User talk:Herostratus/Archive 6

I will usually respond to your messages here unless otherwise requested.

Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda

Signatures

Expired with no signatures whatsoever. Obviously this is not something that people want to do; based on the comments (which I haven't capped yet), I'd say the main objection is structural, that is, the feeling is that continuing down this path would be contrary to, and probably harmful to, the structure of how things are and should be done here. I think that's the only thing that can certainly be taken from this. There are other things that could be taken from this, but arguably also not, and I'll have more to say on that presently. But as to User:DangerousPanda individually, let it be noted that given a reasonably well advertised chance to do so, zero editors signed on to a recall petition for him. Regardless of other issues that were in play, I think that this redounds pretty considerably to Panda's credit and that it would unkind and untrue to deny this, and hopefully he'll be heartened and encouraged by this. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We the undersigned request that a reconfirmation Request for Adminship (also called a "recall RfA") be initiated for User:DangerousPanda. By signing, editors assert that they have at least 500 edits and one month of tenure.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explanation and discussion

This is a petition for a "reconfirmation RfA", also called a "recall RfA", to be initiated for User:DangerousPanda. (Normally this would be posted at User talk:DangerousPanda but all in all I think that posting here is better.)

In a nutshull: a reconfirmation RfA is a process very similar to a normal RfA, except that the subject currently already has admin rights; if the person passes the reconfirmation RfA, nothing changes; if the person fails the reconfirmation RfA, the admin tools are removed. They're rare but not unheard of.

There are some complications here, the only important one being that the subject (User:DangerousPanda) is not a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and is not cooperative, and it is a new thing for the Wikipedia to run an RfA without the subject's cooperation. This is an important thing, but not necessarily a deal-killer (it might be; we'll see). But it will require a series of possibly difficult steps, which don't worry about that now; I know what the steps are and am prepared to execute them, one at a time, in good time and in the proper order and format; I think it will be very much less confusing if editors let one person who's thought this through (that'd be me) handle that part, please. I'm perfectly willing to describe this in detail if requested.

Right now all that is being asked for is signatures on the recall petition to move on to the next step and that is all we looking for here. The signatories need to be in editors in good standing with over 500 edits and over one month of tenure, as specified in the default recall petition standards. Six signatories are needed to move forward and of course failing that there won't be a next step. The period specified to gather six signatures is one week from the timestamp on this post.

This is not a "Support" and "Oppose" type survey; it's a petition and that's a different thing, and as with all petitions there's not really an option to register opposition to the proposition beyond not signing. Signing does not indicate that you necessarily think that the subject should be de-adminned, only that you think an RfA on the matter is called for.

Of course editors are free to register any opinion in any format here, but: there will be plenty of time for discussions and Oppose/Support on the issue of the legitimacy of this petition at the the next step. It's not possible to have a dispositive discussion (that is, one having a material effect) re legitimacy at this step so I'd recommend saving it for later, unless you don't want to. Except that editors are are course welcome, in this section, to dissuade other editors from signing or attempt to persuade them to withdraw their signatures, either for reasons of illegitimacy of the petition, virtue of the subject, or any other reason. Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - DP may have been bit cranky lately, but generally he's an excellent admin that I trust, even though we have disagreed in the past, and he has taken me to task when my behavior was out of line. I don't always agree with him, but he's honest, and straightforward, and doesn't hide from his views. It's my opinion that Herostratus is being completely disingenuous with this bogus "petition", since he's obviously aware that DP is not an admin who has said that he's open to recall. Given that, the only legitimate waty to desysop DP is to go to ArbCom and make a case there. I look forwarding to seeing how Herostratus will explain to ArbCom that DP should have the bit taken away -- and if you can't make the case to them, then you've got no case to make. BMK (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point that DP doesn't warrant a recall is entirely legitimate and an excellent reason to oppose. Your procedural point is also an excellent reason to oppose if your point is "the only legitimate way to desysop DP is to go to ArbCom and make a case there and that works fine". Does it? Dunno, but you do hear complaints.

I'm trying not to be disingenuous and I know that DP is not an admin who has said that he's open to recall, I'm proposing that we do a new thing here. The actual removal of the bit, were it to come to that, is indeed tricky and might or might not be achievable. IMO there's only one way to find out. I do indeed have arguments to explain to ArbCom that DP should have the bit taken away (if it comes to that), and other arguments to make to other parties, which might or might not be accepted but let's focus on one step at a time here. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as well, though for different reasons. I believe DangerousPanda may well be one of our worst admins (an opinion quite a few people have about me probably, don't bother pointing out the irony), but I don't think a forced recall petition is something we want to create ad hoc. Either propose a general mechanism for one at VPP or somewhere similar, and if accepted use it for anyone you want to; or take this to ArbCom. I don't know whether this is ripe for ArbCom, I haven't investigated DP's admin actions in any detail (my opinion is based on some personal interactions, and a few too many unhappy incidents and discussions I noted at AN and ANI), but this is not the way to handle this. Fram (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The procedural point "I don't think a forced recall petition is something we want to create ad hoc" is an excellent reason to oppose. However, please recognize that if we don't create it "ad hoc" we create it "never". Taking something like this to VPP would have exactly the same effect as my writing it on a napkin; we're set up on consensus, which means "everyone agrees" or at any rate a large supermajority, and that near impossible to achieve on contentious questions. If you're happy with the current system and how it works, that's fine and end of story. If you're not, you might want to think about a better way to implement this reform. I haven't seen anyone else succeed and don't expect to. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as utterly devoid of function other than to have a bit of a bitching sesh about an editor on this site. If you have ambitions to have someone desysoped then ArbCom is the correct venue. If you don't have genuine, objective concerns with which to construct a request there then this thread shouldn't even exist. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't do petitions here; this whole concept is entirely out-of-process. Herostratus doesn't get to redefine Wikipedia's policy to further his own personal witch hunt. If you want to request a desysop, there are accepted procedures for doing so - this is not one of them. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's out of process. I'm trying to create a new process, or at any rate show a way forward to create a new process if people want to. Everything was out of process on day 1. It's a wiki. We are allowed to add new processes if the community wants to. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per Yunshui $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 10:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he's honest, and straightforward Light-headed with a sick feeling. (Don't make me puke, BMK.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think these are excellent reasons not to sign and/or to not support the notion of the petition altogether, if you believe either of them:

The subject (User:DangerousPanda) is fine, or at any rate OK, and doesn't warrant a recall.
Recalling admins in this way (if they've not signed on to be open to recall) is, all things considered, a bad thing. (And this being so, the merits of the particular case are moot.)

IMO, this is a pretty poor reason to not sign and/or to not support the notion of the petition altogether:

The subject (User:DangerousPanda) does warrant a recall, AND recalling admins in this way (if they've not signed on to be open to recall) is, all things considered, a good thing BUT some particular thing about the way it is being done is not to my liking -- we've never done this, it's not approved, it's not allowed, it should be handed over to another Reform Committee to produce another report, or so forth AND SO we should do nothing forever.

C'mon people. It's a wiki. We can do this if we want to and think it's a good thing. Or try. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic (edit conflict) I would have expected better from someone who went through a debatable recall process themself (I supported you then, and admired your stance). This, out of process, on your own user page, and canvassed at AN, is nothing more than opportunistic showmanship and dramamongering. I'm disappointed. You knew this was poor, by pre-emptively asking "not to be blocked" and "to have this reinstated if deleted". If your recall experience soured you, I'm sorry, we've lots of us been soured. I'm sorry you haven't seemed to be the same since. We should handle this stuff better. But this is bad form. Campaign or argue for changed processes, sure, in the right place. This isn't it. You asked for responses. That's mine. Begoon ^talk 16:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was debatable about my experience? It worked fine. All it did was put me in the mind that it ought to be more generally used. Not a lot probably, but occasionally. The idea that it's up to the individual admin to decide whether or not they'd be subject to recall seems kind of silly. Why would this be? Doesn't make any sense to me. Kind of like electing officials on the basis of "Well, some of them will have to run re-election later on, and some have the position for life, and it's up to them which it will be". If refusal to be subject to recall was a deal-killer for any significant number of voters at RfA that'd be different, but it's such an obscure process that it's not (besides which I've seen one admin just lie about that and maybe others do, and once they're in it's not a big enough deal that you can do anything about it).

"Campaign or argue for changed processes"... Enh. That is not an effective way to get things done here, I don't think. Essentially you need a supermajority. There have been reform committees and so forth and they've always foundered on that. Supermajorities are essentially impossible for major reforms like this, I think, for various reasons. Better to run something up the flagpole and see who salutes, maybe.

I dunno. You do see occasional complaints about ArbCom -- takes too few cases, adjudicates them poorly, is too complicated and time-consuming to pursue, is external to the community is not transparent, and so forth. But judging by the vibe here so far, maybe that's way overblown and people generally think that ArbCom works great and is all we need. If that's true, that's fine, and that's a good thing.

BTW I could do without the personal comments with the apparent intent of making me feel bad. We're trying to run a organization here. It's just business, and I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm presenting an opportunity to make a change if people want to take it. If not, that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C'mon Herostratus, you know full well you tried to guilt me into a reconfirmation RFA yesterday, which I rightfully reverted as unhelpful. You're now trying to create a petition to guilt me into a reconfirmation RFA, which you've been told is inappropriate. At the worst, you're trying to CREATE a community desysop process on-the-fly, which is also inapproriate. You said earlier you have "no opinion" on my desysop, but you've now both stated otherwise, and proven otherwise. I've kept my nose fairly clean since my last admin break. Yeah, I've come up with some challenges where I'm as inflexible as some of the editors I have tried to help. However, you're taking a situation - one that has now been considered resolved much to my satisfaction - and are going to try and leverage it to a desysop. Really? Not sure what kind of "game" this is, but I'd ask you to NOT play it using me as the ball the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I asked you, before this, if you wanted to volunteer for a reconfirmation RfA. Should I have not done that? Didn't try to guilt you I don't think, and I'm not trying to guilt you now, why would I? It's all out of your hands from this point, I guess, except for your ability to persuade.

You're exactly right that I'm "trying to CREATE a community desysop process on-the-fly". I don't think it's inappropriate. Maybe it is.

I don't know your work that well, and nothing personal. But yeah I do think that if we're going to reconfirm anyone you'd be good candidate, for various reasons. It's not a game, it's business, specifically the business of publishing an encyclopedia. I am sorry if you feel like a "ball", that can't feel good and I can understand how you'd feel that way, but I can't help that, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no community admin-recall process on Wikipedia, so even a strong consensus here would have no effect - an admin subjected to such a thing can simply ignore it, and crats would have no power to do anything about it. Campaigning or arguing for changed processes is "not an effective way to get things done here"? Well, that's all we've got. Should there be a community recall process? I think so, yes. But the only way to get one is to propose it and get a consensus in support - that "supermajority" previously mentioned. See Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept for the last attempt to make some progress, initiated by WormTT. (Note this is a general comment on process, not on admin DangerousPanda) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crats have no power to do anything about it, true. Stewards are off the table too I assume. However, consider a scenario where a person failed a reconfirmation RfA. Under the circumstances, it'd be nuts for the person in question not to voluntarily resign. There is such a thing as shame and just not wanting to be jeered at for the rest of your life. So that's one point. Failing that, there's certainly a strong case to be made that the presence of such a creature (editor with failed RfA but admin powers) is inherently disruptive to the organization, and the community can deal with disruptive entities however it likes (obviously that means banning rather than just de-sysoping, which would be too bad but I guess that's what you get if you fail an RfA and won't resign.) But before that, what I'd do is file a case with ArbCom more or less to this effect:

ArbCom, please adjudicate this matter. It won't take long. We assert that the following three statements are true: first, that Admin X was properly subjected to a reconfirmation RfA, by the signatures of six editors properly entitled to so sign. Second, that Admins X's RfA did not succeed. Third, that Admin X has refused to resign his administrator status. [With diffs; it will require the ArbCom just minutes to determine that these statements are true.]

Given the above statements, we ask that you make a decision on the following proposition: that it within the scope of ArbCom's duties to remove Admin X's administrator rights. (And, if you decide in the affirmative, to do so.)

We sincerely hope that you will at least accept this case, to clarify your stand on the matter. We also sincerely hope that your decision on the proposition will be in the affirmative, as otherwise we will have the very unsatisfactory situation of an administrator who has been formally rejected by the community continuing to hold administrator powers. In our opinion this would be most unhealthy situation.

This'd need to formatted as a proper Request for Arbitration. Who would be "parties" to the request I don't know. It could be just the RfA initiator, the RfA closer, and the un-reconfirmed admin, or maybe add everyone who commented in the RfA to be on the safe side. "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" would point the declined (or ignored) request to the un-reconfirmed admin to resign voluntarily I guess.

Would ArbCom go for this? Don't know. Probably. ArbCom doesn't do hypotheticals I don't think so only way to find out is to put them on the spot. They're erudite and committed editors so maybe they'd do the the right thing. If not, it'd be misfeasance IMO and there's not a lot you can do if people in power are willing to misfeas. Least we tried our best.

Erg, I'm frustrated. You're one of the people who avow that community recall is a good idea, but you still won't support it. You say "Campaigning or arguing for changed processes is not an effective way to get things done here [but] that's all we've got". Well then let's get something else. If something doesn't work, try something else. Right? Would you rather fail? What's the attraction in just giving up? Herostratus (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it won't get as far as failing a reconfirmation RFA, because the admin simply doesn't have to run! The "Admin X was properly subjected to a reconfirmation RfA, by the signatures of six editors properly entitled to so sign" bit would be bogus, because there is no "properly subjected to a reconfirmation RfA" - such a thing simply does not exist. Such a process could be created, but it would have to be done by community consensus.

I can understand your frustration, but saying "You're one of the people who avow that community recall is a good idea, but you still won't support it" is grossly unfair - I would support an attempt at consensus to achieve a community recall process, but I can't support an approach like this that can not possibly work.

(And as for "You say "Campaigning or arguing for changed processes is not an effective way to get things done here [but] that's all we've got". Well then let's get something else." - just no! We absolutely don't have the power to, and should not want to, try to force our own way against community wishes.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's arguable that a person has to "run". There is such a thing as being drafted.

It is true that WP:RFA says "Nominations may only be added here... after the candidate has signed their acceptance of the nomination", but there are reasonable counterarguments that the intent here was to prevent recall. Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship says "When nominating someone, it is generally a good idea to ask them if they would like to be nominated" (a good idea, not a requirement); it also says "The RfA nomination process has evolved and continues to evolve". It could have instead said something like "The RfA nomination process is set, it cannot be changed" but it doesn't. That's just a guideline, but at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate you have "Verify with the person you are wanting to nominate. This might save the embarrassing situation of them declining" so the intention of rule is to save you embarrassment, which is not an issue here.

It looks like the the rule prohibiting drafts is designed to prevent pointless RfA's; reconfirmation RfA's are a different matter not envisioned when the rule was written, and they are not pointless if the subject doesn't accept, and so the rule doesn't apply to them. Maybe that's an argument that wouldn't be accepted, but it's a reasonable argument to make.

And WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY states "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy", so we're allowed to look at the intent of rules, which is a sensible thing to do I think, nor are we necessarily required to take the approach "Anything which isn't specifically allowed is prohibited".

Hair-splitting over the wording of rules like that is one way to discuss the issue, and there other ways, and supposing that there were enough signatures, the next step would be to create an RfA and run an MfD against it, and it is there that arguments could be made and countered, and it'd go one way or the other. Looks like it's not gonna get to that point, and fine.

Re: "'Well, it's arguable that a person has to "run". There is such a thing as being drafted." No. There isn't! If you really can't understand that, and can't see that an RFA transcluded without the consent of the candidate would be so far out of policy that it would have no chance of not being reverted, then I and all the others trying to explain the obvious to you are wasting our time here. Bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per User:Herostratus points 1 & 2. I neither think User:DangerousPanda warrants an admin recall, nor do I think that requesting User:DangerousPanda's recall through this process is appropriate. I am neutral on the topic of community-based admin recalls in general. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous: first, there's no process for recalling an admin who isn't open to recall. That's a perennial proposal that has so far yielded no fruit (unfortunately). Basically what Boing! said Zebedee said above. Second, even if there was a process or Panda was open to recall, I'd like to see a demonstrated pattern of misuse. You haven't presented any evidence for that. Hence, ludicrous. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but looking for "a demonstrated pattern of misuse" is what ArbCom does. RfA is simply "do we want this person to be an admin, or not?". Presenting arguments on whether or not this is a good idea would be done at the RfA. The petition is just asking whether people want to go to that step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

Downright Inappropriate Wanting to recall DP is fine. Wanting community recall for admins is fine. Trying to stage a non binding straw poll to change policy with no consensus and no prior discussion solely for the purpose of trying to recall DP is not fine, period. KonveyorBelt 03:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps we should have a Committee to re-elect the Panda. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus, ummm, usually there'd be some diffs explaining why this has come about? Can you point me in the direction of the problem? Sorry, up to my armpits in content work....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Panda? Well, there was an ANI discussion; it was closed up pretty quick and I think it's gone now -- it's in the archives I suppose. The proximate cause for that was Panda blocking the editor Flyer22 for some reason -- technicality I think, but apparently Panda has some kind of vendetta going on Flyer, not sure if that's true or why it would be since Flyer's a good and useful editor. I think you could look on Flyer's talk page for more on that. But I'm not an expert on Panda, but the overall vibe I got from that and from other discussions about Panda in the past is that some folks seemed to think that there's some question whether Panda's got the right personality and general approach for the job (which not everyone does), and so that seemed like something people might want to discuss. Obviously I was wrong about that, and that's fine, and so Panda should keep on as he's been with a clear conscience. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can't use the tools if involved. A link would be handy. I'll try and take a look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I have read Flyer22's talk page, both current and the 2012 segment. I can see discussion but can't see if there was an editorial dispute between Flyer22 and DP beforehand. A properly laid-out RfC with all the evidence would be the next step. Up until recently I'd have said arbcom is the port of call for review of tool use (WRT involved etc.) but I suspect it'd get rejected until an RfC was done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well do as you wish, but all that has little to do with this. ArbCom cases are essentially trials, generally for particular instances of malfeasance. And RfC/U is usually essentially a discovery process persuant to that. RfA is entirely different -- it's just asking the community "Do you think this editor is best suited to helping the project as an admin or in another capacity"? and it's based on the totality of his career (or what we guess his career will be going forward) rather than particular incidents. Very different. (I want to stress that for my part I'm not accusing anyone of malfeasance and I'm not gonna state whether I think Panda is suited to be an admin not not, just that I though (wrongly, obviously) that others might think not.) AFAIK as I know there's no basis to bring Panda to some kind of trial. And since one of the things you could take away from this is that nobody thinks Panda shouldn't be an admin or even that the question should be raised at RfA, you might want to think pretty hard about that. But not my call, and not really much related to this discussion. Herostratus (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, previous interaction was an earlier checkuser by User:Alison on Flyer22, where Alison determined that Flyer22 was running a sockpuppet; it turned out that Alison was wrong and to her credit she looked into it further and determined that she was wrong and said so (I think this involved phone calls and so forth; it turns out that Flyer22 shares a computer with her brother.) Somewhere in there while Flyer22 was working this out with Alison Panda came in there with a pretty strongly worded message to the general effect of "Shut up, lying bitch, you're finished here" (not sure of the exact wording but IIRC that was the general tone). Since Flyer22 is an long-established, very good, and extremely valuable editor (you try dealing with stuff like this for instance) and proved to be innocent that didn't seem especially helpful. It's certainly on my list of ten worse edits I've ever seen, but it's one edit and doesn't necessarily prove anything about Panda generally.

I actually can't find the diffs for this and I'm not sure that they can be found; Panda has had at least two other names (BWilkins and EatsShootsAndLeaves) and one or more name changes, and this was done under one of his earlier or other names and it's rather confusing and his earlier edits may have disappeared, not sure. I couldn't find them.

I'm not sure if you'd call that a "conflict" or just "life in the big city" or what, but it was a awhile back, so I wouldn't call it an involved-admin situation. It may be that Panda, who obviously doesn't like Flyer, is looking for excuses to drive her out of the Wikipedia, but it may not be, and either way it's not anything you can prove, so I wouldn't recommend pursuing that, or harassing Panda generally. You can if you want to.

Again, this is minor point. There's other stuff, like for instance Jimbo one time telling him he should resign (I forget the exact circumstances) and so forth. I was more looking to see if people were interested in assessing the totality of his admin career. They're not, so that's fine and good to know. Herostratus (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial edit-a-thons

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows:

May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor
May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab
June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand

We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time.

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Please comment on Talk:US Airways

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:US Airways. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

This is a neutral notice to someone who has edited Desireé Cousteau that there is a Request for Comment there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Kenton

Regarding the section on Leslie Kenton's accusations, I think that we should just delete this bit of tabloidesque trash once and for all. It certainly doesn't add anything relevant to the article, especially since Stan isn't here to defend himself. JaneOlds (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if it's tabloidish trash. Leslie Kenton is an accomplished person and prolific author. And the book is reasonably worthwhile overall, they say. Yeah it's a pretty serious allegation. Maybe it's true, maybe not -- no way to know. She's his daughter and that's her story and she's sticking to it, and that's a pretty notable thing I think, whether it's true or not. We can leave whether to believe it up to the reader. Stan's not here to defend himself, but he's also not here to be hurt or bothered by any of this. He's a historical figure now. If Boris Gudonov or John Fremont or any other historical figure had a sane and accomplished daughter who wrote a book that said he raped her, we'd probably mention that. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree

I appreciate you posting to me, and the overall civil discourse on the issue at the subject's talk page. Thank you.

What I think is important to understand is what "contentious" means. There is nothing contentious whatsoever about the reported fact. There is no one reasonably contending that a reliable-source, journalistic publication reported a standard factual statement based on a public-information arrest report. Whether we place the name in the article is what is being discussed, but no one is reasonably contending that this is not the name that was reported or that she was not arrested at the locale reported while doing, very commonly, movie promotion. If there were disagreement on that, it would need a citation. But We're all in agreement that that is the name. We don't simply edit another person's post without discussing it and coming to an agreement. In this case, the fact of the name and locale/circumstances themselves are not contentious. Thank you for understanding. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I see you've returned the cite. While I think this crosses a line for the reasons expressed above, I will not fight it. I know it's meant constructively. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the general point under contention is complicated. The point's well taken that a person's name is basic encyclopedic information. I guess it comes down to how you interpret WP:BLP. I don't know how Desiree Cousteau feels about all this. She might be dead, or using an entirely new name, or not care if her real name's widely publicized (which is what putting it in a Wikipedia article does). But I don't assume that. On top of that the incident described in the ref, which is peripheral to her name (it's a separate issue whether we'd want to describe the incident in the article) is unfriendly. She's really a very un-notable, unimportant person. Her real name is unimportant detail in an unimportant article. It's not worth taking the chance of causing a person distress over. That's where I'm coming from.

As to the other, yeah I understand. I know I'm Smoky the Bear on this subject and I try not be a scold about it. But: 1) WP:BLP does begin "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original) and that matters. I know people skip it a lot. I'm not a fanatic about it. It's just good hygiene. It's just a simple matter of adding the ref; if the subject's under discussion the refs are usually available. I don't consider adding a ref to a post to really be editing the post. It would be if it was done to make some kind of point, but it wasn't. It was just me being Smokey the Bear on this particular subject. The alternative would have been to delete the passage. Or I could have asked you to add the ref but that struck me as excessively procedural. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm sorry but I thought we left things on a civil footing. I even said, "I will not fight [your point]." And then you go and edit my talk-page comments like some self-appointed censor. You can't do that. If you truly believe another editor is in the wrong, you contact an admin. You don't go vigilante and take matters into your own hands to the point where you're changing other editors' comments. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, she is hardly non-notable. She was a huge star in her field, and in two of her industry's halls of fame. If you think she's non-notable, you should start a deletion request. I don't think it will go far. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeling uncollegial. If you are I'm sorry. All I know is someone -- not you, I don't think, but doesn't matter -- removed the ref once again. That's OK and I'm not inclined to fight over that, but without the ref you can't have the material, so I removed all instances. It's purely a technical matter. I'm not mad or upset. If we don't have the ref, the material has to be removed, period. It's not a matter of opinion but just settled procedure.

I know she's Wiki-notable per our rules, but I was talking about real life. She's not at all famous or important. On a notability line running from "Barack Obama" to "you and me, anonymous private citizens", she's hella closer to you and me, and so rates a lot of the same consideration you and I get: not to have every pecadillo from our youths trumpeted in the world's greatest encyclopedia, forever.

I think there are basically two reasons we don't usually encourage people to edit other people's talk page comments:

As the main reason, it's not right, fair, or helpful to change material under a person's signature so that it looks like the person wrote something substantially different from what they did write. All else aside, this would make discussions hard to follow.
As a secondary reason, courtesy.

However, we remove comments from talk pages all the time. I think that replacing some text with [REDACTED] makes it pretty clear that that wasn't in the original post. So relax. Herostratus (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New England Wikimedians summer events!

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Cape Cod Wiknic and Photography Blitz on June 14th in Barnstable County, with complete travel reimbursements available for those who participate
Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon on June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand
3rd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, which will feature at least one guest speaker, and possibly many more

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

Wikimania 2014 in London

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

New England Wikimedians summer events!

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Cape Cod Wiknic and Photography Blitz on June 14th in Barnstable County, with complete travel reimbursements available for those who participate
Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon on June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand
3rd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, which will feature at least one guest speaker, and possibly many more

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

Wikimania 2014 in London

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Orphan template

You were active in talk page discussion and so perhaps can assist at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_14#Template:Orphan. Andrew (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walnettos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Paul. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Emmett Rensin

added a link pointing to New Republic

Gadabout Gaddis

added a link pointing to Home movie

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wayne Ray may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|concern = Essentially unref'd BLP (vital stats are ref'd, but to an interview; interviews are not usually good refs. Notability issues

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that's already gone through AfD can't be subsequently PRODded

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Wayne Ray, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:View across Hull Gut.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:View across Hull Gut.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clippy wikipedia parody.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clippy wikipedia parody.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Gut (Newfoundland and Labrador), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gut. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopflarea Kentucky

Whoopflarea, Kentucky has a promising etymology....I thought that after Peanut, Pennsylvania, you might need a slight chuckle...I thrive on the etymology of small towns. Getting thgeir postmark, pre 1970's, was a bonus certainlyCoal town guy (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wang Laboratories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IBM POWER. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Boylston Adams (1910–1997), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Louis County, Missouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Champ. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome :)

Thanks for the welcome! I used to edit anonymously but I decided a while ago to create an account. One day I'll get round to writing some substantive content rather than just fixing/improving existing articles...

Antony1024 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you want. But editing existing articles is great too. My personal policy is to do exactly what pleases me (within the context of proper editing of course), and I recommend it generally. Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Map showing Chongar Strait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Map showing Chongar Strait.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 04:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icon eye4.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Icon eye4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icon headexplode.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Icon headexplode.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1967 Boston Red Sox season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Horton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion

A case (Sexology) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 20:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

	Olive branch
	I've made a good faith attempt at compromise here and added some more info to the article. Please see Talk:Think_of_the_children#Olive_branch. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes, let's see if that moves us forward -- I'll look at it ASAP, possibly not today tho. Herostratus (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Touré?

Hello there, Herostratus. Not sure if you've seen, but I have been working for Touré in the last few weeks, trying to address a few issues with the biographical article about him. I noticed that you took an active part in discussion about the page move recently and it sounded from there that you're reasonably knowledgeable about Touré and the background with the article. Based on that, I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at the changes I've proposed and offering your thoughts. So far, I've suggested two changes: 1) removing the information cited to The Daily Caller, 2) summarizing the discussion of several small "controversies" in the Television section. Your input would be most welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny Talk page

I really appreciate your comments regarding my edit on the Misogyny talk page. You are right, I over reacted by conflating what was said on my personal talk page with what was said on the article page. Cheers,

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, good attitude. Go team! Herostratus (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antoine (musician), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Auvergne and LP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mega64

Hello, Herostratus! I've been working on Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, and I came across the Mega64 articles. As you discussed with Masem, the optimal solution would be a short summary of each episode at List of Mega64 episodes, but since nobody really wants to do that I am considering just redirecting both articles to Mega64 without merging. What do you think? --Cerebellum (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after looking at it, I think it would be fine. There just simply isn't any reason for these articles to exist and no real support for them doing so. Fancruft and TMI, no real possibility of proper references emerging at this point. With redirects the material is still in the database. Pull the trigger. Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editing going at the Sex offender article and related articles

I'm probably going to need your help with this and this matter. It's about two "new editors" (ViperFace (talk · contribs) and Noterie (talk · contribs)) popping up to edit the same relatively inactive articles, with one of them (ViperFace) engaging in noticeable POV-pushing at various articles. They want me to believe that Noterie simply popped up to edit the same relatively inactive articles as ViperFace. The only articles so far that Noterie edited that ViperFace has not yet edited are the Hebephilia and Ephebophilia articles, and that is only after I told ViperFace that I would not tolerate his type of editing at the Child sexual abuse and Child pornography articles. If they are not WP:Sockpuppets or WP:Meatpuppets, this is a strange coincidence. I've already alerted NeilN to this matter, and now I'm going to alert Legitimus to it. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please conduct the investigation, I have no connection to other user. Also if you wish you should see the talk page of [sex offender]. I'm being accused of POV-pushing for adding critical views that have been presented on several sex offender related articles, but I maintain that my edits are covered with sufficient references. I don't think that editing articles covering controversial topics "too keenly" should be reason to automatically flag POV-pushing and bias. Since accusations are thrown out, I might as well accuse Flyer22 of POV-oppressing. ViperFace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check the history of the talk page to see where we are at. Some of my messsages got deleted by a bot. I don't know why. ViperFace (talk)

Your messages didn't get deleted by a bot. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking for myself I have limited enthusiasm for engaging on these issues, but here are some not very deep thoughts:

These are some pretty major changes or additions to the articles.
And these are contentious issues. It's not like its articles about railroads or whatever.
And I'm pretty skeptical that these changes are, in net, improvements. I'm seeing too much weight give to one particular analysis of these entities, and it looks to me like we're trying to get the reader to think a certain way about the article. The proposed lede for Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in particular set off a red flag for me.

And so based on that I've rolled back a number of these edits. Let's slow down and think about this. There's no hurry, we want to get this right, and more or my thoughts are on the talk pages of the articles in question. Herostratus (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And @ViperFace:: as a general rule, I'd pay attention if @Flyer22: has an objection to edits you have made. She's an experienced editor and a very good one. Neither Flyer22, Legitimus (if you run into him) or I (to the extent I engage) are members of the Moral Majority or anything. We' not puritans or especially biased about this stuff and are well aware of the existence and dangers of moral panics and so forth. We're all on the same side here. However, the point here is to mostly describe the entity and let the reader make up her own mind about stuff. Herostratus (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Becker College

Hello, I saw you on the Becker College page. You mentioned a worst list. I had not seen that when I added a "Worst" reference on Oct 14 (after an NPR story). On Nov 7 it was deleted. Undo doesn't work. Do I just post it again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.210.179.237 (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, take it to the article's talk page. Make your case there. It's a reasonable case. The list was from the Washington Monthly (I think -- might have been Mother Jones, but I think not). The Washington Monthly is a respected and fairly notable publication and they used a reasonably logical system. However, they don't have one master list of "worst" -- there're several, using different criteria. And Becker College doesn't appear in the top ten of all of them. It does in some though, and that's probably worth noting. But it's open to discussion. See if, on the article talk page, you can get the person to say why he reverted your edit. Perhaps one of you can convince the other. Herostratus (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randall Enos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Lampoon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Obama shaking hands with person wearing horse head mask.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Obama shaking hands with person wearing horse head mask.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Walsh Act

You're not reading my comments apparently because I have repeatedly stated that some embedded critique is fine. Instead your responding to bogus IP editors and the wishes of a SPA who you have already reverted once. They have yet to demonstrate that their real goal in the long run is anything but the version you reverted. Every time I agreed to some room for an adequate critique they always wanted to go back to the same atrocious POV mess they started with. As far as it being a pretty bad law...that's ridiculous. All it is is a national measure to consolidate state and local laws and make it easier to deal with sex offenders in an interstate situation. That it could be made better is a valid argument but it's hardly a bad law.--MONGO 18:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK well that's different then. Sounds like a behavioral issue then. Sorry if I misunderstood. Herostratus (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yuri Bosco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric dance

I have been working on the article since yesterday: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eccentric dance

Oh OK, sorry! Herostratus (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if it was a real word either. I came across it in an obituary and searched for it in other Wikipedia biographies. I think I have a good grasp of what defines it and who worked in that dance genre. If you can find others please add them. If you want to migrate the article into Wikipedia mainspace please do. I am blocked from writing in Wikipedia mainspace because of an ANI decision against me over some of my earliest contributions to Wikipedia from 2005-2007 contained large chunks of text not properly attributed. User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eccentric dance ▶▶▶▶ Eccentric dance --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh OK... Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beyond My Ken has removed the red link again, so I have removed the phrase "eccentric dance" from the article and removed Foy from the master list of eccentric dancers to satisfy his concern. He feels very strongly about having red links in articles he has contributed to. One less bit of knowledge won't be missed in an article read by just a few people anyway. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:79.97.222.210_-_Persistent_disruptive_POV_pushing_and_edit-warring. Thank you.

This notification is simply because I make mention of you in my report about an IP you reverted. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Herostratus (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Great American Parade

The article The Great American Parade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBOOK as I can only find one review and an article about the book- there appear to be no other reliable sources out there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it's probably time to deep-six that one. It proved to just not have legs. Herostratus (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited News and Views (television), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and Stripes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cite guy in bar

I came across a fine opportunity to point an editor to this much-needed template. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Yeah, that was a fine referenced.... sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Victoria Jackson. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Yakov Taubin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Samara

Z flag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mikasa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment

My earlier criticism notwithstanding, I wanted to compliment you on your openness here. I was amazed to see a link to your !RfA on your user page, and when I looked at it, I really felt for you. I saw that you were earnestly trying to do the right thing, and in much of the way you acted you are a role model to me. You can call me a galoot anytime! — Sebastian 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, OK, you're a galoot. Either fortunately or unfortunately, I have very little memory for names, faces, and people in general (here or in real life), so if you criticized me earlier, very well, but I have no memory of it or you. Thanks for the nice note though, it warmed my heart! Herostratus (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tolyatti, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Victory Park and Liberty Square (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Shaygan Kheradpir

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shaygan Kheradpir. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Victor nosov.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Victor nosov.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Censored

Honestly I have not idea when or why I added that censored tag. Your revert actually made me worried my account had been hacked. Most I can think of is that it was contextual to an argument going on at the time.Legitimus (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just that from my interface it says "Reverted to revision 651682078 by Legitimus"

Legitimus (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well mine too, the "by" is the key tho. Herostratus (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Funland Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victory Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Molasses Disaster

Hi, I appreciate you keeping an eye on this page and that your edit was in good faith. The reason for my edit was to revert the wording back to the way it had been done previously on the page (not changing it for the first time). In literature on the subject a frequently quoted saying about it was that it was "a rumbling sound, like a machine gun" - not "a rumbling sound, AND a sound like a machine gun". More info can be seen here, which is referenced on the page (this is just a quick uncited link): https://books.google.com/books?id=VVJiAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=there+was+a+rumbling+sound+like+a+machine+gun&source=bl&ots=YCpZDRM0vI&sig=vyWvmw4QxPPEHLi8c5u6lzGQ3t4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t-4jVZiQMsjFsAW9-4CgDg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=there%20was%20a%20rumbling%20sound%20like%20a%20machine%20gun&f=false

Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but the source says "Suddenly there was a loud rumbling sound and then a "rat-a-tat-tat" that witnesses described as sounding like a machine gun." Sounds like a description of two different sounds to me. The book you cite, though, does indeed conflate the two sounds. Sounds like somebody is mis-copying from somebody; in this case both sources may be copying from some original "Q" document. The source cited in the article (Mass Moments) says its source is "Dark Tide: The Great Boston Molasses Flood of 1919, by Stephen Puleo (Beacon Press, 2003)" Where the EIS book got its info I don't know. Neither source is fact-checked, probably (books are seldom fact-checked, and the EIS one certainly wasn't for that level of detail.)

So unless we can run down the original sources, we are thrown back on common sense: machine guns do not rumble, they make a rapid "rat-a-tat-sound". Any source that says otherwise is wrong, regardless of how reliable. Since we appear to have two not-very-reliable sources we should go with the one which common sense tells us is accurate. If you want to go with the EIS book you can swap that out for the one in the article, but I would be inclined to object to that. Herostratus (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the same problem as you, upon further examination. I'll do a little more research to see if I can find a proper firsthand source that describes the sound better, until then we can revert to the common sense approach. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK great,thanks. Herostratus (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Ball

My bad. I was deleting edits by a sockpuppet and didn't check closely enough. My apologies. BMK (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no prob. IMO its better to mass-delete such edits and let people re-add the good ones. I was confused and thought the sock was running a deeper multi-account vandalize/fix game, but he wasn't. --Herostratus (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Utica, New York vandalism

@Herostratus:I could use your input...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Buffaboy ^talk 01:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, OK. I weighed on there. Good filing. It's annoying to have to spend time on the investigative-detective stuff instead of writing content, I know. Hopefully the article will be protected for a long time or put on pending changes, and then that asshole will at least be someone else's problem. Appreciate your work on this article. Herostratus (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky Races:

Liked it better before,

Wikipedia articles are written to conform to polices. The Wacky Races article does not conform to any manual of style. It is filled with WP:Fancruft, unsourced statements, original research, and has been tagged for cleanup for years. The article does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. I made it conform to the guidelines.

Take it to talk, make case on talk for such a drastic reduction.

I did like a week ago. No one replied. See:

Talk:Wacky_Races#re_April_6_2015_edits

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: Talk:Sixteen Tons

See the user's talk page as a message was left there.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oops. I usually write "user engaged on his talk page" when that happens. Oh well, wrote him a message at the article talk page too. Herostratus (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Step Beyond

Hey, thanks for the edits, it looks like I know what I'm doing. The book I referenced is available as an e-book. I'm planning to buy it and it should help, with both series. Inkwell765 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you're doing great, it's a fine article and a good addition to the Wikipedia. I want to stress that while I personally like the {{cite web}} etc. templates (and so I formatted them using that), that's purely optional and just my personal pecadillo; your refs were OK already. Everything else, I thought the article was pretty well done. You could add more info if you want, or not. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created an episode graph, but it keeps showing up at the bottom of the screen, below the references. Inkwell765 (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's working now. The odd thing is, after going over the code, I put it back in without any changes (I'm pretty sure) and then it worked. So as far I can tell there wasn't anything wrong with your code (except I removed a couple of artifacts, "width=60" and the ProdCode field in each entry which didn't seem to be doing anything. But that doesn't explain why it was doing that other weird thing.) Oh well. Seems to be working now. Herostratus (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I was pulling my hair out after all that work. I copied the graph from the One Step Beyond page. I had to add 3 listings because there were only 22, short for a 1959 series. I'll look at that later, my e-book will have them all. I tried to remove the Prod code field because I didn't have that info. I hope the broadcast dates turn up later. IMDB has a few. Inkwell765 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation about remakes. I think the hook should be something like "DYK that out of only 25 episodes of the series The Next Step Beyond, 14 were remakes from One Step Beyond?". Inkwell765 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]