User talk:Alex Shih

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Home   Talk   Workspace   Subpages   Archives   Logs

My tea's gone cold, but oh, think twice.
It's the editor formerly known as Aquarius.

Current time: 09:13, 15 November 2018 JST [refresh]


22 August
Debussy au coin.png
Happy birthday

Thank you for helping The Little Nigar to join his creator on the main page on the composer's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda Arendt. Alex Shih (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hope you enjoyed the little fellow ;) - more than 4k people clicked, that's about 10% of what the TFA received, - with much less effort ;) - Off to writing about 4 more compositions, for 2 more composers remembered this week, Leonard Bernstein, and another TFA, Ralph Vaughan Williams, quite a life, both. Will listen to Bernstein music tomorrow, at our local festival which is focused on him and Debussy this year, - and on friendship, - the founder was a friend of Bernstein, pictured in the program on many photos of people and dedications. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
ps: could you kindly link O clap you hands in queue 2, to the new article O clap your hands (Vaughan Williams). Requested on DYKTALK under the composer's name, whose day is on Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another tban question[edit]

Hello Alex,

I am currently working on an article on petrol direct injection for the German language Wikipedia and I found some oddities in the English language version of the article gasoline direct injection. The section I intend to edit is definitely not on automobiles (Gasoline_direct_injection#Early systems). However, I suppose that someone might say that the entire article is somewhat automobile related; now is that article covered by the ban despite not being "automobile"? What do you think, User:Andy Dingley? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It's on a topic that is clearly involving automobiles. You are TBANned from such articles.
If you want to work on that article, you are first going to have to apply to have your TBAN lifted (or it's likely to get extended). You are also going to have to convince those discussing such a repeal that the past issues will not be a problem again, and also that you've contributed usefully since, without breaching that TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The topic is not involving automobiles only, and the section I inted to edit is on aircraft engines; in fact, initially, this technology was not automobile-related, since it all started with aircraft. And I definitely do not want to edit anything related to automobiles in that article. That is why I am asking. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The topic is involving automobiles. It might involve other things too, but it does involve automobiles. You are TBANned from, " any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind, broadly construed. ". Now if you want to edit an article which involves automobiles, but claim that you're "not editing the parts related to automobiles", then that's your choice. But you are almost guaranteed to then have to explain that at WP:AN, and it's unlikely to be viewed generously. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say, that, in general, one has to make a distinction between cause and effect. The fact that petrol direct injection is used for automobiles is caused by it's fuel-saving potential. If fuel was inexpensive, nobody would use direct injection for automobiles (and history has already shown that this is true). But "automobile" has not caused petrol direct injection. I have already been at this point before; to make a very plain example, wheels are also part of automobiles, would they be covered by the ban? Is every part of an automobile covered by the ban? How am I supposed to distinguish between automobile-related and unrelated if the way people here use to distinguish is mostly arbitrary? I have seen that people claim that flathead engines were used for agricultural engines (=automobiles?) because they believed it was true (=original research); (I suppose you know that agricultural engines (=Diesel engines) don't work with the flathead design), but what happens if someone declares something I edit automobile-related because of their personal beliefs? I think that this might also be a problem of cultural/regional differences; an Unimog is most likely considered a truck or a tractor in North America, while in Germany, everyone understands what an Unimog is; it is somewhat it's own vehicle category an nobody would call it a tractor or a truck. Also, sulphur is related to American gasoline, while it isn't related to our petrol. For me it is very difficult to tell the difference between automobile-related and unrelated in many cases. Anyways, I don't want any trouble. I suppose I am going to create another good/featured article involving petrol direct injection for de then. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Meh, what Andy said, Johannes Maximilian. I know you are genuinely just asking for clarification due to your familiarity with automobile-related topics, that you feel the need to go into specific details about distinguishing what is covered by the scope; topic bans in general are phrased "broadly construed" for this purpose, and the tendency to repeatedly asking for specific clarification is kind of related to why the topic ban was imposed in the first place. To uninformed editors here at enwp this comes off as wikilawyering, which I do understand isn't your intention. Alex Shih (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not even going to answer that.
If you think that the best response to a question of whether you're breaching a TBAN would be to start a detailed discussion on engineering, which no-one else will understand, then you are going to get your ban extended. That is based on simple empirical observation of past AN threads. "Wikilawyering" is the one thing that is always seen badly, and this approach will be regarded as such.
I think you have a reasonable chance of having this ban withdrawn, if you request that first, and you point to some good contributions since. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The 100k-edit-non-editors with maybe three fivethousand-byte-articles will tell me that I barely contribute to this project when appealing the ban (Special:Contribs/Johannes Maximilian); I suppose that the quality of edits doesn't count here (as it doesn't do in other language versions of Wikipedia either). Amongst all articles on the Diesel engine found in different language versions of Wikipedia, only one is considered to be a GA; around 70 % of that GA was contributed by just one editor. Now, would it be reasonable to say that this editor is knowledgable? If people who do not understand the subject have to decide whether a certain edit is a ban violation or not, they should maybe listen to knowledgable editors; I have learnt though that other editors consider it wikilawyering if I explain it myself. As far as I am concerned, amongst all editors here I know, you seem to be one of the knowledgable ones out of them. You have actually helped me a lot with explaining that air-blast injection is not automobile-related, which allowed me to safely create that article without risking a block; several other editors believed it was covered by the ban due to the fact that it is related to 'Diesel'. I still believe that petrol direct injection is a subject of its own and not too much connected to automobile, given the history of that topic which is covered by books known in Wikipedia as reliable sources. Well; take a closer look at that French aircraft engine. Maybe you will find it and improve the article. I have stolen too much of your time. Thank you and best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've no interest in fixing Diesel engine, nor steam locomotive or steam boiler (and some others) because I just don't think that the WP editing model works for articles so broad. Everyone knows [sic] what a Diesel engine is, so they can all edit away at it - not always for an improvement. When I've finished writing all the other articles which I can achieve something more useful with, then I might think about them.
Air-blast injection has no overlap with automobiles. Gasoline direct injection though does. Maybe not in the paragraphs you were looking at (although in the same section), but enough to raise a problem at AN if anyone wants to. WP also has a problem with editors having subject knowledge - we (rightly) require non personal, objective sources to WP:Verify things, but this too often spreads over into the flat-earth snowflake view of "my ignorance is to be valued equally as your knowledge".
I still think that you should avoid this article, and that you could get this ban lifted. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

translating a wiki article into Chinese[edit]

Dear Alex I have written this article in the English wikipedia about ballerina Yen Han, who is originally from China, quite famous in Europe and very famous in Switzerland, where she resides: We would like to have the article translated and published into Chinese as well. Can you help? Kind regards Markus2666Markus2666 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC) 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Markus2666: I am always happy to help with translation, but you need to disclose who the "we" refers to; and if you are editing for pay or has financial/conflict of interest connection to the subject, then no. Alex Shih (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Alex Shih, I am researching this at the request of Miss Han who is even less adept at Wikipedia than myself... Not sure if that applies to your criteria or not. Markus2666Markus2666 (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For being the most sane voice across the entire GW-Kudpung saga, in my eyes.The diplomatic chime-in(s) failed to stop the escalation, but nonetheless they were immensely valued:-) WBGconverse 08:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks, I didn't think my comment contributed much; everything appears to be settled now, but nothing is resolved yet. Alex Shih (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


Please do me a favour and block my account indefinitely. I have failed in the German language Wikipedia; apparently, I am a vandal and not knowledgable at all. Thank you for all your help and goodbye. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian, I actually went and read the discussion at de:Portal Diskussion:Auto und Motorrad since I was curious. I thought it was slightly similar to the trouble you have experienced here; sometimes it's better to go with the consensus, even when you think the consensus is wrong. Enjoy your break and let me know when you want to return. Alex Shih (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juche-Capitalism[edit]

Hi Alex Shih. Would you mind taking a look at this AfD? I think there might be some WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT going on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Salvio giuliano already dealt with them. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
renamed Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.


  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Documenting community bans[edit]

Hi. At User talk:Northamerica1000, you said that community bans need to be documented at Wikipedia:Editing restriction. However, I don't see any full site bans documented there - topic bans, interaction bans etc, but not site bans (and we do have plenty of site-banned editors). The "Types of restrictions" section also lists a number of restrictions, but does not include full site bans. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I will be the first one to admit that WP:RESTRICT is a mess. It is something that should be done consistently per current instructions but I guess back in the days was never really done properly. The rarity of how site bans are implemented recently in addition to the high profile nature of this user (10k+ edits, former admin) should mean that everything needs to be documented and linked clearly, so that when the user wish to exercise their right to appeal (this instruction is also currently missing), it will be easier to review. Alex Shih (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's particularly important to document this one properly, but the total absence of site bans documented there made me wonder if they're documented elsewhere. Anyway, I'll start a precedent by documenting this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the top of the WP:RESTRICT, "editors who are subject to site bans are listed at Category:Banned Wikipedia users instead", so that's where they're documented, I suppose, Boing! said Zebedee. WP:RESTRICT AFAIK is mainly there because it can be hard to know if someone is TBANed etc or not; not the case with a site ban. There used to be a list of banned users but it was deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, missed that, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom resignation[edit]

I hope all is well with you. Your resignation will be a loss to the committee. The times I have read your commentary it has been insightful and, in my opinion, generally focused on the important things and avoided distractions. I hope you will continue to participate at the various administrative boards since your voice often brings calm and balance to matters when it is needed. Jbh Talk 18:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm sorry to see this. You were one of the few Arbs in living memory who maintained a direct connection with the content creation aspects of Wikipedia and had a real-world view of the kinds of issues that entails. It's a dreadful loss for the already very bleak future for Arbcom this time round. Hopefully you'll continue to contribute just as you did before. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. I will be around. Alex Shih (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the reasons were, but I was surprised to see this. I really very much appreciate the work that you have done, and I think that you have shown yourself to be a very kind and thoughtful person. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I echo everyone else's thoughts, and I thank you for your service on ArbCom - it's more than I'd ever be prepared to do! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for running and serving during the time that you did. I hope your real-world commitments do not prove too burdensome or harrowing, and that they all turn out well. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Definitely had our disagreements, but thank you for volunteering for a thankless task, and I hope you can get back to what you enjoy doing here Face-smile.svg - TNT 💖 09:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't believe we have ever interacted, but I have observed your work for a short while now. Although I generally stay in the background and don't involve myself in matters, it is important to me that I tell you that I appreciate your work. I have not once seen a comment, post, or action from you that I found inappropriate, unreasonable, or indicative of poor judgement. To the contrary, your activity anywhere and everywhere seems to consistently be exemplary of how editors ought to behave. Thank you for that. I wish you the best in whatever has precipitated this resignation. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all. Alex Shih (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Can you tell me that what us needed, beside 500 edits at the mainspace, to be applicable for New Page Reviewer? Good day, Regards, Knightrises10 (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Knightrises10: For me, you would need a few more months of active editing, and maybe some demonstrated article reviewing experience. Perhaps you should try WP:AfC reviewing first if you haven't done so already? Alex Shih (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for telling. For Afc reviewing, will I have to request the permissions first? Knightrises10 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Knightrises10: Yes, I see you have requested already. You don't seem to have 500 edits to the mainspace? That's necessary for AfC as well. Usually when you don't have that requirement, alternatively it's better if you have some solid content creation; Faizan Shaikh is probably not a satisfactory example. Alex Shih (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Alex Shih. I just did a thorough reading of WP:ER/UC and there is some misunderstanding about its procedures. This page created by you after merging from the main page.[1]

It seems that Swarm has been using this page by picking up the part "These warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator.." but not the rest that "" accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking. Restrictions may be logged here but must be logged as a permalink or diff in the unblock log." The several entries logged by him[2][3][4] didn't involved any restriction or unblock in exchange but appears to be single admin notes designed as "final warning", however even that needs to come only after a sanction had been imposed.

Kindly clarify the purpose. Thanks Accesscrawl (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: You might want to start a wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions or WP:AN for more exposure, because you do have a legitimate point about there is some inconsistency in how these final warnings are implemented. None of the procedure here is policy; personally my understanding of "purpose" is to promote best practice, and that is going to be different from person to person. Alex Shih (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK review[edit]

I did get pinged at this page, but that was later dealt with further in postings to my own talk page. It left me with the impression that whoever raised this issue in the first place had finished dealing with it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: I don't understand what "talk page stalker" means. The most obvious meaning doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we're talking about. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) (Geddit?) @Michael Hardy: Well; the concept has been around for sometime now—it's almost as old as you, here—so it seems odd that you might have missed it :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: It's still not clear, but now I can hazard a guess: You're saying Alex Shih was identifying himself as one of those. Is that what you take that parenthetical notation of his to mean? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hardy, I can't believe I am doing this, but I will try again. On the left side of the browser, there is a link "Page information". Inside that page, there is a section called "Number of page watchers". Many regular editors like to keep other regular editor's user talk page on their watchlist (I am sure you do this too?); when they feel like they want to respond to people posting at other editor's talk page, it's common courtesy to identify themselves as one of the page watchers (otherwise it would be like, where the heck did you come from?). Of course this has nothing to do with anything. Back to the topic: there are outstanding concerns at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Georg_Cantor's_first_set_theory_article. If you can address those when you have time, that would be great. Alex Shih (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
((_*_) Buttinsky) <— allows for a bit of levity but I'm thinking Michael is more likely to use (talk page watcher) if he uses anything at all. 😊 Atsme📞📧 02:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.


Dear Alex,

thank you for helping me with your original post on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#(2)_Read-only_access_to_deleted_edits?.

It was helpful to me that you provided links to articles in WP space, which explained in detail why a YES to my request would never be possible.

Now, I am a bit worried that I have inadvertently caused irritation to a lot of editors due to my lack of knowledge. I am sorry. In the start I asked 1 single admin, Anthony, for such access. He posted my question on the noticeboard, not me. I was not aware of this noticeboard until it was already closed. I could not decode all the jargon and wished to ask an additional question. Which you directly answered to my satisfaction: your posting helped me understand the background of all of it. That is cannot be done for legal reasons. External.

To my surprise, only after stating I was satisfied and needed no more replies, a whole discussion broke loose on the merits of blocking me? I meant no disrespect and did not mean to cause trouble. At the moment I think it is most wise to shut up - or do you have some advice for me?

I am not American, so American culture is rather alien to me.

--Mick2 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

((_*_) Buttinsky) Mick2, I am American and American culture is rather alien to me, too. 😊 Atsme📞📧 20:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) To be strictly accurate, after Anthony asked on your behalf and it was explained that what you're requesting couldn't be done for legal reasons, you didn't say you were satisfied and needed no more replies, you:
  1. Opened a second, thread demanding that "Any User with an account should be granted access to all Delete Pages, on request";
  2. Ranted incoherently that Stalin, Trump and Putin were infiltrating Wikipedia;
  3. Claimed that "special interest groups hire students and agents to promote their viewpoint on wikipedia";
  4. Approached Mike Godwin to see if he'd support you being given permission to view deleted content;
  5. Claimed "Maybe there are more possibilities" (of you being given permission to view deleted content);
  6. Posted this gibberish which is hard to make sense of but appears to be an unsubstantiated claim that Wikipedia is being manipulated by unspecified external forces;
  7. Insinuated that Wikipedia is undergoing 'serious manipulation'.
If you're wondering just why people are looking askance at you, you may want to ponder that your apparent notion that Wikipedia is being targeted by some kind of conspiracy, your obsession with deleted edits (in which you presumably hope to find some evidence of said conspiracy), and your near-total lack of constructive contributions, may possibly have something to do with it. ‑ Iridescent 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Is that all? Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mick2: I think Iridescent has summed up the situation pretty accurately, and if you stand back and try to see it from the perspective of those observing, can you really not see why there might be uncertainty about your motives? My suggestion is that you drop your pursuit of trying to rectify whatever it is you think might be wrong with Wikipedia, and just spend some time helping improve articles - at least until you have a substantial record of productive contributions. That's what we really need here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


G'day Alex, I'm just wondering about your support vote on the Milhist coord election page, where you said "When it comes to mediation, I think there is some further work to do". I'm always keen to improve my editing where I can, and am wondering what specifically are you referring to? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hi, it was a vague reference to the GWE case; to be fair my subsequent sentence suggested there may be nothing to improve short of perfection. I thought that the dedication of many coordinators to the MILHIST project may have deprived them of some objectivity to few of the problems within their common practice. Perhaps I was trying to articulate the thought that moving forward, we can be more inclusive while separate user conduct from content issues better. Hopefully this makes sense. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Slow Vandalism[edit]

A 2001:8003 address is whittling away at Dave Hughes. Over 10 cuts since the line with your name, talking about protection.

The article needs updating.

31 September?? (Your return.) MBG02 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


This user continue to disruptive editing in m:Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Fauzty after indefinite in and abuse:vandalism,personal attacks and disruptive editing).--MCC214Talk with me#Contributions with me 09:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'm exhausted. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


Has anyone told you that you're a "smart aleck"? If so, they misspelled your username and may not understand who you are - you're a smart AleX - which explains why so many editors had faith in your judgment and wanted you to be on ArbCom. I hope that whatever RL burdens/time constraints caused you to resign are remedied expeditiously. Best wishes... Atsme✍🏻📧 22:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme. Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Chinese-language templates[edit]

Can you take a look at Special:Contributions/Wiki celestial? This user created a bunch of Chinese-language categories and templates, and I can't quite tell what they're doing. I accidentally deleted Template:User language-2 when I meant to tag it for deletion (wrong key in Twinkle) and restored it. Then I saw the rest of them... whoa. That's a lot of boxes, and I can't read what any of them say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, all of these are just strange/trivial categories/user templates copied straight from Chinese Wikipedia, some of them perhaps from mirrored versions. None of these should be here especially without attribution, so I have taken the liberty and deleted them all. As for this user, this is either returning nuisance (especially coupled with this) that I cannot immediately recognise, or a simple case of misuse as web host, in which either case should be blocked (as I have done). Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say![edit]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Alex Shih. Just curious if those posts you revdel'd from my user talk had anything to do with User talk:King Arthur 517#Please stop, who is probably Crispgatoglitz. If you can't go into specifics, then no big deal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, it was the same quacking nonsense now that you mention it, so 100% related. Alex Shih (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there would be any benefit to posting something on Crispgatoglitz's user talk to let them know that I cannot unblock their account and also let them know about WP:OFFER. I thought about doing that, but then thought that it might only encourage more EVADE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Probably not; I don't think they possess the competency, so ignoring is probably the best option. By the way, do you have any preference about temporary semi-protection of your talk page if it happens again? Since it has never been protected, I was just wondering. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I just deleted and removed the last bunch of posts and asked them to stop. Basically, they repetively posted, deleted, posted, deleted as if they believed they were sending some kind of signal that I would only see. If there's anything inappropriate that needs to be revdel'd, then that can be done; otherwise, I didn't really find it too disruptive. Perhaps they'll get tired and stop when they feel there's really nothing I can do to help their situation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Northern Expedition[edit]

I've made a go at filling in the gaps in our article on the Northern's been quite a bit of work. I've also got a new map in the works, courtesy of fellow editor Goran tek-en. I've noted your prior contribution to the article, and was wondering if you could perhaps give your opinion as to whether the current article is lacking any sort of necessary content or sub-sections...I'd like it to go to GA review, but I'm not certain it's ready. Would be much obliged for your assistance. RGloucester 19:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Hey! I've been seeing your name on my watchlist. Awesome efforts, thank you. I have been thinking about initiating GA review for this article for a while, I think it's definitely ready now after your tireless efforts. I might do that sometimes today or tomorrow if you haven't beat me to it by then. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, how kind of you! I'm just adding a bit of aftermath-related stuff, but it's nearly good to go, I think. When I get the chance to go to the library, I'll add a bit more about the 'aftermath in the Soviet Union', which is well covered in the Borodin book. Other than that, Goran tek-en is drawing up a map from scratch, but his works are beautiful, and well worth the wait. RGloucester 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've noticed the existence of 715 Incident...the article itself seems to be made up largely of content that should be at the Wuhan government article, and little about the actual events of 15 July. Perhaps we could work on a merger? I feel like this might be a problem of rival historiographies of the same events, i.e. PRC version v. ROC, but I'm not sure. Your knowledge would help in dealing with this... RGloucester 23:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @RGloucester: 715 Incident probably deserves its own article, but other than that I think you are correct (I've partially responded at Talk:Wuhan government). Topics relating/involving Wang Jingwei will invariably require digging through biased sources from both PRC and ROC versions, and compare neutrally to the limited number of mentions there seems to be in English accounts. I'll try to work on them too (focusing on Chinese sources). Alex Shih (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello again, Mr Shih. I've been working on the Mikhail Borodin article, which has contained this picture. I've seen a lot of pictures of Borodin...including from that same time period, and I've never seen him looking like that. He never appears to have had a shaved head, and other pictures all show his both his hair and meticulous moustache. In other words, I'm questioning the validity of this photograph. Whilst there are many times Borodin would've stood by Chiang at Whampoa, I have a feeling that this might be some other advisor. I think this is the 'best' picture of him I've seen from that period. Vasily Blyukher is sitting to the left, though he's not mentioned by the caption. The difference is very clear. Can you perhaps verify the source of the questionable photograph, which is in Chinese? I don't necessarily trust that website to begin any case, I'd appreciate your help. RGloucester 15:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@RGloucester: That's definitely a questionable website, and I cannot verify the source because it really only says "stock photo"; although it's probably taken from the Internet as it was available as early as 2009 ([5]). I think you are right, this doesn't look like Borodin compared to other images available during the same time frame. There are many lists of Soviet advisors that was in Whampoa from Chinese documents, but they don't put the original Russian names so I'll have to dig through them. It does look strikingly similar to this gentleman, first one the right, with Sun Yat-Sen in 1924 (from National Humanity History). In the caption, Borodin is credited as the first one from the left, which ironically looks more like Vasily Blyukher (the third one from the right looks similar to Pavel Andreevich Pavlov; not sure about the other one yet). So I am quite confused; who is this person on the right? What do you think? Alex Shih (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the fellow on the left is a certain Victor Pavlovich Rogachev, who was apparently chief of staff of the NRA. I can't seem to find anything about that bearded fellow...his appearance is very distinctive, but nothing's turned up from the names in the book. In any case, I'm certain he's not Borodin, so I'll mark the Commons as such. RGloucester 03:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).


Administrator changes

added JustlettersandnumbersL235
removed BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.


  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:First Opium War/GA2[edit]

Alex Shih, just a ping to let you know that this is ready for further review from you when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

William A. P. D[edit]

Hi Alex. I'm a bit confused by your VOA block of this user - their single edit does not look like vandalism, there's nothing in their filter logs or deleted contributions, and I can't see any sign of a connection to another account (although I haven't run a checkuser...). Am I missing something here? Yunshui  07:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Hi Yunshui. Where do I begin? The gibberish unblock request aside (which is actually consistent with their edit), every element in their single edit is suggestive of VOA; I'll highlight the major ones (looking past other deliberate errors introduced): blatant hoax, changing "八九民运" (August 9th movement) to a nonsensical name "李顺", changing the Chinese text "事件" (incident) to "口交" (oral sex), changing "June Fourth" to "June Fifth", changing subsection "List of 21 most wanted student leaders" to "Tiananmen’s 21 Most Wanted List", another non-existent name invented. Personally I think a check would be worthwhile (as this manner of masquerading vandalistic edits looks very familiar to some LTA patterns), but that's no longer my concern now. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of those I might overlook as good faith changes, but the changes to the Chinese text are pretty blatant now that you point them out (I really must expand my vocabulary to more than just a handful of characters...). Thank you for clarifying; I think, based on your explanation, that a CU might be worthwhile, so I'll let you know if I find anything. Needless to say, I won't be unblocking! Yunshui  08:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
CU turns up nothing out of the ordinary, I'm afraid. Yunshui  08:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yunshui: I see, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Abusive IP[edit]

Hi Alex, thanks for revdel-ing the abusive IP message from my talk page. You were so fast I didn't even get a chance to read it, lol! But I don't really need to read it to know what it says. It's an old hyper-racist troll I've been dealing with for years. Check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProfessorJane. -Zanhe (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Haha, yes. It was nothing creative, otherwise I would have left it for you to enjoy. Come to think about it, I think a few of these may be from our old friend also. In hindsight I think CU tools doesn't really help much with this kind of cases; it's yet another argument for you to have the admin bits so you can block them yourself! Alex Shih (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool, looks like we have a common friend! I think they're back again, see [6] [7] [8]. We can probably call our friend Jane Huang, haha. And thanks for your encouragement. I still prefer to concentrate on writing articles for now, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind if things go too out of the hand! Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Nice, I have blocked all the IP address and locked a couple pages. Alex Shih (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please block Jessechi’ IP[edit]

Hello , Alex Shih. You may forget my message[9]. Now he continues to use the IP to create new sock puppetry,like[10][11].

He also uses IP to play a prank again, like[12].

--Outlookxp (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Outlookxp: IP blocked for 6 months, sock account blocked indefinitely. I will continue to keep watch too, thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

About your comment[edit]

Thank you for your kindness. Though I still can not access to Japanese-Wikipedia... I abandon that. Thank you. --uiki-pedeo (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

more BS[edit]

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics despite all the furor it brings. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Deletion review for User:JzG/Politics[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:JzG/Politics. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That was quick. Like I said.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Aannd I've closed that discussion. DRV is not for re-litigating an XfD: SirJoseph is welcome to open a new XfD if they believe that to be the best use of the community's time, which it isn't. Vanamonde (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've reopened the twice closed AN thread. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Vojislav Marinković[edit]

Hello, Alex. I saw that last year you protected Vojislav Marinković indefinitely from being created by non-admin users, due to its persistent creation without references and sources. I would really appreciate if you lift that protection, since I would like to create that article, this time with sources, of course... Or, you can create it yourself if you wish. --Sundostund (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sundostund: I've removed the creation protection. Alex Shih (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I will create it today or tomorrow, possibly as English translation of the article which already exist on Spanish Wikipedia. --Sundostund (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Perspex03[edit]

Might wish to block their talk page access. They're not using it for unblock requests, but for soapboxing. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: I don't see a point, since they have made just one edit after the block and looks unlikely to make another one. Probably off to another account. Alex Shih (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible multiple accounts[edit]

Hi Alex. While checking on some WP:NFCC#9 violations, I came across MENONNTHEanger and MENONNTHEranger. At first I thought this might be a new editor who created an account, and then another account to correct a spelling mistake in the username. However, both accounts have been used to edit the same article. There doesn't seem to be overlapping of edits; so, maybe they forgot their password or something and just decided to create a new account. Do you think there's anything here to be concerned about? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yeah, probably, since there was another account before that (User:MENONTHEranger) in which you have encountered at the time as well. As long as it's not used concurrently with the intention to deceive, I don't really see any issues other than the close paraphrasing they have done in the past. Alex Shih (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Julia Wróblewska[edit]

Hi, I know you deleted this page earlier. But what about this variant of the page? I've tried to make the person notable, as there are a lot of newspapers and journals independent from the subject which write analytical article about Wróblewska. Or should I do something more? Gurte (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gurte: At the current state without really any reliable sources (blogstar doesn't look reliable to me, and I wouldn't use her website as a source), it will probably be deleted again. You can try using WP:AfC. Alex Shih (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Chao protection[edit]

Hi, you need to renew the protections because the COI sock-puppets are back. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Sorry but there is never the "need". I have blocked the latest account, but since there has only been one edit, renewing protection is not completely justified right now. Alex Shih (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
One more[13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible multiple accounts again[edit]

Hi again Alex. I think I may have stumbled upon another one of these types of users editing as Ashik168660 and AshikHasanBD. Again there is really no simultaneous editing, but there is lots of overlap. I guess it's possible that Ashik168660 decided to start afresh after blanking their user talk page (probably due to the warnings posted on it), but basically creating a new account to make the same (suspect) edits does not seem like a good idea even if it's technically not socking. Do you think anything needs to be done here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, this is definitely abuse in my books. Blocked the older account for copyright violations and blocked the second account for abusing multiple accounts. Thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please watch[edit]

Stanley Kubrick. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: The talk page discussion? I don't think it will go anywhere nor out of control. There is a way to resolve the madness but the system is not there; until then my only concern is to show the door to those who are not interested in contributing to the building of the encyclopedia. Alex Shih (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. That's what I meant. I remember your interest in peace in the matter. Lack of good faith seems a main problem. Why is someone perhaps interested in accessibility accused of "stirring a pot"? I made a recommendation to not even start another RfC, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Gerda I would say that particular user is being incredibly disruptive, and had they continued with their silly personal commentaries I would have blocked them outright. Although whether or not they are actually new is irrelevant, but this kind of approach is counter-productive and it's frustrating because like you said, my interest is the peace in the matter and since I don't create much content anyways, I am not too invested, but I do create enough to not dismiss these concerns as non-issues like some of the arbcom members; if I am correct I think I agree with your approach; let the nature take its course. It's never wise to "force" anything to happen. Alex Shih (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I recently read a good comment by Voceditenore: live and let live. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yet another instance of the same thing[edit]

Hello Alex,

I have seen that there is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles whether the term Cars or Automobiles should be used. One of the authors involved says that „automobile is also an Americanism which does not occur elsewhere“ – I can very much relate to that, I guess you remember that I had problems with the precise definition of automobile. I have no idea (and I seriously do not care) whether it will be called Cars or Automobiles, but let's imagine the Wikiproject's name would be changed to Cars. How would such a change affect my topic ban? Would an automobile ban still cover vehicles such as the Unimog? I have already asked Andy Dingley, he recommended appealing the ban, but, I suppose that some editors would still say that it would be too early, that my edit count is too low, etc. – which is why I am still looking for articles to edit; I could easily overhaul the Unimog article but I am not sure if that is a good idea. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Johannes Maximilian: Sorry for the late response. I would personally not even look at these kind of discussions as it would drive anyone insane. Anyways the renaming discussion should have zero effect on existing topic bans. If you are making occasional edits to the content of articles about machineries for example, I see no reason why anyone should chase you after that. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


Trick or Treat!!!

Happy Halloween!
Why are demons and ghouls always together?
  • Because demons are a ghoul's best friend.

What happens when you goose a ghost?

  • You get a hand full of sheet.

Atsme✍🏻📧 00:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Coverage in other languages[edit]

Alex - do you have time to do a quick search online for media coverage (in languages you speak other than English) of the 2018 Youth Olympic Games (YOG) held in Brazil or possibly refer me to a multi-lingual editor who can check to see if there’s any media coverage on the Australian Women’s Hockey Team (field hockey) or that feature any of the following athletes - Naomi Duncan, Grace Young, or Morgan Mathison? They placed 5th at the YOG but they were also undefeated during their South African tour prior to the YOG. I think 2018 was the first ever for the Australian women Youth Olympic Games hockey 5s team. There are several videos of broadcasts with play-by-play action on YouTube so I’m thinking there should be print media as well. Atsme✍🏻📧 12:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I've been having less time recently; if it's not too late I'll try to do a search now although I have a feeling I may not be much help. Alex Shih (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I did some searches in both Chinese and Japanese (Hockey 5s at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics in Buenos Aires); couldn't find any coverage I am afraid. Perhaps it could be found at local print media, I don't know. Alex Shih (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Alex. Atsme✍🏻📧 09:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Atsme: One thing you might try (if you haven't done so already) is checking to see if there are other articles written about the games in other language Wikipedias. These can typically be found in the left-hand sidebar under "Languages". Most non-English Wikipedias don't seem to be as rigorous about requiring citations for article content, but you might find some non-English sources that way. Whether anything you find will specifically cover Australian Women's Hockey or these particular athletes is something you may need to look at individual sources to figure out; however, it would seem more likely for such coverage to be found in Australian sources or field hockey related sources than general non-English sources, unless any of them by chance play in some overseas field hockey league. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I haven’t tried that, but will. Thank you, MJ. Atsme✍🏻📧 09:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Atsme: I did some searches in German; however, I did not find anything either. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Interesting - thanks. On the advice of Marchjuly, I found other pages about the Youth Olympics citing various refs. Example: French WP Youth Olympics, but I can't read French, or do the type of research I need to do because of the language barrier. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: Despite citing many sources, the French article does not mention the Australian field hockey team, so I am afraid that the French article will not help you. Well, I also did searches both in Russian and Hungarian, and, as expected, I could not find any information either. I suppose that the information you are looking for is too specific and I am almost sure that you will not find what you are looking for since the media coverage of the YOG was rather underwhelming. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thx Johannes - actually, I'm gradually figuring out how to refine my searches, and just came up with this article showing the YOG medalists - China took the Bronze - but it's going to take some digging to find articles about the Australian team in the competing countries. The 12 teams that competed were Australia, Austria, China, India, Mexico, Namibia, Poland, South Africa, Uruguay, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe. I did find some South African articles since the Australian team was undefeated when they competed in the South Africa tour. At least now I know where to look. 😊 Thanks again! Atsme✍🏻📧 00:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Asian Month 2018[edit]

Could you review articles published in Fountain for Asian Month? [14] --Agusbou2015 (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Will do that today, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.


  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Asian Month 2018[edit]

Please review all articles submitted in Fountain for Asian Month. [15] --Agusbou2015 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Expedition[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northern Expedition you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Candidacy[edit]

Well, well.

Follow me to join the secret cabal!


That one is a minnow. I once gave someone a whale for creative shouting in a way that is even more disruptive than using block capitals, which was using 24-point type to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Another possible multiple account editor[edit]

Hi again Alex. I came across Nessi6 and Nessi Narathip while doing cleanup at 2018–19 V.League Division 1 Men's (I think the title of that article might need some tweaking assuming the subject's Wikipedia notable) and the similarity in the user names makes me think they might be connected in someway. A little more digging shows that Nessi Narathip also editing at Draft:2018–19 V.League Division 1 Women's (another title which might need some tweaking) where Taechanbestzombie also edited and was just blocked for socking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saren555. Do you think there might be a connection between the confirmed sock and the other two accounts or is it just a coincidence? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Behaviour is probably unrelated to that SPI. Very strange to have two dormant accounts to suddenly start editing actively and concurrently (there's nothing in their deleted contributions; CU probably isn't going to be useful); I am not seeing much abuse though other than CIR, undeclared ALT, uploading non-free images... Should be fine to block both accounts after a couple warnings. Alex Shih (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I posted on Nessi6's user talk after reverting this this edit; so, I guess we'll soon see if they are WP:HERE. There's simply no way to justify 600+ uses of non-free team logos in a single article no matter how well meaning the person wanting to add them is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thanks. If they make another edit adding non-free images (in addition to poorly sourced contents) and I will block both accounts; sorry for your trouble, I'll be watching this so you can take it easy. Alex Shih (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
No trouble on my part since the files didn't need to be individually removed like they did the first time. FWIW, even though the editor hasn't yet responded to my post, they have not restored the files and seem to be working in good faith to improve the article in other ways. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


Since you have presumably settled in after your overseas move, do you think you might have actual time to serve on ArbCom this year? If so, please get your candidacy in. It ends in a few days, and we need more good people to run (only four candidates so far for six openings, and only two of the candidates are admins). Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 14:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Softlavender, Alex was elected as an Arbcom last year, but resigned in September Hhkohh (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of that fact, which is why I said "Since you have presumably settled in after your overseas move" (the move was one of the reasons Alex didn't have time to remain on ArbCom), and "do you think you might have actual time to serve on ArbCom this year" (since he found he didn't have time in the midst of his last period on the committee). Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
(+1) You are missed. And, there is only one candidate running....... WBGconverse 14:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It's good. I am not the only one seeing so.... –Ammarpad (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The election will be fine. Power of change lies outside the realm. Alex Shih (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 for November 11[edit]

Hi, I made a request at WT:DYK to hold off on promoting Prep 1 to queue so we could get more WWI hooks together, but I guess you didn't see it. There's another one in the special occasions holding area now. Could you move Stan Griffiths to a later prep set and put Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Joy Whitehead here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Sorry I didn't see this in time. I am on mobile now so unable to do it until later. Alex Shih (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Asian Month 2018[edit]

Could you review articles submitted in Fountain for Asian Month? [16] --Agusbou2015 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Agusbou2015: Yes, but now that we have two additional "judges" (Sky Harbor and SuperHamster) that are far more experienced than I am in this, I hope you will not remind me and myself only. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 5#File:Fiio f9.jpg[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 5#File:Fiio f9.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex. Since you're an admi, an OTRS volunteer and also understand Chinese (I believe), I'm wondering if you might be able to help sort this out. It seems the uploader of the file has gotten a bit frustrated by the process; so, if there's a more simple fix to all of this (perhaps he can just forward the emails he received from the headphones company to OTRS?), then any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't quite know what's going on yet but I will take a look soon. Alex Shih (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)