Lorde song) earlier in March, you changed all date formats to dmy, including in single chart templates that need to stay YYYY-MM-DD to work (Scotland and the UK). Ss 112 15:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that the edit has caused trouble. I see that it's already been fixed up. I shall keep an eye out for Template:Single chart; I'll also see whether that tool can exclude templates. Schwede 66 16:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]