User talk:W.andrea

Barnstars!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Awarded as an expression of gratitude for the careful and effective improvement of dozens of articles. Your work is seen and appreciated! Jlahorn (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! :) — W.andrea (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi W.andrea :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sche

Hello, W.andrea,

You were an active participant in this discussion so you should not have closed this discussion since you closed it to your desired outcome so you were not uninvolved. It also in no way qualified as a "Speedy Keep" so that was incorrect as well. Please do not ever do this again with a deletion discussion or RFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain why? I understand AfD guidelines say not to do that, but I had opened the merge proposal before the AfD started then did the merge myself, leaving nothing more than a redirect, so I didn't see any good reason to leave the AfD open even considering that I was involved. I took it as a case of ignore all rules for the sake of being expeditious. — W.andrea (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I just checked over WP:Speedy keep again and you're right, it didn't qualify at all. It looks like I should have done a "Snow close" instead, yeah? Should I go back and fix that? I mean, edit "speedy keep" to "keep"? — W.andrea (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Dear W.andrea, Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. Could you please officially close the two RfCs below that have the same purpose: to decide on a new Trump profile picture? 1. RfC: Trump infobox photo 2. RfC: Trump photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election#Alternative_options%3F Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't like to get involved in contentious topics. All the best, — W.andrea (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Deportation of Abrego Garcia

Hey. Wanted to say I appreciate your skillful wikignoming. --Kizor 01:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! :) — W.andrea (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the libelous comments on the talk page for Abrego Garcia. I debated about doing that myself but I honestly wouldn’t put it past DHS providing that statement so part of me wanted to find out whether they had said that somewhere. But I’m pretty sure that person was just making up a quotation so thanks for removing. Also I took your note and fixed some ellipses in quotes! Remember (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course! :) It's all our responsibility per WP:BLP. In lieu of replying, I posted on the user's (IP's) talk page to ask for a citation. And glad to hear it! :) Thanks for making Wikipedia easier to read :) — W.andrea (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I think we now know where that commentator got his info. Check out . Strangely that commenter posted that info before I could find this on the internet anywhere. Remember (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Editing others' talk page comments

Discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Template talk:Talk quote inline, is considered bad practice. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Thank you. – (signature removed) 18:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I'm getting too used to editing on Stack Exchange, where adding related info to others' posts is actually encouraged. BTW I redid the formatting fix (ref: WP:TPFIXFORMAT). — W.andrea (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: I edited the above comment 09:17, 7 August and removed the original signature accordingly. The irony is not lost on me. I wanted to remove some irrelevant (rude) details but leave the core message since this has been a continual sticking point. — W.andrea (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

For reference, discussion continued at Jonesey95's talk page

E.g.

Hi, I was wondering why User:W.andrea/drafts/Exempli gratia hasn't been submitted yet. I'm not too knowledgeable about the draft process, but I'm pretty sure actually moving the gigantic footnote into a proper article is much better than the status quo. I'm worried this poor latin phrase will remain stale and eventually be forgotten about :( FaviFake (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I just haven't had the desire to continue with it. If I were going to submit it, I would want to check it over first, meaning read all the references and see if the gigantic footnote is actually worth submitting or whether it would be better to just delete it, or at least substantially pare it down. If you want to copy the draft and run with it, then submit it yourself, by all means. — W.andrea (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I'll consider making a copy and submitting it. Thanks for working on it! FaviFake (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, it worked! I removed the long footnote and fixed redirects like E.g..

What should we do with your page? Should it be WP:HISTMERGEd with the new article? FaviFake (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, congrats on getting it approved!

This is the first I've ever heard of history merging, but that sounds good, yeah. I'd rather not have to keep my draft active in perpetuity :P

— W.andrea (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree. It's also easier for people to see where it came from. I'll create the request. FaviFake (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@W.andrea Done! FaviFake (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Revert on Kjell Arne Bratli

The edit you reverted claimed that the article was ripe for deletion because it had no references. All true. I did not propose it for deletion because that is not what I do. But the lack of references leaves it open for deletion, because none of its statements are supported. Rather than pushing for deletion, I was attempting to encourage the authors to advance their project. So much for that. HAGD. Lfstevens (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. If you don't want the article to be deleted, why did you say it was "pending delete"? If you want it to be kept, doesn't it deserve a cleanup? (as I tagged it) — W.andrea (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For reference, discussion continued at the article talk page

Talk archive for deletion

Hi, W.andrea. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? WP:BLPPROD obviously doesn't apply here and WP:NOTCSD is quite lengthy with none seeming to apply here. I'm also not patrolling; this is a page I was involved in editing.

—

Never mind! While I was writing this, I noticed your edit summary has more detail:

not an WP:A3, all WP:ACSD [article criteria for deletion] apply only to articles. If it exists as a result of an unambiguos error when setting archiver bot configurations it may be eligible for Template:Db-error, otherwise to delete list at WP:MFD.

— W.andrea (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

All good. If you have additional questions, please ask away. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Tidying

You know, "cosmetic" edits are only allowed if one does a substantive edit at the same time. So, I try to do them at the same time. Abductive (reasoning) 13:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"cosmetic" edits are only allowed if one does a substantive edit at the same time.

Where's that documented? I looked at the page you linked and some links from there but didn't see it. — W.andrea (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

BTW I just changed some of the links around because they went to bot-specific pages instead of generic ones. (I still kept the bot ones accessible though.) — W.andrea (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It's no problem, I only wanted to fix the coordinates. They are from Google Maps. Also you can see the waves just above the wreck and a disturbance in the silt if you look at Yandex maps. Abductive (reasoning) 15:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

(For future reference this is about a revert on German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee.) — W.andrea (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, W.andrea!

Happy New Year!

W.andrea,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Thanks! Happy new year to you too :) — W.andrea (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

Don't freak out – you're not being reported! I have opened a discussion at ANI related to Syaz351's unsourced additions. You have previously warned this editor about this behaviour. Notifying you because I pinged you while referencing the warning you gave. Have a good day! aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's a shame it's come to this. Thanks for fighting the good fight. — W.andrea (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Thanks for the report. WP:ANEW was the right place since it wasn't vandalism, I just happened already be looking at it right before you posted. I'm not familiar with the topic, but it might be worth looking at the source they mentioned if it's actually relevant and reliable. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah OK, fair enough. I thought I saw that the user had already been warned about removing content without explanation, in which case I would consider further removals to be vandalism, but on second look, they weren't warned. Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Have a pint. You deserve it.

Looking through your contributions, you seem very intent on building the wiki, and also, you have my thanks for helping me address one of my mistakes. Thanks for your work! | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 18:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

haha, I was just thinking I should get a pint irl! :) The weather finally turned nice here. I'll think of you, cheers! And you're welcome :) — W.andrea (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox punctuation mark

As the editor who created {{Infobox punctuation mark}} is no longer with us, I won't be surprised if you don't get a reply to your request for advice, I'd give it a week and then just be bold and see what happens. Good luck! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada Train the Trainer Program Survey / Sondage pour le programme de formation à la facilitation

Wikimedia Canada is developing a Train the Trainer program to train volunteers to lead Wikimedia workshops across the country and we'd love your input!

If you are interested in learning how to teach others to contribute to a Wikimedia project, please fill out our short survey by July 10, 2026. It only takes a few minutes and it will help us create a program that works for our community.

You have received this message because you are on the Wikimedia Canada Interest list. To remove yourself from the list, please click here.

_________

Wikimédia Canada élabore actuellement un programme de formation à la facilitation destiné à former des bénévoles à l’animation d’ateliers Wikimédia et nous aimerions connaître votre avis !

Si vous souhaitez apprendre à former d’autres personnes à contribuer aux projets Wikimédia, merci de répondre à notre bref sondage avant le 10 juillet 2026 afin que nous puissions créer un programme adapté à notre communauté. Cela ne vous prendra que quelques minutes.

Vous recevez ce message car vous faites partie de la liste des personnes intéressées par Wikimédia Canada. Pour vous désinscrire de cette liste, veuillez cliquer ici.

-- Wikimedia Canada via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:SimpleObjects-9ei

Hello, W.andrea! We didn't meet each other for kind a while, the last time was probably in March or April 2026.

This is weird that you would remove the background image and colourized title(s) from my talk page: this is actually because I use dark mode and didn't realise you were using light mode. But this is weird because to my eyes, readability seems fine with both colourized title and background image... And the background image is meant for desktop devices, not mobile devices, so I probably know why you removed it. Plus, I'm sorry if I ask this, but do you have a disability that prevents you from reading the title or text correctly? Best wishes, SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 19:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a while :) The reason I was on your page is because I kept getting notifications that my threads had been removed, but I ignored them until today. I saw it was new users or a vandal or something (beside the point) but in any case the page is protected now.

I don't have a disability, but I do have a userstyle that colorizes page headers per namespace, and for talk pages, it just happens to be a yellow background, so your username was barely legible (screenshot).

Even without the userstyle and image, the contrast of the text was still rather low, that's why I removed the colourization. To be specific: The yellow #e6c327 on white has a contrast ratio of 1.72, below the 3.0 minimum recommended by the WCAG. You can check this yourself using your browser's dev tools: in Firefox you can right-click the element, click "inspect", find its color in the style menu, then click the coloured circle and check the number (contrast ratio) at the bottom of the popup. I believe Chrome is similar.

If you do ever need to use coloured text, it's best to ensure that you know what the background colour will be, e.g. by setting a background-color explicitly along with the color. Or at least use a CSS rule that checks whether the user is on dark mode or light mode. That's something like html.skin-theme-clientpref-day { ... }. But your talk page is meant to be function over form, so personally I wouldn't style it at all.

Cheers — W.andrea (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm... suspicious... I can actually clearly see "User talk:SimpleObjects-9ei" in the screenshot without any problem, even with your userstyle on. In other words, it may have been the cloud in File:20260517 Belpberg-3.tif, and I don't see any other problem about that, but yeah, it was probably the contrast. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 21:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)