User talk:Deryck Chan/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! Deryck C. 13:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we have this somewhere in en.wp?

Somehow, I cannot find if we have modeled the whole Chinese family tree in English Wikipedia. Are you aware of somewhere that we've done this? Example: [1]. I can only find Chinese kinship. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: No, I'm not aware of the article and the lack of a diagram. The terms tend to be very geography-specific, though (from personal experience) there seems to be a Mandarin standard and a Cantonese standard which are widespread and have agreed names for everybody within 3 degrees of kinship. The PDF you cited conflates Mandarin and Cantonese standard terms slightly, as is the Wikipedia article. The best online sources I've found are these two YouTube videos by the same Chinese-American channel: Cantonese standardMandarin standard and this Android app (HK Cantonese standard): [2] --Deryck C. 11:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that Youtube is great. I'm a bit surprised no one has taken this project up. I ran into this when I was looking into Wikidata, to see if these had been modeled there. It hadn't. Then I realized it was not even written up well in Wikipedia. Can you check to see if zh.wp has it any meaningful way, and would you be interested in finding folks to try to tackle this? Thanks! -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: I'm not surprised. This system is so culture-specific that I'd argue Wikidata ought not to model it. (In fact I got "Uncle" and "Aunt" deleted 4 years ago.) @春卷柯南: You might be interested in this? Deryck C. 12:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Revolutionary War listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Revolutionary War. Since you had some involvement with the Revolutionary War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Appah Rao (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Appah Rao: Thanks for the message. The previous RfD was sufficiently long ago so it is appropriate to reopen the discussion. I participated in the previous RfD on a purely clerical basis and have no personal opinion on this topic. Deryck C. 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Deryck, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: You're welcome! Have fun with your new buttons. Deryck C. 14:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Open access journal

Hello Thomas. Thanks for your Wikipedia email. At this stage I'm not sure what I can commit to, but I'd be interested to know more about the proposed wiki-based scientific journal. Can we continue the discussion by talk page messages so there will be a public record of it? Deryck C. 12:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: Talkpage discussion works fine for me (I've it moved to your talk page but feel free to move back to mine). The background is that WikiJournals are an attempt to improve Wikipedia-academia integration by encouraging contribution by outside experts (both in writing and peer-reviewing) in a format that is more familiar to most academics, and generates citable publications. There has been a WikiJournal of Medicine running for a while now. There has been interest in extending this to a broader WikiJournal of Science that would encompass all STEM topics. There are a few physicist on board, but I'm reaching out to some people from additional fields to ask if they'd be interested in helping out. The main tasks would be to invite authors to submit works, and to organise expert peer reviews. It wouldn't have to be a huge number, but just a few articles to build a first issue. I'll be helping to build the necessary infrastructure pages over the coming weeks. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

References

@Evolution and evolvability: I'm not sure I'm qualified to be a reviewer...? What is your target group of contributors? Deryck C. 17:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: At the moment, we're more looking for people either able to organise external peer of submissions (to differentiate from GA and FA), and to help wikify and format submissions from authors who've never used Wikipedia before. You can see a few more details at this page (any redlinks from it should be blue in the next few days as I finish site construction). The workload wouldn't be high. Helping to organise peer review involves searching for qualified reviewers on google scholar (and sending pre-formtted review requests), and formatting would require watching this page. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Deryck - no trick questions, just sincerely trying to sort through a few things in my head. Do you consider "affirmative bias" and "racial equivalency" as being in the same category? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No. I have never heard of the latter term and there is no Wikipedia article about it. Deryck C. 18:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Racial equivalence" is a better choice of words - it's along the same lines as False equivalence, except the latter is broader in scope because it takes in gender issues. Perhaps "affirmative bias" plays into it as well, depending on one's perspective? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I still don't understand. Is "racial equivalence" a state of affairs (all races are just the same), a moral value (one believes that all races should be treated equally in all matters), or a policy proposition (to enact rules so that different races would reach some standard of equivalence)? Deryck C. 17:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Deryck Chan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chiu Yeng Ho

Hey Deryck Chan. Would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiu Yeng Ho since you have contributed to many closely related topics and have a level of expertise in this field? Thanks. Cashannam (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: User:Cashannam was blocked as a sockpuppet in a subsequent SPI. Deryck C. 14:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishes

It's that time of the year again, Deryck. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking you for all you do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung! I hope you have a lovely Christmas too. Deryck C. 11:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Deryck Chan!!


Hi Deryck Chan, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ana Prvacki

Hi, The page listed below was deleted several years ago. Is it still possible to write up another page ? However, don't know what the old content looked like. Thanks! Abonzz

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ana_Prvacki&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Abonzz: According to the previous deletion debate, the subject of this biography wanted the page to be deleted, so I hesitate to restore the content. If you want to write an article about Ana Prvacki I would recommend you to start afresh. Deryck C. 22:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: Here is the new article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Prvacki Thanks! Abonzz

Jewish Fraternities

FYI I've gone ahead and created a quick and dirty list at List of Jewish fraternities and sororities per JHunterJ. I've restored the deleted redirect and pointed it there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Good work Amory. Thank you. I've added a category tag and a relevant template to the new list. Deryck C. 16:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: I've done some other additions, see my comments on the talk page for the article.Naraht (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

LGTM! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

11 years of adminship

Wishing Deryck Chan a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

HK Cantonese

Yea, that appears to be a very specific case of "which". I can't think of another. Nevertheless, it's correct, so I've reverted back. Thanks. Also learning to reply to your message. There needs to be a better system of talk! Krilloilbob (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Krilloilbob

Which is the specific case which uses bin-go for "which"? Sorry, I don't edit enough to know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krilloilbob (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Replied on User talk:Krilloilbob. Deryck C. 09:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for IPBE

For TOR use due to my safty and additional local block. Holds GIPBE. Many thanks.--1233^Talk 14:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

SPI and RfA

If your knowledge in SPIis much more than Sro23, why did not you be an SPI clerk? I know you leave a message on my talk page. Hhkohh (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, you are admin. Hhkohh (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to say this as politely but forwardly as possible... I do not think this would be a good idea. An SPI clerk application from Deryck Chan would have almost no chance of being accepted given the fact that three checkusers and an SPI admin clerk essentially said he was wrong. Mkdw ^talk 04:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I think that Hhkohh was trying to be snarky. That's the way I read it, at least. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC about listing Hong Kong in airline destination lists

Hello Deryck. You were the filer of a report at AN3, and you also made this comment there. The content question has been discussed in an RFC on the talk page of List of Singapore Airlines destinations. If you are hoping that this RfC would settle the dispute reported at AN3, do you want to comment in the RfC requesting an admin close? Usually it's better if at least one participant requests the close. When requesting the close, it would be helpful if you state in your own words what you think the RfC is addressing. (Possibly the question is: "how should the 'country' column in aviation destination lists treat Hong Kong and Macau".). Whoever does the close may also be thinking about the historic disputes on Wikipedia about China vs. Taiwan, and on whether Hong Kong is sovereign, which it actually isn't. The closer might be well advised to tell themselves that this is only about airline destination lists. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Daask closed the RfC and personally I'm fine with the outcome (although hardline Chinese nationalists and Hongkongese nationalists might not). I think the RfC closure was a good starting point towards a workable compromise and will at least dampen the guerilla wars on aviation lists. Deryck C. 16:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Deryck: Just so I'm not confused, would you mind explaining your comment? I'm getting that Hong Kong can now be considered a 'country' (or equivalent) for purposes of these destination lists. Do you perceive that some other articles might also be affected by this decision? At some point, people (perhaps, supporters of Hong Kong) were leaving the country field blank. Is that likely to continue? It doesn't matter if not everything is settled, I'm just trying to tell what the new deal is likely to be, per the RfC result. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would summarise the closure and consensus as:

1. Resist the urge to standardise the "Country" field across all lists
2. The use of "Hong Kong" and "Macao"/"Macau" in the "Country" field should not be presumed wrong
3. If there is disagreement, consult sources
4. If there is disagreement between editors and sources are ambiguous, consider changing the heading to "Country / territory" as one possible compromise.

I haven't been keeping track of changes after the RfC closure due to real-life busyness. I think User:1233 emptied the country field for one or two lists when the edit war got too heated before the RfC closure, but I don't know how many articles have been emptied that way. (1233: Do you know how many and what do you think?) --Deryck C. 19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. Would you consider posting this summary at Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations? Though not everyone may agree with your summary of what the RfC decided, they are free to make their own comments if they wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think I should repost this summary on the discussion page itself. This is because whatever I "summarise" will be perceived as partisan given my own opinions on the issue and for me to post a summary is likely to reignite more controversy than necessary. Let's leave Daask's closing summary alone at least until the next debate in this topic area flares up. Deryck C. 21:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

May I direct your attention to a Phab task?

Hi there. Just a reminder that https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T188206 still needs your attention. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberpower678. There's currently a thread on yue.wp where we're crowdsourcing the decisions and translations. I'll get back to you when we have the answers Deryck C. 10:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

This wording is different than the article. I will leave a note in the RfC about the difference.

Proposal: "The purported health benefits resulting from its biological activities have not been demonstrated in humans." The current wording is much shorter. See "the purported health benefits have not been demonstrated in humans". It is missing the key part about the biological activities. This compromise proposal has not been accepted by consensus into the article. QuackGuru (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The original RfC started by WikiGJay has received zero input from uninvolved editors. I think the RfC should continue until a consensus can form for the original proposal and the alternative proposal. If you are not going to reopen the RfC then a new RfC can be started because there has not been enough comments to form a consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I just saw your edit. That changes things a bit. QuackGuru (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• @QuackGuru: (edit conflict) Thanks for the heads up. I don't see huge amounts of disagreement after you have made your compromise proposal. The wording (before my edit just now) was fairly close to the proposal so I incorrectly assumed it was derived from the proposal at hand. I have edited the article to change the wording of that sentence to the talk page proposal's version. My feeling of the two RfCs that I "closed" was that RfC wasn't really an appropriate process for the issue at hand - the RfC process is indeed designed to invite participation of uninvolved editors and require another uninvolved editor (preferably admin) to close the discussion, but I don't think the disagreement at hand was intractable. And as you say, putting up the RfC has not generated significant interest from uninvolved editors. We can't exactly arm-twist editors into participating in anything... Deryck C. 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The other RfC is still running. See here. That needs to be closed. If WikiGJay wants to start a new RfC for the original wording I think that would be fine. We both wrote the content together after much discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The bot removed the expired RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• @QuackGuru: Yep, that's the best kind of outcome of a discussion - you find some common ground and can work together without necessarily calling in outside opinion every time. Deryck C. 16:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is okay if WikiGJay starts a new RfC for the original wording? QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @QuackGuru: I would advise against starting another RfC on this article altogether, seeing that the previous two generated little outside participation. If there is any further disagreement, you should first discuss amongst yourselves. Use {{ping}} to inform users who have already participated in previous discussions as necessary. Not raising a formal RfC also gives you lot the flexibility to enact the outcome whenever you think a compromise has been reached. Deryck C. 16:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I think others are not commenting because the topic is very boring. I wanted to make sure the recent reviews were included in each relevant section and the content was accurate for each claim. I will read a few of the sources again to see if I missed anything relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @QuackGuru: Indeed. There's little appetite for dispute here. Actually I was tempted to say in my closing comment "Why did you guys even call an RfC" but I saw that the article was placed under the "alternative therapy" broad-topic sanction so I thought it was fair enough to be cautious. Thanks again for your message and I hope you'll enjoy improving the article. Deryck C. 19:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I finally added the missing content about the current research. Now I am done updating the page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I changed it to "Research has been conducted using biological assays in vitro as well as in vivo studies using rats.[22]".[3] QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There is another RfC here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• @QuackGuru: I closed both RfCs as a bundle because the second RfC is a refinement of the first RfC, and I found that I couldn't close either section fairly without considering arguments expressed in the other section. You may have noticed that I referred to the use of the word "minimize", which is only used in the second RfC section. Deryck C. 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Alright. There are numerous medical sources that directly address the marketing claims. Any competent editor familiar with the topic can write a lengthy article (over 200,000 bytes) without violating any policy. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Sun

Hello and thank you for closing the recent RM and retargetting The Sun. Technically, The Sun (disambiguation) is now a malplaced disambiguation page; it should be moved to The Sun (leaving a redirect). Normally I just report these cases at WP:RMTR but as there has been some debate I thought it best to check with you first. Thanks again, Certes (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Certes: I agree with you. The option of moving the disambiguation page to The Sun was only discussed towards the end of the debate but there was no opposition, so I agree with the move, but didn't make it part of the RfD closure. Thanks Feminist for the round-robin move. Deryck C. 14:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about close

Hi Deryck, I just saw your close at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions, and I disagree with it. I think it would be better to close it as no consensus, because while there was a majority view one way, it wasn’t overwhelming and your conditions from the discussion seem a bit like a super-vote that people weren’t actually !voting on. I’d appreciate it if you reconsidered closing this as no consensus, which I think more accurately reflects the discussion, particularly because it was on the low end of support for amending policy: around 60% instead of the 2/3-70% that we usually look for to change policy in practice. Since this was suggested as a change to the banning policy, you’d usually want a larger support than that, and I don’t think there were particularly strong reasons to make the change that would push it to close the way it did. I know RfCs are not votes, but you seemed to rely a lot on the numbers in your close, so I did want to point out that this was actually pretty weak numerically for a change to a major policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks Tony for your eloquent opinion on the original discussion, which has very much shaped the course of discussion and the result, and for your request on my talk page.

I agree with you that the outcome of the discussion affects the policy on editing restrictions. However, I don't think "no consensus" is a feasible outcome, because the status quo is that there is a lack of clarity over who can enforce restrictions logged as "voluntary", and many editors on both sides of the debate seem to want that clarity. Some advocated abolishing the voluntary sanction log altogether which is a big change. My reading of the discussion is that a "no decision" outcome would be less acceptable than either "yes they are enforceable" or "no nobody else may enforce a voluntary restriction".

With that in mind, I see that the most appropriate course of action is to draw up a summary that tries to satisfy the broadest set of opinions expressed in the discussion. Deryck C. 21:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

IAdmin

Hi Deryck Chan, following the support consensus at Special:PermaLink/857995571#IAdmin_temporary_access_request_for_User:Deryck_Chan, I've added temporary IAdmin access to your account. Please keep in touch with the developments at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators for an option to change to permanent access in the future. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 11:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thank you! Deryck C. 11:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:INTADMIN#Alternative proposal, quick expiry only

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:INTADMIN#Alternative proposal, quick expiry only. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Typhoons

It was exciting being in HK for Wikimania as a typhoon blew in and Mangkhut sounds even more thrilling but I trust you will take care. If you get a chance, please take a look at public health engineering – a new article about a branch of civil engineering concerned with public safety. No doubt typhoons keep them busy too... Andrew D. (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Open Multilingual Worldnet

Possibly of interest: http://compling.hss.ntu.edu.sg/omw/ Zazpot (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Thanks. The site says some of its data is extracted from Wiktionary...!? How will that play out in terms of copyright? Deryck C. 12:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: http://compling.hss.ntu.edu.sg/omw/summx.html says, "The complete data collected from Wiktionary is released under a CC by SA 3.0 Licence, and the complete data collected from CLDR is released under the Unicode, Inc. Licence Agreement." So, they seem to be relying (much as Wikidata does in its own context) upon this being "mere aggregation" of "separable" works. IANAL, though. Zazpot (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

On a very tangentially related note, you might appreciate the humour here. Zazpot (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zazpot: This is epic. Thank you. Deryck C. 22:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Annihilation

You might want to revisit this. I was the sole voice against keeping, but I have now changed my recommendation to keep (and edit-conflicted with your relisting doing so!) so it probably doesn't need another week. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: There's still the nominator, but I think you're right. If you changed your recommendation before I pressed relist, I would have closed it as "keep until this movie has an official title, then maybe revisit". I'll do that now. Deryck C. 17:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Moving page history

Sure. There's not really a prevailing convention on this though, just as long as everything gets moved to the talk namespace under a subpage of "Compilation of Final Fantasy VII". Graham87 02:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

All done, with obligatory links at Talk:Compilation of Final Fantasy VII#Old page history. Graham87 13:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Interface Edit Requests - Bot Table

Hello Deryck Chan, as an interface administrator I wanted to let you know that there are two pages you should consider watch-listing: Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard and User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable. The later is a bot-generated table of all outstanding interface edit requests that you may be able to handle. Thank you for your continuing support of Wikipedia! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)