Jump to content

User talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Wikimania 2018

Wikimania looks like it is coming to Cape Town in 2018. Would be interested in getting out to do some diving when I am down. I see it is your home turf :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James:, Be my guest. I am on the organising committee, so will be easy to find, but busy during the actual conference. Will you be staying a few days before or after? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I will either be staying some time before or after yes. Not sure which yet. Do we have dates nailed down? It says July and Aug but would not spring or fall be better?
Congrats on being selected by the way. Really cool to see Wikimania going to South Africa :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James:, I don't know how much selecting happened, I volunteered and next thing I knew I was on. I think WMF set the dates. Probably like to have them at about the same time each year. Dates not finalised as the venue is not finalised, That may happen in the next month or so, and will let us actually start getting things moving. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Much thanks

Peter: I am leaving you this note to thank you for your support. Like you, I remain convinced that both of us are looking at this issue with our eyes more widely open than those who oppose it. I think you will agree that the "Project" isn't being advanced through narrowness of thought, and I just wish I knew how to better convince others of this. I also get too emotionally invested in such things, which is a personal fault of mine. Knowing that I am not alone in that wilderness means a lot, gives me courage. Thank you. KDS4444 (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444, I try to support all attempts to improve the project, this is just one of them. Often the apparent opposition is more a matter of misunderstanding then unreasonable resistance to change, or POV pushing. I think this is one of those cases, where some of the WP:MED crew are so focused on their way of looking at things that they lose track of the bigger picture, but not from bad motives. Mostly, I think they tend to apply an approach which is appropriate to medical articles outside the scope where it is applicable. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)

Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki

The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.

You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:

On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A.P.Valves

@Anthony Appleyard: I noticed - It was me. Not sure whether notability has been established to Wikipedia standards, as the references I added are all establishing product line and are primary refs. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Glossary of bird terms at FL

Hey Peter. Since you indicated you might help out once I nominated at the talk page, just a heads-up that I have done so. (There's been no posts yet at the nomination.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for the notification. I will continue to watch the page and get involved once things are happening. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You just reverted valid changes... Why?

You just reverted valid changes with important additional information on the Permit to Work page. For what reason? Just because something is "disputed" doesn't mean it isn't correct. There is valuable information on the page which informs readers of possibilities within the arena they might not know about. Please reinstate my latest edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Controlofworkspecialist (talk • contribs)

Controlofworkspecialist, Your information was both originally challenged and unreferenced. This means that there was no evidence provided that the edits were valid or that they were important. Your edits will not be reinstated until references are provided for the claims you made, which is your responsibility. Please see and respond appropriately to the relevant messages on your own talk page. If you wish to discuss content of the Permit To Work article, the appropriate place is on Talk:Permit To Work. The Permit To Work page is on my watchlist, so I will see that edits have been made. If you wish to notify me specifically, use one of the templates provided for that purpose such as {{U}}, Please also sign your messages on talk pages. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Truth

"This essay may gain more traction if it appears less WP:POINTY." Disagreed. The essay is not pointy. The essay is truthful. If we make it less truthful or watered down it would then be less useful. Many editors regularly violate policy. If you disagree you can vote delete. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru, To me it appears pointy. Whether it is truthful is a different issue. I am willing to accept that it accurately depicts your current opinions. Whether these constitute any other form of truth is a philosophical discussion that will probably not leave either of us feeling edified, so I will pass on that option. I am largely sympathetic to your basic point as I understand it, but I don't think the way the essay has been written is going to persuade many people, which would be unfortunate, as I do think that there can be times when every statement needs to be cited, and that citing at the content supported by the reference has practical value and should be allowed when useful. I am also convinced that this is not the general case and there are many sentences that really don't need citation as they are sufficiently obvious to never be challenged. They may even be true. Nevertheless it is your essay, and I will probably leave you to it, at least until I have something more to say... Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It does not say a citation is mandatory for every sentence. At least not anymore. Editors are making specific suggestions. It is still less than a week old. It reflects what is really happening on articles I edit. There is at least one example that is part of a real content dispute. I have never been able to persuade any editor to stop violating policy. Most editors never thought of editing the way the essay suggests. I wish I had this kind of detailed instructions when I started. The way things really work and how to improve article content when editing in a never-ending storm is not covered in any other essay. The tone of the article is a wakeup call. We don't have to pretend anymore. We can tell it like it is. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like you are winding down the hyperbole after all. I will take a look later. Things change and we adapt. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
There was no hyperbole. But my experiences are not the norm. QuackGuru (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
We disagree on this point. Our perspectives differ. No big deal. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The article has changed and is changing. Is there any specific wording that needs to be improved? QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I am in the middle of a complicated merge right now. I will take a look some time soon and leave any comments on the essay's talk page. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I read your suggestions and I am done for now. I replaced one of the examples. I don't have other examples. I spent too much time on this. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Some

I am not using any definition for the word "some". If the source does not use that word then the article should not use that word. See "The word some is an unsupported weasel word because the source does not explicitly use the word some to support that word in reference to that content." Better? QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec)QuackGuru, In my opinion that is stretching the point way beyond what is reasonable. There is a world of difference between an unspecified "Some say" when there is no reference to say who the "some" might be who are saying it, and the use of "some" as an indeterminate quantity more than none and less than all, with references specifying a number of the claimed incidences, and the possibility that there may be more. If I were to claim that some sheep are black based on five reports, each providing evidence of the existence of at least one black sheep, none of which were the same animal, it is over-stretching a point to call that original research or synthesis. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
We are not expected to use exactly the same words as the source. We are expected to paraphrase to avoid copyright infringement. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You can't even claim there were five reports that found a black sheep because no individual source said there were "five reports". Complying with policy can be very unreasonable.
If the source said "A substantial number..." and the article said "A large number...", then it can't be changed to "some".
See "We can use the exact weasel word or a synonym to that word when the source has used that specific word. If the source does not use the word "some" or by combining different sources together to come to the conclusion that it is "some", then it probably is original research or a synthesis violation."
Made changes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
QuackGuru, Where exactly (in policy) is this written? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The section is a rehash of WP:WEASEL along with content about WP:OR and WP:SYN problems. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I clarified the wording. Now there is no doubt. Original research is forbidden. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The essay says "This would in effect be combining material from different sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any individual source. Therefore, we can't state "Two reviews found..." unless an individual source stated it was "Two reviews..."." Makes sense? QuackGuru (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. You are saying that if we have a review which states that something has be found, we can say "A review has found..." and cite it. If we then find another review that states the same thing, we can say "A different review has also found...", and cite it, but we are not allowed to apply simple counting to come to the rather obvious conclusion that "two reviews have found...", and cite them both? (or even the more logically inclusive "At least two reviews have found...") It may be true that this is the stated policy, (though I would argue that this is an extreme and irrational interpretation), but "Makes sense"? Not in any reasonable way. It would also appear that you are quoting from an essay, not from the original policy, which suggests that alternative interpretations are both probable and likely to differ. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
See WP:ORIGINALSYN: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." The essay is repeating policy. The only difference is the essay is giving specific examples. QuackGuru (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
That is not the same thing as having two sources that report the same conclusion, and saying that there are "two sources" reporting that conclusion. There are other essays which suggest that some conclusions are sufficiently logical and obvious that one may draw them without contravening the synthesis rule, as any reader would come to the same conclusion given the same evidence and the ability to reason logically. Applying basic arithmetic is one example. I would go so far as to hold the opinion that any conclusion that can be proven by formal logic should be admissible, but I do not intend to argue the point. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding up different sources to come to a conclusion not found in either source is improper editorial synthesis because no individual source made the claim. I haven't read policy stating we can add up sources together.
Beginning with "Two reviews found..." is unnecessary. The essay now says "Moreover, when there is no significant dispute between sources, the content should normally be asserted without in-text attribution."
"Two reviews found..." is a real example. The article actually says "Two 2016 reviews found...". One of the reviews verifies the claim, but the other fails verification. I have watched it happen many times where an editor adds another source that does not say the same thing. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is OK to say source A says X, source B says X, Source C says X, ... Source n says X, is OK, but not that n sources say X, because none of the sources counted the others and reported the number?
Are you saying that it is OK to say that X is accepted to occur, and cite one source, but not OK to say X is accepted to occur and this was found by n reviews, even when each review is cited, because none of the reviews actually stated that there were n reviews?
The statement that you have not read policy permitting something is not evidence that the thing is forbidden.
Failed verification is a separate issue that we were not discussing. It is quite possible that we agree that failed verification is not a good thing, and do not need to bring it up here. When I refer to a source saying something, I use the generally accepted meaning that the source actually says that thing. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this can be simplified. If no individual source makes a claim then it is a novel synthesis to add up different sources together.
When none of the sources mentioned the other source we can't say it was "Two reviews...". This means when none of the reviews actually stated there were "two reviews" or mentioned the other review we can't say it was "Two reviews...".
If source A and another source B say the same thing we do not join A and B together to come to a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. No source concluded it was "Two reviews...". We can't count how many sources say the same thing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, on the basis that counting of references that are present in the article does not constitute original research.
Synthesis of two different conclusions is a separate matter to reporting that two sources came to the same conclusion. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The content must verifiable from a source, not a Wikipedia article. See "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
In the case I describe the number of sources is verifiable by reading the sources to verify the content, a procedure you appear to consider appropriate, and counting them. This is a simple procedure and most of our readers will be able to do it competently. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Reading the sources does not verify the content because you are adding up different sources together that is not found in any source. You would be doing the math, not the sources. A reader must be able to check that the information came from a reliable source. No individual source verified the number of sources or counted the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not subscribe to your absolutist prescriptivism. I think that this may be a fairly widespread attitude. It is constitutionalised in one of the five pillars. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Counting references is absolutely original research because the counting of references was not published from a reliable source.
See Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
See Wikipedia:Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."
It is not one of the provisions in any of the pillars to include content that failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your absolutist interpretation of verifiability and failed verification and consider it harmful to the encyclopaedia.
Repetition of an argument does not affect its validity. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Repetition of an argument does make it stronger when there continues to be no response based on policy. None of your arguments are based on policy. You disagreed, but it was not on the basis that it is constitutionalised in one of the five pillars. You were unable to cite any specific policy that allows content that fails verification.
Where does the unsupported weasel words end? No source verifies it was "Two reviews". This is a current problem. "According to some US sources,"...". This is not supported by any individual source and it is also a current problem. "They can help some..." also failed verification. This is yet another problem. Editors are adding their own opinion to articles.
The essay says "The content must be able to be verifiable to a reliable source, not by counting of references that are present in a Wikipedia article.[9] It is not an allowable provision to include content that failed verification." Telling readers what to think is POV and is against core content policies. QuackGuru (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I am no longer arguing with you. I have not been for some time, but maybe you did not get the message. I have stated that I disagree with your absolutist and literalist interpretation of those parts of policy and guidance that best suit your point of view, and now request you to lay down the stick and move on. Further repetition will not be welcome, nor will I respond. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Huawei Honor 8 Pro article

Hello, Pbsouthwood. On behalf of Honor, I have submitted an edit request to add an infobox and short "Specifications" section to the Huawei Honor 8 Pro article, which I posted on the article's talk page. I am seeking an uninvolved editor to copy the proposed markup over the article appropriately, but despite my requests for help at 4 WikiProjects and pings to several editors, no one has made any changes yet. I prefer not to edit the article directly because of my conflict of interest. I see you are a member of WikiProject Technology, so I was wondering if you might have a moment to review the edit request and copy over the proposed markup. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I will have a look. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Inkian Jason, Looks OK, so done.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your (quick!) help. I will mark the edit request as answered. Much appreciated! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help again! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Underwater diving

It is difficult to know quite how reviewers will react at FAC, and most of the articles which I have nominated relate to animal taxa, but I was co-nominator of Sea which was the most difficult FAC i have been involved in. Of course, people will find problems with the article and you will need to respond fairly promptly. You will not necessarily agree with their views, but if you want the FAC to be successful, you will be best advised to be cooperative rather than argumentative. With regards to your article:

  • In general the prose is good and the citations are well laid out.
  • You really need a good definition in the lead of the scope of the article, which seems to be man, with or without equipment, but not in a submersible.
  • If I were writing an article on this topic, I would start the main text with a paragraph discussing the physiological problems of man doing things underwater, before moving on to diving modes. How do whales, seals, turtles etc cope with these. If you think this is outside the scope of the article, perhaps you should define its subject more precisely at the start.
  • The lead section neds attention, in my view; it is currently more like an introduction to the topic than a summary of what is present in the body of the text.
  • The article reads rather like a diver's instruction manual.
  • It is also a bit listy, especially such sections as "Diver training".
  • The article is grossly overlinked. I have a tool on my toolbar which highlights duplicate links, and I can recommend adding it if you have not got it already.
  • The second item in "External links" should go. I don't think Wikipedia should be linking to a single supplier.
Thanks, Cwmhiraeth, I will look into all of those, you have the advantage of not being a diver (I assume) and seeing it from a different perspective, which is most useful.
  • What tool is that for the duplicate links?
The tool is here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, have loaded, and will try it out soon.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The external link is not to a supplier, but to the auction catalogue for a museum quality collection of historical diving equipment, which I assume has by now been sold, split up and not accessible to the public. Unfortunately the images are not free, but they are among the best accessible on the internet, with excellent provenance. I will delete the link if you still consider it inappropriate after taking a closer look. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It's probably OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I will try to give it a more explanatory title.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I remember the FA review of Sea, as it was probably the first I commented on. I take your point. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
This may keep me busy for a while. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Work is in progess. I will ping you when I think it has stabilised.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
OK. I had a look at the Sea FA review. Your input was very useful there because you knew what you were talking about and I was glad to be able to improve the article with your help. It was another reviewer that I found problematic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I remember the name, as I found one person's comments somewhat over the top. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

While working on the new physiology section, I discovered that we don't yet have summary level articles on Physiology of underwater diving or Physiology of breathhold diving, which would be high or top importance articles for WikiProject Scuba diving, so this exercise has already helped a lot in identifying this gap. This may slow me down a bit as I may have to consider the scope of those topics to ensure that Underwater diving is complete. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That will be a useful addition and will certainly render the Underwater Diving article more comprehensive. If you disagree with any of the points I made above, feel free to disregard them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, Update:

  • I have made some changes to the lead to clarify the scope and definition.
  • The new section on physiology is basically a summary of the new article Physiology of underwater diving. It contains my ideas of what is important, based on experience training commercial and recreational divers and existing training standards and manuals, but I may have missed something.
  • I have not included physiological adaptations of diving mammals, birds or reptiles, as that would be beyond what I consider the scope of the article, which is human diving, particularly as a large part of the topic relates to the technological social and legal issues. The non-human aspects could be appropriately added to the Physiology of underwater diving article, but I don't have a lot of material on that at present, maybe someone else will add a bit there. If you think I need to clarify the scope more, let me know.
  • I have made small changes to the lead to make it more a summary, and to a moderate extent it follows the article structure, but this may not be what you meant. If so I misunderstood and need clarification.
  • I have tried not to make it read like a diver's instruction manual, but writing those is one of the things I sometimes do, and it may have inadvertently rubbed off. I am too close to the subject to see it, so please clarify.
  • I think I have now eliminated all lists.
  • I have also eliminated some of the redundant links. Those which remain are unique to a major section. I left them subject to discussion, as they may be useful to the reader, who otherwise might not easily find the link if there were only one in the whole article. My own experience is that if it is not easy to find a link within about a page up or down from the term in question, it is easier and quicker to just do a Wikipedia search, and that reduces the value of the links. Your experience may differ, and I know that WP:OVERLINK does not agree. I am open to logical persuasion on this point. It is possible that some of the links may be considered trivial or unnecessary. If so go ahead and remove those. Again I may be too deep amongst the trees to see the wood.
  • So far your suggestions have been helpful to improve the article, which is more important to me than the star. Both would be good. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it shows a considerable improvement. Good luck at FAC! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks largely to your suggestions. Cheers. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Nominated. Awaiting interesting times. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

efn

Just FYI, but you can use Template:efn inline, like <ref></ref> and it avoids having to use the naming feature. It also automatically orders them if you happen to stick a note above a previous note in the article, without having to manually rearrange your list in the notes section. No big deal, it just makes things easier on you in the future. (I have an unhealthy obsession with the gratuitous use of notes in articles. See for example Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 for basically efn pornography.) TimothyJosephWood 22:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, Thanks for the suggestion. I seldom use footnotes other than references, but this seemed like a place where they would be appropriate. I will look into using {{efn}}, and there are a few template coders looking into the problems of getting them into the group list to relieve clutter in the code text. Another can of worms, but maybe some good will come of it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for thanking me for the edits to the Respiratory system article. Much appreciated. Cruithne9 (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome, Cruithne9, I try to make a habit of thanking people for large constructive edits which greatly improve an article on my watchlist. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Pin Index Safety System

Hello, thought you might find this interesting, I just couldn't be bothered to find the references last time ;)

Pin Index Safety System#Safety

DemandAmbition (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

DemandAmbition: Good information and good sources. Thanks. I now see how the pin index can fit upside down on some valves, but have never seen a valve like that, only the ones where it is not possible because the face of the valve is too long. Possibly made that way to prevent this sort of thing happening. Nothing can be made foolproof because fools are too cunning at finding a way to get past something no sensible person would consider trying to circumvent. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem! Thought that you'd be surprised! I thought I heard about it in a lecture, that's why I didn't have a source. I think the paper even suggests redesigning the yoke to prevent desperate idiots attaching upside down! Keep up the good work! DemandAmbition (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Desperate idiots? Now there is a scary concept. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Scuba set, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

Look, it's your responsibility, when reverting editions that you think are wrong, to revert ONLY those edits; not to ruin a bunch of unrelated improvements that happened at about the same time. So if something breaks links, then fix them, of course. But don't also "fix"/ruin unrelated things that don't need to be, and shouldn't be, put back the way they were. If you have a concern about the other things too, then voice those too so that they make sense as part of your reversion. If not, then leave the other stuff alone.

My edits there were not "pointy." They were real improvements made for the sake of actually improving the article:

The tense changes are ordered by WP:TENSE and WP:COMPNOW. It's Wikipedia's policy to write about things in the present-tense form unless it's absolutely known that every last copy of that item no longer exists. Leave that alone.

"Second-stage regulator" and "open-circuit diffuser" are hyphenated because "second" and "stage" form a compound modifier that act as one word to modify "regulator," and the same thing with "open" and "circuit" for "diffuser." So leave them alone too.

"Scuba muffler" doesn't need to be in quotes just because it's being referred to by a "called ________" phrase. So leave that alone too.


97.117.54.205 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read your own instructions and practice what you preach before making pointy reversions and complaining when they are again reverted. In case you remain unaware that your edits broke the link to the section, try clicking on the link before and after you "improved" it. Demonstrate your "superior" knowledge of Wikipedia policy by following it yourself. I also call your attention to Bold-Revert-Discuss, which is done on the talk page of the article, not on the talk page of the user. You were bold, no problem, RexxS reverted, also acceptable procedure. Instead of discussing in a civil manner on the talk page , you chose to revert again without discussion, which can be construed as pointy, particularly as you failed to fix the problematic parts of your original edit which were specified in the edit summary. It is difficult to start a discussion with you, because you edit anonymously. It took a second reversion to get you to start a discussion, which you have done at an inappropriate place. I will not continue this discussion here, if you wish to continue discussing this point in a civil manner on the talk page of the article, please feel free to do so.
Inviting discussion on your non-existent talk page via a boilerplate template suggests that either you don't read the messages you leave, or have a strange sense of humour. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I did exactly that. I never said I had "superior" knowledge. I used the WP rules to improve the article--except for where links broke. I'm sorry for breaking links. But if you're going to fix those, then fix those and do no other harm. I already explained the reasoning behind those improvements. Now what part of "fix those links without breaking other stuff" do you not understand? Since when can't an editor who is reverting broken things just revert ONLY the broken things instead of throwing in unrelated undos at the same time?

And where are you getting the idea that my improvements are supposedly "pointy"?

And since when is it "strange" to use a template that is so commonly used? Did you not make those edits back like the template talks about? Is it not disruptive for you to go in and reverse other edits for no good reason even though you know it's your responsibility to only reverse the problems? What's so "funny" about using a template for that?

I did start a discussion about your problem at the article's talk page.

97.117.54.205 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Pbsouthwood. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 09:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex Shih, that was remarkably quick. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, got an edit conflict on the ice core FAC with my replies; hadn't realized you were still reviewing. I hope my replies don't give you an ec in return! I'll go get some coffee and read the paper for a bit till you're done. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie. No problem noticed. Cheers,• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

The Content Creativity Barnstar
Well done on your first successful Featured Article, Peter. It is hard work, but the article and the topic of scuba diving have both been improved beyond measure by your sustained efforts! --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks RexxS, This is a pleasant way to find out that it has been promoted. Thanks also for your help in getting it through and fixing good faith errors. It was truly a team effort by all involved. Now that it is good enough I am translating it into the only other language I am marginally competent at writing, so more readers can access it. That is also a major effort as many of the terms don't exist in my Afrikaans dictionary and I am having to make them up. If I am lucky this will be fixed in the Wiki way, otherwise I may end up responsible for a bunch of new words... Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Well done for your great work on Underwater diving. It's a beautiful article. You're a good writer and took the peer review process well for your well-deserved first FA. I hope it's the first of many. John (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks John, It was an interesting experience. I salute and thank you for your sustained attention to detail. Your review and copyedits made a significant improvement. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

For a special Wikipedian....

Wiki Tribble
~The Wiki Tribble Award~
Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you!
You're one of the few exceptional content creators and a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve the project. The
recent promotion of Underwater diving to WP:Featured article is testament to your work. The rigors of getting an article promoted
to FA is not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips endeavor. It deserves acknowledgment and accolades from your peers.
Thank you for all you do and all you've done to create a quality encyclopedia, and for making editing an enjoyable experience.
Atsme📞📧 16:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


Thanks Atsme, I do try, and to some extent it would seem I do occasionally succeed. Thank you also for your contributions to getting the article ready for FAC and your support during the process. This was by no means all my own work, though I did put in a lot of time. Perhaps not very efficiently, but it seems to have had the desired effect in the end. Back to more mundane matters for a while, I think, but I am encouraged to have another go sometime. There are a few more diving articles in the top importance list that would be worth getting to FA sometime. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive_5&oldid=1160940780"