User talk:Herostratus/Archive 7

Reversion of Removal of Questionable Citation For The Onion

Regarding your reversion of the edit noted here, please look at the “citation”; it is simply a click-bait blog that discusses “25 Years of The Onion Making Fun of Dentist Conventions.” You’ve got to be kidding me that should stand as a citation when the history—and founding—of The Onion is far from secretive and is very clearly discussed in detail in the publication’s history section itself. There are many publications that are not The New York Times used as citations. No need to add some desperate click-bait blog’s rehashing of information they most likely culled from this Wikipedia article itself. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, fine, if you feel that strongly about it. But I mean, really:

• You're not maintaining that the reference isn't true. If you were doubting the veracity of the ref that'd be one thing. But you're not.
• And in every likelihood it is true: they are a business and they have no incentive to lie about this fact or to not care if they get their facts wrong. It's not just some random person's blog but a page of a websiste that appears to be a thriving business that has a professionaly-staffed website. They may very well have another set of eyes (or more) going over these pages, besides the writer.

So you just don't like the source. But fine, maybe you're right so I'm not going to argue about this. I'll tag it for {{citation needed}} and probably we can get a better ref that way. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Utterly unbelievable logic here. I “don’t feel strongly” past two solid facts: The site used as a citation is very clearly a click-bait site that just compiled a list of “dentist convention” articles from The Onion and that’s it. Within the article itself there is utterly no citation whatsoever of where that odd “Aug. 29, 1988” date came from and all “sources” are just cited arbitrarily from other sites. But your claim of “…but a page of a websiste that appears to be a thriving business that has a professionaly-staffed website.” is past belief. It’s not. It takes two seconds for anyone in the world to launch a blog, add tons of affiliate ad accounts and suddenly become a website. That does not mean they can be considered a source of valid information. Especially when the core of their articles is just a list of items designed to be clickbait. Simple as that. And again, you want solid citations from legitimate sources, guess what? Scroll down in the article itself which is filled with citations. Simple as that. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to argue the point when I'm not even fighting you? You repeat "click-bait" as some kine of mantra as if it has some kind of meaning. It doesn't, it's just a random pejorative that doesn't tell anything about the reliability of the ref. I agreed with with you to allow removal of the ref and tagging it as uncited instead. As to the rest, let's just agree to disagree and move on, colleague. Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I’m “arguing” with you since utterly anyone with any basic sense of how citations work in the world—on Wikipedia and elsewhere—can logically deduce that a website that has a zillion ads pop up, provides no sources and just provides an on “25 of something” list is not a reliable source. The idea that someone who claims to have been editing on Wikipedia since 2005 yet somehow defends a horrible citation like that really baffles me. So I need to personally state your POV on this matter is not only entirely wrong, that I am fairly confident if your POV were to be brought up with other Wikipedia editors who have deeper experience than the both of us, you will still be proven solidly wrong. You might want to step back and realize what citations are, what proper sources are and why they are valuable to Wikipedia. Encouraging the use of crappy sources results in crappy content. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. "Smartmeetings" seems to be a legit business. It doesn't look like its run out of somebody's basement, although you never know. I'm not sure what your point is about them being unreliable. Yes they're a commercial site, but their commercial interest doesn't extent to the content in question. In other words, they have not commercial interest in lying about when the Onion was founded. There's no benefit to them, AFAIK, in making the Onion to appear to have been founded earlier or later than it actually was.

Right? Can we agree on that? Hopefully we can agree on that.

OK, moving on, how carefully are their facts checked? Probably not very carefully is my guess. although it's hard to know for sure. They probably don't have a separate editor going over the material checking every fact. They might. This does not appear to be a one-person operation. It might be a ten-person operation though, I don't know. In any case, let's assume there's not a rigorous fact-checking operation, so we're thrown back on the writer. Well the writer is the organization ("Smart Meetings"). So we've granted that they don't have an incentive to lie on purpose. But do they have an incentive to not care whether or their facts are right or not, or do they lack the competence to know how to determine if their facts are right or not?

I don't know. I doubt that they'd just pull "Aug. 29, 1988" completely out of their hat, as that sort of approach to facts, if pursued generally, would probably not be a good business practice, overall, and they would eventually go out of business (if its an organizational approach) or be fired (if its an individual writers approach). This is true of newspapers and other sources we use.

So they probably got the info somewhere. They seem to be a functioning organization, staying in business, so they probably have some level of competence to tell shit from shinola, so to speak. So my guess is its not complete nonsense. It's better than nothing which was your preference, and sufficient to support the assertion subject to a cry for a {{better source}}. I see that you did add a citation, which is the desired outcome. Your citation is to an entity called Paste Magazine. If Paste is a print magazine, great, but if its just online -- which anybody can make an online website in 15 minutes, right? -- I don't know if it's better ref than the previous one. Probably is. These things are hard to know for sure.

BTW a lot of this drawn from Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist, which I wrote and which you might want to read through before coming to people's talk pages and slinging unfounded insults. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick question

Hope you don't mind that I'm posting this here, but I've noticed a few of your responses at WP:HD and figured you might be able to help with this. In a WikiProject, I started an informal RfC to get feedback from other WikiProject members. Is there an alert bot or some other method I can use to send a notification of the talk page discussion to all of the WikiProject members? The number of users we're talking about here is relatively small (less than a 100), and so I could do this by hand, but it would be nice if there was an automated way in place already. I know when a Newsletter is created, for example, notifications to all members are sent out. I was hoping to replicate this for a particular talk page discussion. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind. No there's no automated bot that I know of. We're probably kind of leery of having bots under individual control that send automated messages to talk pages -- it could be seen as a form of spamming. Presumably active project members are watching the project talk page. Herostratus (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I completely understand the point about "spamming". After digging through my talk page history, I found that one of the project members used EdwardsBot (diff) to send out the Newsletter. Guess I could look into that if needed, or not since it's no longer active! Thanks again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Iraq national team in 2014 removal request

Hi,

I wanted to delete all the national team pages because I merged it into one page to keep it simpler to manage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_national_football_team_records_and_statistics

If you would like to help me deleting the other pages, I would be grateful.

I responded on your talk page, to the effect that you can just make the existing pages be redirects rather than deleting them. Herostratus (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks bro! You too Steel Dogg (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Taki's Imperial Japanese Army Page

I saw you had a query as to this website when you used it as a source recently. It is considered RS given armor historian Steven Zaloga used it as a source for his 2007 book Japanese Tanks 1939–45 and mentions it on page 43, that the website is good for its "extensive coverage of Japanese tanks and tank history". Also, "Taki" is Akira Takizawa, co-author of the 2008 book: World War II Japanese Tank Tactics, Osprey Publishing. Kierzek (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh OK. Did not know this, so its probably OK to remove the "better source needed" tag. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe so based on the expert opinion of Zaloga and the fact the gentleman is a published author on the subject by a known publishing house. Kierzek (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pull quotes

Regarding Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation, I never quite understood why the MOS is so adamant on this issue, it even uses strong word like "especially avoid". Surely something important was at stake. I think it would be worth to find out what exactly. In the meantime, it's interesting to note that the mobile version of Wikipedia renders {{quote}} with decorative quote marks! (black instead of the blueish of {{Pull quote}} but otherwise almost identical) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

About the mobile version: huh, but then why not. It's a typical and functional way to show that it's a quote, after all. Well I hope you will Support the change over at the RfC. And no, as far as I know the reason for the proscription against using quotation marks is just that someone way back in the beginning decided we needed them just for pull quotes. It's just habit and tradition at this point. Herostratus (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably stay neutral. I've always followed the MOS and template documentations, whatever they say. If those change, I'll change. And thank you for incorporating the MOS bit into the RFC, as well as that observation on mobile Wikipedia above. I think it's valid evidence for those who wish to form an opinion on this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well but what? Always following the MOS and documentation is not a reason for not taking a position on a change to the MOS. Right? If you're a stickler for following the MOS, you should note that there in September 2011 there were 17,000+ uses of {{cquote}} (probably more now, I don't know how to get the figures), and all of them (or 99%) were in violation of the MOS. Don't you want the MOS to reflect actual usage? Either way, since you've take the time to look into the question, why not take a stand. We need a supermajority to bring the MOS into line with practice, and there will doubtless be Oppose votes. Herostratus (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason, aside from the substance of the proposal and the problems it presents and would worsen, my reaction again the RfC was so strong was because of it's venue and nature. The proper way to change a guideline is to go to the guideline page and make a case for why consensus can change, not to try an end-run around consensus by hosting an anti-guideline RfC at a talk page frequented by no one but huuuge fans of abusing the template in question for decorative purposes. This is basically no different from trying to change some other guideline via a back channel, e.g. trying to change WP:RS and its admonition against treating unpublished manuscripts as reliable sources by hosting an RfC to push for this change at Template talk:Cite arXiv, on the basis that this template has been [mis!-]used thousands of times to do so. In reality we have the template for a completely different and uncommon purpose, namely providing convenience links to archived ("arXiv'ed"?) pre-press copies of papers that have been published in reputable journals, but whose "official" copies are behind paywalls). Your case and that hypothetical case are actually rather closely parallel, in multiple ways. The fact that we've retained pull quote templates, specifically documented for use only as pull quote templates, does not mean that abuse of them for decorative and misleading purposes is magically permissible just because it's been hard to stop people from doing it. There are technical solutions to both problems, e.g. making {{Cite arXiv}} throw an error if it is not used in conjunction with another citation template, to the RS journal or book, inside the same <ref>...</ref>, and using a namespace test to permit the decorate quote templates on user and projectpages but not in articles, since there is increasing evidence of consensus that WP should not be using actual pull quotes in articles at all, a point I see below that you seem to agree with.

Anyway, my point was not to "get into it" with you on a personal level. I just have serious concerns about a) the desire for WP to look better being used as an excuse to just let anything that someone thinks "is attractive" be permitted regardless of the fallout (see again bottom of my talk page for detailed analysis of why these templates are often content-harmful, violate core content policies, and end up being "reader-hateful" instead of reader-friendly); b) the WP:PROCESS problem of trying to get around consensuses people don't like with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stuff (even if not intentional; I make no allegation that you're WP:GAMING at all); and c) the general emboldening effect such activities have toward the "let chaos reign" and "fuck the MoS" and "down with all rules" contingent (whose ranks have swollen as WP attracts a "third wave" of editors, almost all millennials who grew up on blogging and "reality" TV, the invasion of advertising and PR into every possible cranny, and shamelessly biased news, and who were not around for WP's formative years and the seriousness with which things like NPOV are taken, in very subtle ways missed by noobs). I share your frustration with the fact that trying to change a guideline at the guideline's own talk page is difficult and slow; I've been trying to fix a policy conflict at WP:MEDRS for about two years. Each time I bring it up, I get slightly more traction, and I expect that it will be resolved some time in 2017 or 2018, despite the fact that it should have been fixed in 2014 (or never arisen at all). In this quote templates case, there's not even a policy conflict to resolve, just an "I want WP to look different/more jazzy, and to have a more freewheeling layout" desire, which is a harder sell, especially if going that route may create policy conflicts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

OK! It's OK. I've been around the track, I'm not bothered by any of this. One point: I was not trying an end-run around WP:MOS! I didn't even know the MOS mentioned the issue, I had forgotten about PW:BLOCKQUOTE... and as soon as this was pointed out, I posted a prominent notice at the MOS talk page pointing to the RfC. Ideally the discussion would have been at the MOS talk page, I agree. However, since 1) I already started it at the template talk page, and 2) after all most of the proposed changes are to the template, and 3) a pointer to the RfC was quickly posted at the MOS talk page, I think it would just have caused confusion to try to move it, and it's OK where it is, with the pointer in place? Hope you agree.

As to the merits, a lot of it does come down to opinion. I look forward to looking at your points in detail (soon, not right now) and engaging in no-holds-barred debate on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Coolio, and yes, I retract "trying"; that does seem to imply intent when I say I'm not trying to imply intent. Just sloppy wording. Despite the length, I wrote that on my way out the door to work (I type really, really fast).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not quite pull quotes

Rather than clog up your RfC, I thought I'd just mention to you here an example of pull quotes being used at Philippe I, Duke of Orléans #Homosexuality. Except that it doesn't use the {{pull quote}} template; it uses a custom 1986 box. Still a pull quote, though. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Right. Huh. Well, as I said, I'm not here to preclude or prevent the possibility of a rare occasional pull quote, if another editor in his wisdom deems it suitable, and by "never used for actual pull quotes" I mean "never, within a rounding error (that is, less than 0.5% if instances)". I myself would question whether using the quote twice in the article like this is helpful, but I haven't studied the matter.

Heh, it's amusing that the one use (so far) that we've seen of pull quotes doesn't use {{tl}pull quote}}... Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

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.

Semantometrics

added a link pointing to JISC

Watertown Red & Black

added a link pointing to Pop Warner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

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.

Gasthaus Gutenberger

added a link pointing to Stein

Malaya Sadovaya Street

added a link pointing to Alexander II

Systempunkt

added a link pointing to John Robb

Wayne Wilder

added a link pointing to Bass

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah

Hello! Your submission of Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 21:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC about quotation boxes.

Hello Herostatus. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, OK. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amadee Wohlschlaeger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Louis County. 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) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

In all that, did you see my link?

• User:Lingzhi/sandbox.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't. To the extent that it's a complete rewrite of the existing article (I haven't done a text comparision but it look it: the section are all different for instance) this makes it very hard to review. Generally, we work with change-a-paragraph-here and add-or-delete-a-couple-sentences-there. One reason being that a complete rewrite discards the previous work (which doesn't appear called for in this case). I like to build on existing work. There are other reasons... it's much easier for a crowdsourced article to ensure that there's no original research I think...

Anyway I don't have to refs to really check your material. I'll take a look at some if I can... Herostratus (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have almost all of the sources.... The mainspace article is crap. It's not just kinda crappy; it's top-to-bottom crap. Starting all over again is the only feasible way. Having said that, the topic at hand is HUGE, as I indicated earlier. That famine was a head-on collision of a number of different forces that had been building for at least several decades. And to make matters worse, no one really even knows the real reason, because no one was carefully recording events. Was it FAD or FEE? No one knows! No one knows how much damage the brown spot disease did to the crops. That sort of damage is not readily visible to the casual observer; the disease doesn't make rice plants melt into dust. It makes them far less productive (but they are still standing there). So if anyone just kinda drives by in a car or glances from a roadside a few yards away, they'll think, hey, the crop wasn't hurt. And on and on and on. There are MANY facets to this problem... I have only discussed one here...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well... OK. I mean I don't have the expertise or sources or really the acuity gainsay you... we'll have to see how it plays out...

I'm skeptical. The article doesn't look like crap. I'm also skeptical of " No one knows! (but I do)". If truly "No one knows!" then just leave it out.

The whole thing makes me nervous that you're approaching this as a historian or professor would. That means original research. I'd rather see a good roundup of the current mainstream beliefs about the matter. Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) I didn't say "No one knows (but I do)." I said, "No one knows, including me... but I am not currently aware of any Wikipedians who seem to have a clue about the very large scope of this issue (though of course all or at east most scholars in the field do). As for WP:OR, geez, I've been around for 10 calendar years (active seven), have six FAs, have very often participated in FAC, etc. That doesn't mean my poop doesn't smell, but hopefully it should mean that I do know what WP:OR is. I am trying to round up current beliefs... The article is crap because it elides many important issues, and spends a lot of time gurgling on about moderately important ones... and because over its history various editors have muddled it up with their emphases on at least three different hobbyhorses... etc. If you actually wanna engage this topic, I'm happy to email you any source that I currently have. I expect this article to be in my sandbox (not mainspace) at least a couple more months. Seriously.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

OK fine, right, I believe you. Herostratus (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you wanna work on this, drop me a line. Always welcome. Do you want me to try to answer your questions on the article's talk? I can try, but the main problem withe the text is not any one detail.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not in my wheelhouse to work on stuff like this -- I have a short attention span and have trouble digging deep into a subject. I also don't have the refs of course. I'll help where I can. If you have a specific thing I can do, I'll do if able.

No you don't need to answer the questions. Don't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited F. M. Howarth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pattern maker. 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) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

failed verification in Antoine (musician)

Hello Herostratus. I can't find support for "He was graduated from the Lycée Champollion in Grenoble, excelling in advanced mathematics." in the self-sourced bio referenced. I don't know much French so perhaps you can help me out here. I'm not finding any mention of mathematics. Thanks Gab4gab (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. I breezed past "I was a brilliant student, earning a full scholarship" without noting that it didn't mention math specifically. I did have another source indicating that, but I can't find it anymore... don't know why I didn't use it. But OK you are right. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Herostratus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich

Hi I'm surprised you would undo @Jytdog:'s removal. This seems to violate the ARBAP2 ruling. Please consider a self-revert and continuing discussion on talk. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with ARBAP2. What is it? The edit summary was "this is NYC's tabloid. Not the kind of source we want in a controversial article". But the New York Daily News is a reasonably respectable paper AFAIK. It's just a regular newspaper I believe. It's printed in a tabloid format, but so? It's not tabloid journalism and I've never heard anyone say it is before this. If it was a recent addition and reverted perWP:BRD, that's different. But that's not what the summary says, If ARBAP2 says "Jytdog can delete any sources he wants to and can't be gainsaid" that's different. Does it? Herostratus (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's recent. The whole article is recent. I'll post the ARBAP2 details here FYI. They are for your information and should not be taken as an accusation. I think you should reverse your undo of Jytdog. You seem to be saying that it's OK since you're right and he's wrong, but of course that's the stuff of edit wars, not resolution. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm right (neither does he) but I think I probably am. I mean, I recently thought the Daily Telegraph was a poor source, I took it Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and I learned that it wasn't a poor source, and fine.

Similarly, Jytdog can open a discussion about whether the the New York Daily News is a good source. Either on the article talk page, or I would recommend at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I think he'll be told it's an OK source -- it is after a mainstream major newspaper in a very large city and a large circulation with AFAIK decent fact-checking and reputation for veracity -- but maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to find out.

What I mean by "new" is, if you think the material was inserted recently enough that it's subject to WP:BRD than fine, revert it. However, WP:BRD is only useful for reverting to a previously existing stable version, and if there isn't one... I dunno. Read the rule.

OK thanks for the pointer to the ArbCom thing. I guess you can bring me up on charges if you want to. I'm perfectly willing to take the New York Daily News to the RS Noticeboard, but I just did one of those and I don't think I should have to all the heavy lifting. You do it. Herostratus (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Sanctions Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unified Deep Water System of European Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don River. 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) 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Herostratus. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia e-mail.
Message added 16:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library - Newspapers.com

Hello Herostratus Just thought I'd let you know that your account is now active for Newspapers.com. Happy Editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I tested it. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

MOS rfc closed

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_184

Dropping you a note as you started the rfc.

Obviously the close does not preclude followup RfCs on style, nor the current rfc on pull quotes.

Hope this helps. - jc37 00:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jc37:Well OK, fine. This is fine and I have no objection. But a couple things:

First thing -- what do do about pull quotes.. Close the new RfC as "Accepted"?

I originally conceived the RfC as prompt for general discussion, not necessarily set up for an up-or-down vote on any proposal. (This was mainly at the request of another editor who wanted to go slow). (There's absolutely nothing wrong with teasing forward our of such an RfC, though, as you did. These things develop an organic momentum of their own.)

But anyway, because of this, and because the RfC had been archived without being closed, I assumed it wouldn't be closed. Therefore I went ahead with another RfC, which was a specific yea-or-nay proposal with exact specific edits proposed. It is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes. As you can see it also has been quickly sent to archive without being closed.

Nevertheless, I feel confident that, between your close of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_184 and the obvious trend at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes, there is support for the changes proposed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Specifics, and examples.

Normally, I would feel OK with closing this myself, but I fear being accused of bad faith by one particular editor. Would you do the honors of closing this, or re-adding to the active talk page, or requesting another person to close it, or whatever you think best? Thanks! (The precise edits to be made are layed out; I, being familiar with these various template, would be glad to make them following another editor adjudicating that the proposal is accepted.)

Second thing -- boxes around quotes, specifically. Close the old internal sub-RfC?

Although I originally conceived the RfC as just a prompt for general discussion, another editor did create a yea-or-nay subthread for a specific proposal within the RfC. A little unusual, but fine. That subthread is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes. It is specifically to overtly allow {{Quote box}} to be used and recommended (in addition to {{Quote}} for quotes. It draws a line around the quote.

My take on this is that the proposal was accepted. There was 20 support against 9 oppose, 29 editors being a reasonable quorum IMO. And not only that but some of the oppose argument were a bit weak in my trying-to-be-evenhanded opinion, although someone else might disagree. (It's all discussed in the "Summary to date, and thinking about next steps" subsection at the bottom.)

Being cautious, I was thinking of running another RfC to avoid accusations of bad faith (as you see if you read that thread, there were some). However, TBH I think you or anyone could and probably should close that sub-RfC as either Accepted or Not Accepted. Not Accepted would be surprising IMO, but its out of my hands.

Are you willing to do this, or hand it to someone who will? If I get an adjudication I can do the edits in the appropriate places. Let me know, and sorry for the length of this. Herostratus (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

<humour> I see how it is, I help out on Wikipedia, and then someone finds more work for me to do? - will this inbox ever get clear? </humour>

: )

Kidding aside, sure. I'll be honest and say I may or may not read over all that today (though I seem to remember reading some of this already), but sure, I guess I'll go see what I see. - jc37 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK great! Herostratus (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Herostratus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Louis DaPron page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

"weaned on a pickle". Never before have I laughed aloud at a Wikipedia comment. Thank you. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Not original with me. It was someone's (Dorothy Parker?) characterization of Calvin Coolidge, I believe. Herostratus (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

For future reference

I've had in the back of my mind to memorialize diffs of two things you've said recently on the subject of giving content creators the dignity of deciding certain minor stylistic decisions. But for the life of me I can't locate either of them.

• One was a discussion somewhere in which you made a long post, which I immediately complimented as "one of the most beautiful" (or maybe "one of the best") posts on the subject of drive-by editing/worthless wikignoming/something like that ever; then I said maybe you and I should write an essay together. This was maybe 2 to 6 weeks ago. [Later...] I recall now that you enumerated five reasons for your position, and then said you could probably give more.
• The other was in the last few days -- you used the term stare decisis.

Can you find those for me, pretty please? Here's a list of our "interactions" [1] -- maybe something will ring a bell. EEng 01:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty please? EEng 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, of course, sorry. I was about to get to it. The wheels grind slowly at Casa Herostratus. For the first item, my full post was

This is certainly something that should be left up to the individual editor, for various good reasons. One good reason is that (as we can see above) there is no one clear correct or better way. A second good reason is that adding another needless rule bogs down the MOS with more detail and makes it harder to learn and harder to use. A third good reason is that creating a rule means enforcement, it puts interactions about the matter into an enforcement mode where editors are playing rules cop with other editors and this is not as functional as peer-to-peer interactions. A fourth good reason is that there's zero evidence that it matters to the reader.

A fifth good reason is that micromanaging editors to this level is demoralizing and not how you attract and nurture a staff of volunteer editors (for instance we have a stupid micromanaging rule that I have to write "in June 1940" and not "in June of 1940" which is how I naturally write, and every stupid micromanaging rule like this is just another reason to just say screw it. As the Bible says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" (1 Timothy 5:18, paraphrased from Deuteronomy 25:4) which updated means "Let the editor who did the actual work of looking up the refs and writing the friggen thing -- you know, the actual work of the project -- be at least allowed the satisfaction of presenting it as she thinks best, within reasonable constraints".

That's five and that ought to be enough although I'm sure I can come up with more if pressed.

If you run into a situation where (as the OP noted) "In this edit, Mitch Ames removed the italics from "right" that I had just added" then play it as it lays, guided by WP:BRD. Anything that you add is subject to redaction and then discussion per WP:BRD. In this case, Mitch Ames would have been well within his rights. WP:BRD in these cases just means "I liked it better before, prove your edit is objectively an improvement". Your options are to let it go (recommended!) or open a thread on the talk page and maybe you can convince Mitch Ames and the other editors that, after all, the italics are an improvement in this particular case (if that's how you want to spend your energy).

Conversely, if the italics had been there for a while (sufficient to be part of the stable version of the article) then the removal of the italics would be subject to rollback per WP:BRD and you would be within your rights to roll back the change.

This means different articles will do it differently. This annoys a certain type of editor. Oh well.

The refs to the biblical passage (which I surmise is the heart of what you found excellent -- all props to the bible-writing dudes) were added by someone else, perhaps you. The original thread can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 188#How_to_indicate_which_person_is_which_in_a_caption.

It'd be great if you added that to a essay we could call, something along the lines of "don't micromanage, and don't overly worry about minor stuff".

The stare decisis thing, I don't remember. Sorry. I just can't recall using it recently, or at all actually. I can imagine myself using it along these lines: "If you come across a passage that you might have written differently, leave it alone on the principal of stare decisis (does not apply if the material is truly dreadful)". Or something like that.

Always glad to see you around in these discussions BTW. You strike me as generally cogent and usually right-minded. Herostratus (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Great! And I found stare d.; it's here. I've enshrined your words in The Museums. EEng 03:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Though not the "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" essay I hope perhaps you and I will write some day, you may perhaps be interested in an essay I've started on a somewhat related topic, WP:Lies Miss Snodgrass Told You. EEng 04:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, will do. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• My latest effort: WP:Principle of Some Astonishment. EEng 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthony Marais

The article Anthony Marais has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable writer. Article contains zero independent sources, language is mostly promotional in nature.

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. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 06:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 184.145.42.19 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Album cover james ramey.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Album cover james ramey.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Accident?

Is there a reason you can think of that someone would change your username display? —ATS 🖖 talk 02:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit. Did not see that. I can't think of a reason, I suppose it's just a slip of the keyboard. Herostratus (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, biscuit. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of James McCown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James McCown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McCown until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Place names

Thanks for your comment, just a sidenote: Why do you think the Gdansk vote is "not bearing", it explicitly says: "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)." This is exactly what we are talking about.

And I did not just revert Rocky's edits, I carefully restored the version before the IP edits, it's just much easier to use the "undo" button and edit the preview (we're talking about several dozens of articles, it's a lot of work) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. After looking at the Gdansk vote, I misspoke. (At the same time, it was a long time ago, and we it was centered on Gdansk; a case could be made that it's peripheral to any current general discussion.) It might be that we should have a WP:RFC.

I think that restoring the version before the IP's edits is part of what Rocky is unhappy about. It's a little confusing, but I think that what Rocky did was undo the IP's and also make some changes of his own, at the same time; just rolling all that back deleted all his personal additions, which he felt were OK edits. Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

But he made no personal additions, he only deleted content and replaced a normal sentence structure by a See also section. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that's what I meant; those deletions and replacing the normal sentence structure with a See also section are his additions. FWIW I agree with replacing "for X, see [article]" with a See also entry. That's how we generally do it. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that's the proper approach. Although I do question: is it normal to have a "See Also:(history article)" for thousands of villages in any given region? For example, you don't see a See Also:History of New England on every single page for all the towns in New England, do we? Why are towns in Pomerania any different? It's a leftover from the highly suspicious IP-hopping anonymous user that made these POV edits to formerly-German towns in the first place. Shouldn't it just be removed altogether? Rockypedia (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I question it also. It could be seen as excessive. On the other hand, providing more information and more links to quickly get to more information is good, provided the info is germane to the subject and doesn't overwhelm the reader. The question always is "what best serves the reader?" and sometimes that's hard to figure or a matter of opinion. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Hey Herostratus. Thanks for your direct approach on the Richard Rios page. I wonder if you might take a look at this subject: Bob Milne? I put it up for deletion a while back and I thought it would go through; but a quirky admin wouldn't weigh the 2-1 in favor of delete votes toward consensus. I still believe it isn't strong enough for a BLP inclusion on WP as the only claims to notability are a concert at the Library of Congress (which is no special accomplishment -- anybody can even rent Carnegie Hall nowadays); and a not-so out of the ordinary skill of being able to hear different pieces in one's head -- which I believe most expert musician's can do: conductors, composers, etc. I just can't find anything more that would warrant his inclusion; (and nothing of substantial content has been added since the 1st AfD tag was removed) but I've never put an article up for a 2nd AfD. Would you mind weighing in? or do you have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Enh, thanks but no thanks. I'm an inclusionist now and the Bob Milne article isn't hurting anyone, whereas the Richard Rios article was becoming an actual annoyance. And even though you're right that Milne most probably doesn't meet our notability requirements, at least he's an actual serious artist and not a character in a kid's cartoon show whatever, like a lot of our articles. Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus You make me laugh. Thanks anyway. Happy editing! Maineartists (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Simon Magus

Hello, and good day to you and yours, I, yesterday made the entry Eddie Nawgu , to the simon magus article and you reverted it. I'm sorry I made the error, I just figured I'd include known Sorcerers to the 'see also', list. since they are alike. I would make sure to first consult from you before making changes to sensitive pages.

Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's OK. Relax. Your edit was not an "error". I just didn't agree with it. I understand your reasoning, but I just don't agree that Simon Magus should link to Eddie Nawgu, just because Eddie Nawgu was a sorceror -- it says "Whilst alive he could easily have been likened to Simon Magus" but there's no reference for that an so forth. We want to keep our "See also" sections trim and lean.

You didn't make a mistake. And you certainly don't need to consult me before making such edits, now or in the future. It's a free project and you are allowed to make edits like that and I am allowed to disagree with them, and we can talk about it. Maybe I'm wrong. The proper place for this is the article talk page (Talk:Simon Magus). Right now I see Eddie Nawgu is nominated for deletion, so let's how that goes first, but if it survives, by all means make a new thread on the talk page and make a case that "See also" should include a link to Eddie Nawgu, and maybe people will be convinced. Herostratus (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

DYKs

Nice job on R. H. White. How come no DYK for it? 2600:1002:B119:82BF:55BE:4B8B:9B9E:43B3 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I have done about a dozen DYKs, but the thing is, it's work: you have to vet another DYK to nominate your. And I don't particularly enjoy that task, or really much care if my articles get DYKs. I do do DYKs sometimes when there's something particularly interesting in the article. Herostratus (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Garnet

Well said, [2]. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Heh, thanks.

Now what we really need to do is revive the saying "all Sir Garnet". If we're going to bring back the 19th century, it's as good a place to start as any. I'm doing my part! The downside, of course, it that one comes off as a complete toff. Herostratus (talk)

Hahahah, a toff. But an Oxford educated one, not a toff like a Hooray Henry. I read Sir Garnet's article, btw. He's still relevant and I enjoyed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

=) Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

=). SW3 5DL (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:Ring of Fire (song)

Since when is it "trollery" to be answering a serious question related to the article, and even do so with sources? This is even more ridiculous since Ring of Fire (song) already contains sourced references to the fact that Cash and/or his co-writers used to consistently associate the song with hemmorhoids, and the Fox News source already used in the article for years also states that the existing association to a sore anus is also why the family has licensed the song for a TV ad for spicy foods in the past, even if a more open association such as with Preparation H would be too indiscreet for them. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I never "tried to be funny". It's a simple fact that the song's writers have consistently associated the song with hemorrhoides and a sore anus, be it in public or in private. When people recorded Bruce Springsteen's remark that it took Manfred Mann to change the meaning of one of his songs to be about "a female hygiene product" to take it to no. 1, or when they recorded that Terry Gilliam has said that (Only a) Dream away would really be about "George's frustration because I rejected all his soundtrack ideas for Time Bandits", none of these chroniclers ever "tried to be funny", be it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. The people who've made the original remarks may have "tried to be funny", but it's not "trollery" to faithfully report what creators themselves or their associates had to say about a work of art. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. I hear you. Now go away, please. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you're apologizing for your mistake and I may now re-instate my serious post on the talkpage? --79.242.219.119 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Herostratus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Hello. Regarding WP:blp and your addition here - diff , I say, shame on you and it is the same reason you are no longer a WP:Administrator - you show very poor judgment of WP:policy and guidelines. If I can help you and the project, please do not draft a wp:rfc for this addition, it will be nothing but divisive and in the end of all that it will not be accepted, it will be nothing but disruptive without any inclusion, please consider again your intention to create this, thanks - Govindaharihari (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, fine you disagree with me. Your bringing up my admin career shows your predilection for wanting to make people you don't know feel bad for no good reason beyond the sheer enjoyment of it, which is of course typical of persons of your political bent (we've noticed!). It tells me something useful (and disgusting) about you, but doesn't bear in any way on the matter at hand. I am willing to discuss the matter with persons possessing the intelligence and character to do so productively, but not with you, so please go away. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lolicon article changes

You reverted the edit I made that I already made a post on the talk page stating the reasons why I made the change, you came in and reverted the edit and told me to dicuss it on the talk page, if you want to discuss why I made the removal go there and discuss instead of telling me to do what I already did, the post on the talk page is already there since 14:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC) , I proceeded and made the changes since no one objected since I posted it, if you have reasons to revert my changes other than the irregular content being there for months without anyone noticing it go there and state what are those. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ohhhh, OK, I didn't see that. Sorry! I'll take a look and meet you over there. Herostratus (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Herostratus defcon maritime 1.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Herostratus defcon maritime 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

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.

Village East Cinema

added links pointing to East Village and Second Avenue

Yiddish Art Theatre

added a link pointing to Second Avenue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR

This is required warning that you are at WP:3RR and one more revert will be you over the limit and be reported to admins. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maria Anna Mozart

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maria Anna Mozart. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Marché

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions appeared constructive and has not been reverted. Please take some time to help more users with our policies and guidelines. You can find these at our helpdesk which also provides further questions about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only intended to confuse editors, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

:-) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Red Raven gastropub logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Red Raven gastropub logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walking the plank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Hawkins. 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) 09:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Westfields

a batch nomination was totally inappropriate, size and number of stores may be an indicator but you're suddenly asking the community via an AfD to decide on a notability guideline when you should be using the talk pages of a notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with LibStar's comment above, noting that AfD's can't actually be used to set precedents much less guidelines (AfDs are always considered on their own merits, with reference to relevant guidelines and policies). Please also don't start AfDs for articles you think should be kept, of bundle excessive numbers of articles into a single AfD. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Feltman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pushcart. 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) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A heads up and pass it on

It looks like it is wiki policy to stick needles into people, in order to get them riled up, so as to ban them.

I was banned as 71.174.137.143 for using the word cretin after I was warned not to. The reason I ORIGINALLY used the word cretin was because I was called an idiot by JJ twice, and I DID NOT use that word after being warned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.174.137.143

There was a long back and forth with NeilN (the guy who placed the ban me) on this. After checking the timestamp of the warning and the timestamps of my posts I confirmed that I had in fact not posted the word cretin after the warning. NeilN never responded to this and while browsing I ran across the following

According to the following conversation under JJ's talk page it looks like it is the policy of wiki editors to starts fights with people in order to ban then, and that this practice has been going on for 4 years. I posted a complaint on this to TideRolls talk page, which was then reverted by NeilN. It is possible that NeilN and TideRolls can be the same person using different handpuppets. Using multiple handpuppets would make it easy to gang bang someone and push him or her over the line and get them banned.

Following is from JJ's talk page

Refrain from the unnecessary personal attacks please. --NeilN talk to me 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 But necessary personal attacks are OK ;-? More seriously, I second the note, keep to the highground William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

     @William M. Connolley: Yes, sometimes it's necessary to inform you that your father smelt of elderberries :) --NeilN talk to me 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

         I was provoked! But point taken. Though it seems to me that, with some, ah, folks, "taking the high ground" is too subtle, and a sharp whack on the side of the head is often most efficacious. Okay, I have replaced "idiot" with loftier language.

         So William's father met his mother while picking berries? :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

             Besides NPA, see (once again) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Battlefield_editing.... trolls are relatively easy to get rid of when you don' tweak 'em in the nose, or retweak them when modifying prior remarks. Instead, you just fuel the drama. As we have discussed 1-4 years ago. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.133.43 (talk)  

I have a red pencil box. Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

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.

John D. Long Lake

added a link pointing to Cedar

Yawkey, West Virginia

added a link pointing to Dagmar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll grant that the wording is a little off for this specifc case, but since you announced your intent to canvass and then posted a blatantly partisan message and did so not on a oticeboard but at a WikiProject where you thought you would get a sympathetic hearing [3] I think any reasonable person can see that you blatantly, willfully, and in full knowledge that you were doing so, violated the canvassing policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Will you relax? Don't template the regulars, OK?

You said I was WP:OWNing that page. In my view this is an accusation of wrong behavior (WP:OWN is not terrible behavior in the great scheme of things, but it's still misbehavior). In my view, this accusation is false -- I was not owning, but merely defending the page against... I won't call it "vandalism", but lets say "edits not in keeping with the intent of the page". I know I won't convince you of that, but while I could be wrong, my belief is at least reasonable, I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would vouchsafe.

Since I was accused of misbehavior, wrongly in my reasonable opinion, I didn't feel I had much choice. You think I am OWNing the page, then fine, I'll bring in other eyes, other voices, OK? I mean what do you want??? I looked in a place where I might find people who might want to improve the page, which is a natural place to look. FWIW I did not point anyone to any threads where voting is taking place, and I can't help it if people find those on their own.

As an overall observation, all this is not really a good look for you, and you might want to back off. It's looking too much like a "I disagree with what you say and absolutely deny your right to say it" deal, and that is not really in keeping with the spirit of the project. If I'm wrong, as you are certain I am, intelligent people will ignore me, and Bob's your uncle.

It's just an essay. There are lots of essays. Write your own if you like (it's usually a time waster though; all but a few languish -- although you never know). I wouldn't worry about it too much. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Okey doke. Herostratus (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Might be best if

It might be best if you leave the discussion about the essay move for a little while. Feel free to post on my talkpage if you feel like something needs to be addressed, I am notorious for being overly frank. I would like to avoid behavior on your part that makes my comments at the AN/I look off base. Harassing the RfC, like your "counterpart" Beeblebrox appears to be doing, does not tend to work very well in the RfCs that I have seen. Feel free to post a boomerang at the AN/I if you feel like you have experienced battleground behavior from that user .Feel free to provide criticism on or edit any of my userspace pages if you need something else to do on Wikipedia right now. Endercase (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, right, I intend to, I just came up with my "four points" when writing something else and wanted to lay it down. I'm out of there for the time being, will check back later. Whatever goes down is fine. And it'd be great if other people work on the essay, if the want to. It could stand some trimming or re-casting or whatever, maybe. I'm sure not going to edit it...

Boomerang on Beeblebrox? No thanks... I mean Beeblebrox is a very dedicated Wikipedian. Very. He's just mad about the essay. I get it. He's a quick block I guess (not really sure), and maybe he sees it as oblique condemnation. And maybe it is (not of him personally of course), and... oh well. He's in the kitchen and can stand the heat. But it's silly to get all het up over it. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase, I see that you've edited the essay, in a way that I consider inimical to the thrust of the essay. Not sure what your deal is, but I consider this an illegitimate edit, and I ask you in the name of good faith and fair play to reverse it, and make your case for it on talk (although even better might be to wait). I've been boxed in at ANI so I can't do it, so from a strictly power-politics perspective I can't make you -- it that's how you want to play it. But it'd be the right thing.

So I mean, regarding your assertion in your edit summary that "Having criticism in the essay in a important tradition" (false, as an objective fact -- there's no such tradition, for the great majority of essays which speak with one voice, and you would unable to demonstrate the existence of such a tradition)... So if I want to change the nutshell at say Wikipedia:Communication is required from

to

do you not see the problem with this? I mean "Having criticism in the essay in a important tradition", so (ignoring the merits of the material, and concentrating on the "important tradition" principle), this'd be a fine edit?

That fact that that would leave someone writing "please respond to my messages, it is helpful and necessary, see WP:ENGAGE" getting a response of "well, but what do you mean? It says there that communication is optional"... rendering the page as useless as if I'd blanked it... isn't that a little bit problematic?

How is this different from your edit? It isn't any different.

And none of this is predjudical against having a separate essay "Communication is overrated" or whatever. And even linking to it at the bottom of Wikipedia:Communication is required. And invoking it in conversation if you want. That is so obviously the correct, rational, and orderly way to arrange things, and that is why that's how it is done here. That I can't make people see this is kind of frustrating. Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Endercase This is the exact behavior that led Beeblebrox to file a report on ANI, in the first place.The unwillingness to cooperate. User:Herostratus, if you cannot understand the Wikipedia is on collaboration, your essay has no place in an encyclopedia. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 02:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, Nevertheless, she persisted. I mean, I asked the person to redact his edit by appealing to his sense of honor and explaining the logic of it. I get that you're mad about something. However, "being mad" is not a helpful argument. I note that you don't refute the general argument I make. You don't because you can't. Herostratus (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

By this I think they mean that calling my edits incorrect outright instead of asking for further explanation is combative. Additionally, you are still acting like you own the article, which is really hurting the ideas contained therein and may result in userfication. Having a criticism section of any essay tends to allow the essay to be balanced and better respected. I like the idea of the essay and do not want to see it smacked down to basically zero. It points out important issues and suggests that empathy on the part of admin is extremely helpful. If another user has issue with my edits I suggest they change them per wp:cycle. I also can not stress enough that you really should just remove that essay from your watchlist for at least a week. Also your comments at the AN/I were ridiculous if you have the ability to strike them I suggest you do so. It is important to remain a certain type of zen when interacting with other users here, your outbursts at the AN/I failed to maintain this zen. I understand you have strong feelings for your work but remember they can never really get rid of anything you do. Deletion is not something that can ever really occur on Wikipedia only hiding, everything is saved. Endercase (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I hear you, although I mostly don't agree with you. Alright then, if I take you at your word that you are wanting to improve the essay, then the problem is that you honestly don't understand that "It hurts to be blocked!" and "It hurts to be blocked! But, being blocked isn't the worst thing that could happen." are materially very different and make quite different points. I accept that I cannot make you understand this simple and obvious thing. Since I cannot, we're done here. Herostratus (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

    I extend the olive branch.
    While I strongly disagreed with some of your actions during this whole episode, I don't dislike you as a person or as a Wikipedian. I'm feeling like this got way more out of control than either of us ever intended and am more than willing to put it in my rearview and forget it. I'm sensing you feel the same, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes I share these sentiments. While I disagree with you on some issues, you make cogent points. And I recognize your long, arduous, stressful, and well-discharged service and stand with you as a fellow Wikipedian, of course. Herostratus (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder

There was overwhelming consensus to move the page, so your having essentially withdrawn your opposition and performed the move yourself does not constituate a unilateral action that you are free to withdraw. The page should not be moved back into the Wikipedia namespace without clear consensus to do so.

It was not clear from your close whether or not this was something you are liable to do, but I've seen other users try it in the past so I figured I'd remind you that you shouldn't. I even did it myself once: there wasn't overwhelming consensus against me -- I did it as a good faith gesture to win some editors on the other side of a small content dispute over, but when it didn't have that effect I self-reverted -- and even in that case I was re-reverted and some editors, no doubt acting in good faith, thought my action inappropriate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Can everyone please just stop trying to micromanage other editors' every breath? EEng 00:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I didn't mean the above to look micromanage-y (or hostile, for that matter) at all. It was just friendly advice. If my recent edits to MjolnirPants's talk page demonstrates anything, it's that Wikipedians can disagree on things and still be cordial. I disagree with the content of the essay in question, but I don't know the user in question from Adam, and so I'm not saying he/she is a bad Wikipedian or anything like that. I am just saying that I know good Wikipedians (myself included) who have in the past tried similar things to "I unilaterally disarmed, but I'm free to change my mind". So when I see something like the unilateral disarmament happening, my mind immediately goes to preventing the "change of mind" (without consensus, of course). I actually wouldn't even have given the above advice if I hadn't myself just nominated the redirects to be speedied: it would then technically have been my fault if I hadn't done anything to prevent. I don't have any intention of micromanaging anything, and I don't even have the newly-userfied essay on my watchlist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No more explanations. Back to editing articles. EEng 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe in another week or two. If you know any classical Chinese-proficient editors who could help me finish what I've started on Li He, let me know. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: 33% of all !votes were cast to keep the essay where it was 66% for moving it ((6:12)/18), as you are not a disinterested 3rd party your claim that there was "overwhelming consensus" is not adequately grounded in my view. wp:not a democracy applies here. It is also worth noting that a good number of !votes cast to move the essay cited wp:own which has nothing to do the the essay itself, and many of the rest were purely ad hominem with little to no real discussion. Yours and MjolnirPants' were the best/only real arguments to move the article IMO. Endercase (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong, as usual, but the stuff about which you are wrong is completely peripheral to the point. The point is that Herostratus is not allowed treat the move as a unilateral action by himself, and is not allowed self-revert just because he changes his mind. My reason for posting this reminder is because I was the one who speedied the redirects, making it theoretically possible for this to happen, and so I would be partly responsible unless I left this notice.

On a completely unrelated note, please stop monitoring my edits, and if you want me to stop giving you advice ("hounding", as you call it), then please stop showing up where I do, and stop pinging me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO you are only here because I stated my opinion in the AN/I and you love to disagree with me. You do show up at a large portion of my edits, often with ad hominem attacks. Whereas, I got here organically and have been interacting with this user far more that you have. As further evidence of your continual failure to assume good faith (while also coming to incorrect conclusions): I do not monitor your edits, to be honest you and your edits do not hold my interest in the slightest. I was involved in this discussion before you were (as the edit histories clearly prove), maybe you should take your own suggestion and stop involving yourself in discussions I am already a part of (often right after I post) as you clearly can not handle interacting with me while maintaining civility (as your above false accusations clearly prove). <ping left out upon request>. Endercase (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John David Long, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dias. 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) 09:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Paid Editor

Article Tox_(Python_testing_wrapper) created by a paid editor. It does not have any notability. He is charging 390-500$ per article for posting such promoted entries on Wikipedia.103.255.4.2 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see. I'll look into it. Herostratus (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Far Field (Future Islands album)

Hey Herostratus, would you mind moving the article to The Far Field (album)? This is the correct dab per WP:ALBUMDAB when there aren't other albums of the same title. I don't want to move it myself now that there's been an RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do it, as the page that exists at The Far Field (album) has had more than one edit, so an administrator has to do it. The WP:RM page tells how to request a technical, uncontroversial move like this. Herostratus (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were an admin. Should have checked.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure OK no prob. Herostratus (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pret a manger page

Hi Herostratus. Why did you remove well sited and correct content? I understand you are trying to stop and "edit war" but please just google for yourself and see that the Hyman story is being exaggerated on the page, probably by a himself or by a friend as Poshcoffee. It is common knowledge who founded Pret and i have been asked by the company to out an end to the constant page vandalization by one user. I thought by providing enough credible sources i could have the section locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cos02125 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, because it is misleading? I posted a compromise version, and I opened a thread on the article talk page. Go there, where we all can talk.

Also, since you say Pret A Manger has engaged you to edit the page (to meet their personal corporate goals, which we have zero interest in here), don't edit the page directly anymore. Instead, engage on the talk page, thanks. See you there! Herostratus (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great thank you for your edit. Your post in the talk section is very reasonable. I will stop editing. Please will make sure Poshcoffe does not change it all back again for the 10th time. The fact that the whole wikipedia page was dedicated to "the Hyman year" for so long was very misleading for all readers. Cos02125 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

re. Bombay Mail (1935 film)

"True, it's not precisely correct (Unless IIO is planning to create an article on the other film) and that does matter." You're absolutely correct, and thank you for your comments. In fact I already had created an article on the 1935 film. All the best. I need to go to the gym. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The gym, yes. Well, most of get dragged to ANI every now and then... I sure have. It can be stressful, but whatever. It's OK that our career can be looked at now and then. Like a performance review at work, it's annoying but possibly helpful to the project overall. Carry on and fear no darnkness, User:In ictu oculi. Herostratus (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

But now I'm confused User:In ictu oculi. You say "In fact I already had created an article on the 1935 film" but where is it? You moved "Bombay Mail" to "Bombay Mail (1934 film)" (and in fact the article says it is a 1934 film) but with a move summary of "Bombay Mail (1935 film)" which is confusing (you may have meant "make room forBombay Mail (1935 film)", and if so maybe you should be careful to make sure your move summaries are clear, under the circumstances)

So where is the article "Bombay Mail (1935 film)"? In draftspace or something? Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Bombay Mail (1934 film) Bombay Mail (1935 film) they are both in main space, as the heading of this section :). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

OK great. I looked at the "Haco" incident. Analyzing it without fear or favor, I found sub-opimal procedure on your part (if I got it right), sorry. It's at the ANI thread. Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I do want to point that I run into your work a lot, appreciate it, usually agree with you (and respect your opinion when I don't). You do great work here and have for a long time. Being dragged to ANI sucks, and I wish I could continue to tell them to back off. I had to follow my analysis where it led me though. Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to say that I too think you (In ictu oculi) do great work. But your opinions on titles are not only often in disagreement with mine, they are often not in agreement with community consensus. Because of that, you really should refrain from making decisions about title changes on your own, as I do. If you would voluntarily agree to do that, this could be over quickly. --В²C ☎ 23:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, User:Born2cycle, it's silly to make a shibboleth of our titling rules, which are quite probably all wrong and merely artifacts of long-ago random decisions. For instance, is Haco (singer) a better title for that article than just Haco, even if there were no other meanings for "Haco" in the universe? It is in my opinion, since it quickly tells the reader the main important thing about the person.

If we had a rule "Titles should generally include a parenthetical word or short phrase describing the entity" or, even better, ""Titles may generally include a parenthetical word or short phrase describing the entity if you think it helpful", so what? It'd better a better world probably, or anyway no worse. So making a federal case about stuff like this is over the top. Herostratus (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Short version: I disagree. Long version: see my personal page and FAQ. --В²C ☎ 17:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh, [[User:Born2cycle. Well, you've thought about this a lot, I'll give you that, and cogently too. On the merits though you are wrong IMO.

Of course it makes sense to have rules on the order of "the title should tell what the article is about" and so forth, thus "Use the most common name" etc. But "the title should be as short as possible" is not a virtue on the same level of merit. We are not running out of ink.

Which you do admit, vouchsafing that "The main benefit of disambiguating only when necessary... is... reduction in conflict". Uh huh. Then why are we at ANI. Is that a reduction in conflict? Seems like its not working and maybe we should rethink this. Disambiguating only when necessary leads to reduction in discussion. But discussion is not conflict; discussion is normal for the Wikipedia.

Conflict is what is happening now at ANI. This is destructive to the Wikipedia. Suppose User talk:In ictu oculi decides "screw it, I don't need this". Would that be another "benefit of disambiguating only when necessary"? No, it wouldn't. We need editors like User talk:In ictu oculi.

It is OK to have arbitrary rules so we don't have to gather around and discuss "should it be 'third baseman' or '3rd baseman'?" and so forth every freaken time the Mets call up another infielder. Fine. But that only works if it works. The tool is not the goal.

I understand the benefits of standardization. It's a complicated question with various aspects. But maybe open your mind to this thought: if you were more of the mind "Well, Haco (singer); I wouldn't do it that way, but whatever -- let a thousand flowers bloom" we would right now have one less ANI thread and one less stressed-out veteran editor. Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I realized years ago that unless everyone involved agrees to not care about titles there will be conflict, and I did not believe that everyone involved would not care. So I start with the premise that people care and will argue their position (whether they should is a separate and arguably moot point). Now, given that they will care and will argue, our goal should be minimization of conflict, and standardization is key to that. Title decision-making is an inherently subjective endeavor, but standards move us a long way from the subjective to the objective end of the spectrum, as you recognize. Concision is a particularly effective standard, because it is especially objective. Without concision we would be left with many more reasonable title candidates for countless articles, with no guidance on how to choose among them. So it's not that I personally prefer Haco to Haco (singer), it's that I don't want to see conflicts about such titles (and WP:RM is already rife with them). People with experience in RM discussions have a pretty good idea of how these decisions tend to go, and when they do personally prefer a "more informative" title, it behooves them to act unilaterally rather than go through the hassle of an RM where their proposal is likely to be rejected. People who engage in these end-run moves should not be encouraged. The only reason they keep doing it is because they are unlikely to get caught, and there is no negative consequence when they do. But they leave a trail of titles that are contrary to concision and community standards that they and others can and do use as example wedges to create more and more titles which are subject to challenge and conflict (because they are not consistent with standards). --В²C ☎ 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Well... I'm a little more amenable to your point, after looking into Talk:Douglas County Courthouse (Wisconsin)#Requested move 29 April 2017. I mean, there's no guideline (that I know of) for building names, and so courthouses are apparently using two different styles. Which, fine... except there was apparently move-warring over this, and its time-consuming to have to address each of these one at a time. So, yeah, that. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have just dropped in and I see B2C conducting a highly selective trawl through 1,000s of dab related edits. I believe this is related to the proposals B2C frequently makes to guideline space that govern the work of those who do contribute to article space. Haco used to redirect to Haakon, The Norwegian Account of Haco's Expedition Against Scotland, before insertion of the unreferenced BLP, and should ideally continue to redirect to Haakon. But again anyone can find anything among 1000s of edits if they are daily following another editor as part of their habitual activity and are not themselves habitually busy with contributing to article space. I thank you for the level of balance you have injected into the discussion but it's quite clear that those invited already have their view. Cheers. And happy productive editing to you. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clement Oak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gloucester County. 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) 09:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

NCYC and PORNBIO

Since you mentioned the PORNBIO case a while back, perhaps you could be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling#Tightening_up_of_WP:NCYC? I started it a few days back but so far there is not much discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. Herostratus (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

ideas for starting RUwiki articles

Herostratus,

I notice that you translate articles from RUwiki to ENwiki. Are you interested in starting a short RUwiki stub on the en:Toronto District School Board? It has a Russian website at http://www.tdsb.on.ca/languages/ru-ru/home.aspx, and I think it would be important for Toronto's Russophone community to have that topic available in Russian.

Thank you for your consideration, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, and it definitely sounds like a worthy idea, but I don't think I'm the person to do it, since I'm not a native Russian speaker and my version might sound a little "off". You should definitely ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia though! Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll try again and see what happens. One thing I do on the Chinese Wikipedia is write a draft version and ask a native speaker to proofread it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, hmmm, hadn't thought of that. Herostratus (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Request_for_stub_on_RUwiki:_Toronto_District_School_Board - If no other editors are interested the article idea would work well :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't received any replies on that thread. If you're interested you can make a short draft on your userspace on RUwiki and ask native speakers to proofread. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ted Bundy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ted Bundy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOT reversion

Why did you revert [4] ? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, but I felt a reversion was on order on these grounds:

1. On principle, that rules pages, and especially policy pages, should edited with care, and generally not without discussion first. (WP:BOLD, in its section about "Wikipedia:" pages, says "In this case, 'bold' refers to boldness of idea; such ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first to best formulate their implementation. The admonition 'but please be careful' is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won, knife-edge consensus – which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background".
2. On the merits, I don't see the addition as being helpful. It introduces additional wording which doesn't really help explain the point better IMO. While it is true that we have a group called "bureaucrats", they aren't really bureaucrats particularly, they just perform a minor technical function. Our admin corps performs most of the bureaucratic-type work around here.

It wasn't terrible or anything, but that page has seem very much contention and is a keystone of the project, so my tendency would be to leave it strictly alone, absent consensus to make a change. You're welcome to propose your addition on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Conference call

Hello User:Tazerdadog, User:Primefac, User:The Wordsmith, and User:Someguy1221.

You guys were the closers at a February 2017 RFC at the policy pump (the question was "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?"). Remember it?

Something I saw there made my spidey sense tingle, and I put in the back of my head to look into it. Then it came up again, and I buckled down and analyzed the discussion -- I spent quite a few hours on it -- and I concluded you got this one wrong. It's OK, it happens.

Anyway, can we fix this? This is reasonably important. I think that people are getting caught in the wringer here, and it's not optimal.

I put my notes into some kind of form, here: WP:USO. It's kind of long, but there's an overview section, and the main part of interest is the "February 2017" section, which even that is kind of long (but you can skip the hidden sections -- they are mainly raw supporting data -- unless you want to check my work). If you would take the time to look this over, when you get a chance, it would be a kindness.

I'm pretty confident that this is not a case of my just disagreeing with you, and I hope you'll agree. I was fairly rigorous and careful I think. I'm certainly willing to consider that I myself have fallen into error somewhere, and if so I hope you'll point that out.

Again, if we conclude together that maybe a mistake was made, it's not problem. Consider this an "RfC Review" if you will, and the only thing that matters is to get it right. I of course have overturned decisions on review and reflection and I'm sure you have too, it's part of the process.

I hope any talk page stalkers I might not have (probably not many) will keep out of this, I'd rather just the five of us work through this, at least initially (or as many of you as are able to engage). I considered opening up the question on email, but I don't work well with email. If you want to work via email instead, fine, but let me know (I don't check that email account often). You may want to talk amongst yourselves and check over your notes and stuff. There's no hurry.

Thanking you in advance for your time and trouble, Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm here, I'm reading your comments, and I'm open to changing/unclosing the close if your argument is solid. I'll replace this with a substantive response in no more than a day. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No hurry, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

After a readthrough of your argument, the RFC, and the closer's email thread, I can definitely see where both your argument, and the arguments that we used as closers came from. From my readthrough the only point of contention appears to be the discounting of SCHOOLOUTCOME-based arguments at AFD - I don't see any disagreement with the no consensus close on the question asked, or with the prohibition on deleting schools due to notability concerns without checking local print media, or with the assertion that schools are special. The treatment of SCHOOLOUTCOMES created a fair amount of division among the closers. I'd like to publish the email exchange onwiki (with all names/emails replaced by Wikipedia Usernames) in the interest of transparency, and so that outside observers can know which arguments were considered, and which ones might have been missed. I will not do so if any of my fellow co-closers object, however. I would like to point out that you seem to be over-emphasizing the numeric vote-count. We were very close to the line between no consensus and consensus against the proposal. It really only took a couple of well thought out and unrefuted !votes to flip the effective result when we addressed SCHOOLOUTCOMES versus the question asked. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. For right now I'm going to lay low and not say much for bit, having done my initial analysis. Transparency is fine, quiet privacy is fine, whatever works best for you guys. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine showing our thought process (i.e. the email thread) towards coming to the close. I think Tazer put it well, so I won't bother rephrasing what was said rather eloquently. I guess the question I have is: are you trying to overturn the RFC close itself, or the OUTCOMES portion? Primefac (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand about the numbers thing. It's a data point. How important it is is a matter on which reasonable people may differ. As far as what I'm trying to do, just the latter. The proposition which was overtly advanced, you judged was not accepted, and that's quite correct: it wasn't, no matter how you slice it.

My analysis shows that nothing was decided there, I am fairly confident so far. Certainly, as you know, "X was rejected" in no way implies "The converse of X was accepted". You'd need a positive indication for that, which I didn't find evidence of. Herostratus (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean "the inverse of X, Hero mine. EEng 02:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I also consent to publishing the email chain. I don't think we got it wrong, but I'm open to a persuasive argument. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Since Someguy1221 did not post in the email chain until the closure was posted, I have all of the consents necessary to post the email chain up until that point. This should provide some insight on the analyses of the individual closers.

The email chain

Setting this up for discussion of the schooloutcomes closure. I will add in someguy1221 to this once he replies to my email. I will post a comment addressing the RFC substantively in a few hours, but I wanted to get everything started. -Tazerdadog Tazerdadog (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (MST) Getting the ball rolling with some thoughts: My rough count of the !votes is 48 support and 50 oppose. Of course, this is not a vote. Many supporters indicated that they were supporting the status quo, not the broader question of automatic notability. Of course, this is not a vote, so let's quickly move on. The opposers have a stronger policy-based argument. Requiring GNG in all cases is a perfectly sensible position as far as policies are concerned. The supporters had some arguments that are less well-supported by policy. Supporting because that's how wikipedia has always done it and it has historically served us well is a poor argument. Similarly, worrying about a flood of AFD's is something to worry about in an implementation, but not really germane to whether we should change the policy. I also think we can discount opinions that argue that school articles can be kept as a recruiting/demonstration tool for new editors. Not all of the support arguments were weak. The argument that the sources generally exist for schools, but are unusually inaccessible because they are concentrated heavily in print and local media is very valid. Furthermore, the supporters have a real argument that removing schooloutcomes will increase systematic bias. Fundamentally, I think there are three closes available to us: 1) Secondary schools should be automatically notable. This seems to go against both the numbers and strength of argument in this RFC. 2) There is no consensus in this discussion. Schooloutcomes continues to state that schools are presumed (but not guaranteed) to be notable, and it can continue to be cited in AFD's as a summary of the arguments in favor of keeping articles on secondary schools, and noting the need to do a more thorough than usual search for sources. At a minimum, such a search should include local print media, not just what is available online. I think that the correct closure for the RFC is along these lines. 3) Declare schooloutcomes dead. This isn't really the question that was asked in the RFC. I also don't think there is a consensus for it even if it was the question. It had marginally more support, and significantly better arguments, but I don't think it got to rough consensus. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2017 (MST) Adding someguy1221 into this discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2017 (MST) From my first impressions, consensus is leaning heavily towards abolishing SCHOOLOUTCOMES, based on the strength of the arguments, but I don't think it is strong enough to call it an actual consensus. I'll have a more detailed analysis tomorrow in the late morning or early afternoon. The WordsmithTalk to me 10:20, 17 February 2017 (MST) That RFC makes my brain hurt... but let's see if I can't get some thoughts down before the pain goes away. I think there are three main points to consider: 1. The ultimate question is "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" 2. SCHOOLOUTCOMES (as mentioned by Kudpung) is not specifically mentioned in the RFC itself. 3. NewYorkActuary (about 3/4 to the bottom) makes a very good point, that there has never been a true consensus about either OUTCOMES or the implied/automatic/presumed notability of schools. It's been a contentious issue from the get-go. For brevity, I'm going to shorthand SCHOOLOUTCOMES to SO. As mentioned, the !votes are nearly split. In a rough count of the "types" of support/oppose rationale, I come up with about ten broad categories for each, but as mentioned initially by Tazerdadog many of the support categories are rather weak ("it will be disruptive", "they deserve an exception", "schools are important to their communities") while the oppose categories are mostly policy-based (GNG, NOTINHERITED, MILL, VAND, etc). This tips the overall consensus towards oppose, but I'm not overly convinced that it's enough for an outright rejection of the actual question (especially in light of point #3). I think there's only one consensus to come to, that of "no consensus" (otherwise we'll be drawn and quartered). In other words, the direct answer to the proposed question is "there is no consensus that schools are presumed notable" (basically Tazerdadog's point #2). However, the arguments presented by the oppose camp (in my mind) mean that SO should not be used as a reason for keeping (or deleting, to be fair). I just re-read SO, and it states nothing about policy. It simply says "usually high schools are kept". The catch-22 argument, therefore, becomes a bit stronger as a valid oppose rationale. So, in opposition to Tazerdadog, I think that SO should not be used in AFDs. I think that it has merit, but holds about as much weight as BEFORE (i.e. if someone breaks it, the worst that happens is a trouting). In other words, there is no consensus that schools are automatically presumed notable (i.e. schools still have to follow GNG and ORG), and SO should not be used as a "keep" argument. Primefac (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2017 (MST) Perhaps we should make a close based around the following points: 1) No consensus (although leaning no) on whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable. 2) SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, but SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. (i.e. not prohibited, but discouraged and potentially discounted in them.) 3) Articles on extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media. A deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. [We'd really need a definition for deep, I propose checked local print media in addition to an online search] It's worth noting that the closeness of this RFC implies that schools are special. If the question was (e.g.) Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?, I would expect the result to be decided quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2017 (MST) I can get behind that, in particular #2. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (MST) Ok, proposing an actual text for closure. " The question asked in this RFC was whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable. Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement. However, this is a discussion, and not a vote, and what truly matters is the strength of each side's argument. The opposers have a strong policy-based argument. Requiring the GNG to be satisfied in all cases is a perfectly sensible position, and one that is consistent with all applicable policies. The arguments of the supporters were more mixed. Some arguments, such as "Schools are important to their communities", "Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well", and "School articles are valuable as a recruitment tool for new editors" do not make much sense and were discounted. Another common argument was that removing the protections secondary schools have historically enjoyed at AfD would lead to a flood of mass AfDing is a concern to be addressed in a hypothetical implementation, but is not germane to the question of whether those protections should exist. These opinions were partially or fully discounted in our evaluation. The supporters did have some very good arguments mixed in with the poor ones. The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong. Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this lean stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted. Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools. This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. (i.e. not prohibited, but discouraged and potentially discounted in them.) Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search. It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. I would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling. It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the arguments to avoid in AfDs list is undesirable. Editors who mass-nominate school articles should be asked to stop." Commentary on this version is welcome. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (MST) Just me being nitpicky: 1) Third paragraph, second sentence, needs a closing " 2) Fifth paragraph, change "I would" to "we would" since there are more than one of us ;-) 3) Final paragraph, I think the "arguments to avoid in AFDs" list bit should be written like that (in quotes, ital only added for emphasis), because otherwise it's a bit messy to read. Overall I think it's very well-worded, brings in both sides and explains how we came to our decision. My only issue is with the last sentence, as it is kind of a BEANs way of phrasing it. However, I can't think of anything better to replace it with, and it's better than no BEANs at all... Primefac (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (MST) I agree with all of your changes. I'm going to give our other 2 co-closers 24 hours to post issues/suggestions, and then post it up so that the tarring and feathering process can begin. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2017 (MST) It can't be any worse than the DM close ;-) Primefac (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2017 (MST) I think the draft is a solid summary of the important points in the right proportions. I agree with Primefac's changes, and regarding the last sentence I would just cut it. "asked to stop" is a meaningless and toothless phrase, and we don't have the authority to do anything meaningful about it. If it stays in, we would just be inviting an ANI thread for anyone who nominates more than one school article. I believe the wording in the third paragraph (about using SO in AFDs) should be slightly stronger. I think there's sufficient consensus (and basic logic) that SO is not actually an argument at all for what should be done with any particular article. Everything else appears to be right on the nose. Excellent job on the draft. The WordsmithTalk to me 08:33, 22 February 2017 (MST) An updated closing statement including Primefac's fixes, and attempting to address The Wordsmith's concerns. I tries to dix the final sentence instead of deleting it. I have also fixed a run-on sentence in the first paragraph: " The question asked in this RFC was whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable. Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement. However, this is a discussion, and not a vote, and what truly matters is the strength of each side's argument. The opposers have a strong policy-based argument. Requiring the GNG to be satisfied in all cases is a perfectly sensible position, and one that is consistent with all applicable policies. The arguments of the supporters were more mixed. Some arguments, such as "Schools are important to their communities", "Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well", and "School articles are valuable as a recruitment tool for new editors" do not make much sense and were discounted. Another common argument was that removing the protections secondary schools have historically enjoyed at AfD would lead to a flood of mass AfDing. This is a concern to be addressed in a hypothetical implementation, but is not germane to the question of whether those protections should exist. These opinions were partially or fully discounted in our evaluation. The supporters did have some very good arguments mixed in with the poor ones. The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong. Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this lean stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted. Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed. Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search. It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. We would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling. It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the "arguments to avoid in AfDs" list is undesirable. Editors are asked to refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations." Commentary is once again welcomed. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2017 (MST) A+ Primefac (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2017 (MST) Looks good to me. The new version addresses my concerns, and I have nothing else substantial to change. One minor thing is that in the second paragraph, "lean" is awkward and should be cut. The sentence would be better reading "we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus" Other than that one niggle, I endorse the close. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:01, 22 February 2017 (MST) Good catch, Wordsmith. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2017 (MST) I have posted the closure at the RFC. It is waiting for your countersignature. Thank you all for your assistance. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2017 (MST)

Herostratus, you said that editors were being put through "the wringer" by the RFC close - could you point to example(s) of what you mean? If our close is having unintended consequences, we need to try to address them. I am very sympathetic to your argument, and I initially wanted to close it that way. It certainly was a very close call as to whether that consensus we found actually fully formed. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into the "wringer" thing right yet, as it's a side issue. Reading the email thread now. I mught take a bit to digest it. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You can feel free to add anything I sent to that email thread. I've been sick the past week and haven't been paying much attention to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward

Hi User:Tazerdadog, User:Primefac, User:The Wordsmith, and User:Someguy1221. Thanks for providing your notes. Sorry it took so long to respond... I could make an excuse, but the truth this that there's little stress involved in all this and I put it off.

Basically, I didn't find anything in your notes that much affects my conclusions at WP:USO. I did write some notes as went through your notes. You don't need to read them since WP:USO remains the operative document. In fact, I'd almost rather you didn't read them since I get a little argumentative at times, and I want to keep this above the level of being argumentative and just the five of use looking at the data and determining the next step. Also it's long. But it's at User:Herostratus/Email chain if you want.

Basically, I read your notes, and as I stand behind what I wrote at WP:USO without change. One thing I didn't write there, not wanting to be contentious, but which is a pretty key point, was this:

The close said "The opposers have a strong policy-based argument. Requiring the GNG to be satisfied in all cases is a perfectly sensible position". [emphasis added] It is an eminently sensible position, but it's not policy-based, because WP:GNG is not a policy. This actually matters, quite a lot. If the GNG was a policy like WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, we would be bound to follow it whether we liked it or not, and the SNG (Special Notability Guidelines) would be definitely superseded, and over a span of years that would have a profound effect on the nature of the encyclopedia. It would be a lot smaller. In fact I recently raised the question of promoting WP:GNG to policy, and there was little enthusiasm or indication that such a proposition would succeed.

Requiring WP:GNG to be satisfied in all cases would be fairly radical, but you clearly meant that requiring WP:GNG to be satisfied in all cases of of secondary schools is a perfectly sensible position. And it is. It's neither nonsense, madness, nor trollery. That doesn't necessarily make it right, or policy-based, or necessarily more sensible than requiring WP:GNG to be satisfied in all cases of fungi, populated places, extinct insect species, mountains, rulers of the Second Turkic Khaganate, and so forth.

OK. So anyway, what's your response to this informal RfC review? What the next step forward? Herostratus (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that GNG is not a policy is continually an issue in various aspects of Wikipedia. However, it has become ingrained enough into the fabric of our community that it's a de facto policy, at least in my mind.

Going forward, we obviously have no call to stop you making any sort of RFC regarding OUTCOMES, since it wasn't explicitly "asked" in the original. However, the main issue becomes one of the (non-caps) outcome of that RFC, particularly if OUTCOMES becomes acceptable as an argument at AFD again. If schools are not inherently notable (per the standing RFC), but you can argue "we keep schools because we always keep schools" (i.e. the OUTCOMES decision is overturned), there becomes rather awkward when one person argues "does not meet GNG" and another argues "OUTCOMES!!!!". This goes back to the GNG-is-not-policy problem, but it's also the reason why so many people argued for/against it at the RFC, and why we felt it was important to include it in the result. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. I hear you. I believe we both have sufficient information on all sides of the issue. What I'm asking for now is a decision: will you (plural) overturn that part of the close which relates to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, or not.

It occurs to me that using a closing-team system, which I've advocated (used it myself once), has a flaw: review. Somehow we need to four of you, or whichever of you are willing to engage, to come to a single decision. If you want to talk about it via email, or talk about it publicly among yourselves either here or elsewhere, or just each lay down a yea/nay marker here or elsewhere (and if its not unanimous -- ouch; we'll have to take it from there) or whatever, let's do it. There' no hurry, take your time, we want to get it right. Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That RFC was extraordinarily close on this. I initially disagreed with my co-closers, and wanted to close with outcomes allowed as an argument in AFD's. They convinced me to change that position, and you've pulled be back to neutral. Right now, I'm squarely on the fence on the merits of that clause. I think either close is perfectly acceptable, and I have no idea which way I'd close it if I was closing it today solo. Right now, I'm going to sayI'm not willing to overturn that, because I think the arguments on their merits areapproximately even, and stare decesis is a thing. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of my close, and I will not object if my co-closers decide to reverse themselves. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Tazerdadog, OK. stare decisis. Yes you are correct it is a thing. It would imply not overturning a 15 year old precedent on the basis of equal argument. I would think.

@Primefac, OK. No I am not just going to run an RfC on this, no. At least not just like that. As you know, human nature being what it is, there will be probably about equal numbers, with people "voting" based on their desired outcome, thus probably resulting in no consensus (most closers are (rightly) not willing to entirely overlook the numbers). So I'll look for other paths forward.

FWIW I looked at 100 random articles. A lot of them don't meet the GNG. Some that don't could, and some that couldn't nevertheless meet an SNG (Special Notability Guideline, such as WP:NGEO) instead. But some that are in none of those categories are appear to be protected by a "de facto" SNG, such as species (Mitrulinia and stuff like that). I added a note to this at WP:USO, here. Guess there's always something new to learn.

Looks like 2 of 4 are not inclined to correct the decision despite my demonstrating that it was an (understandable) error. OK. Still waiting to hear from User:The Wordsmith and User:Someguy1221. Herostratus (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This was a pretty unusual RfC. Mainly because it was framed as an RfC to make schooloutcomes a guideline, and half the participants treated it as an RfC to make a guideline rejecting schooloutcomes. Normally when an RfC fails, this does not de facto create a guideline that says the opposite of the proposal. But then this was also an RfC over something that was merely a statement of common practice, that was being treated as a de facto guideline. All very unusual. If schooloutcomes had been an actual guideline, and we closed the RfC by getting rid of it, that would have been the wrong close. However, our unusual close was mostly just to put a boilerplate on a statement of common practice, that there is a consensus that stating this to be common practice is a bad argument at AFD, and should be avoided. I think we got that right even if it was weird. I hope my stream of consciousness made sense there. Now, my personal reading of the RfC was that while there was a slim majority (and strong guideline-based argument) against schooloutcomes, there were likely strong consensuses hiding in there on more narrow issues. I suspect that an RfC specifically on publicly run, accredited high schools, would find they are presumed notable. I suspect that an RfC on private and/or unaccredited high schools would find them to have no presumption of notability. I pitched this in the email chain, but no one else thought there would be a stomach for another schools RfC. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

My position is fairly similar to Someguy1221 on this. The fact that OUTCOMES was not a guideline is the key here. An RFC to promote a guideline cannot result in the creation of a guideline rejecting the proposal. However, that's not what happened here. We had an RFC about a common argument with no official standing as policy or guideline, with a consensus that the common argument is a terrible argument that should carry little weight. While it certainly isn't the most clear-cut RFC I've ever closed, after reviewing it again I do still believe the consensus was there. After reading everything said here, while I believe that a simple "no consensus" would also have been an acceptable outcome, I don't actually see strong enough evidence that we got the close wrong and should overturn. I also haven't seen any evidence presented that the RFC closure has caused any undue hardship or harm to either editors or our coverage of schools.

Despite your bare assertions to the contrary, you have not proven that the close was an error to be corrected. As I believe that now the closers have unanimously decided not to overturn, you still have the option available to you of requesting review at WP:AN. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Herostratus,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 803 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:TrumpOrb.png

Thanks for uploading File:TrumpOrb.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

More specifically: There exists an another file, and it does not differ significantly from the one you uploaded. I mean this one. WP:F7 and WP:NFCCP are the relevant policies, as there exists a "free equivalent" under the current fair use claim given as a rationale on the image's description page. Ceosad (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome vigilance regarding copyright and fair use (which I share) but in this case, I don't think the two photographs are even close to similar enough. You can't replace an article largely about a historic photograph with a photograph of the same event but having a completely different aspect and thus, besides not being the historic photograph, not even having the qualities that made the historical photograph historic and notable. I made my case at the photo's talk page. Herostratus (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:TrumpOrb.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TrumpOrb.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. Majora (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Covfefe

		The Donald Trump Barnstar
		For all your work on articles related to Covfefe. --Milowent • hasspoken 15:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

How do you upload images or put them on your user page? I've looked up how many times but I dont understand... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Haha

this icon tho... xD Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

You helped a lot with improving my user page and I'd love it if you could look at it now! I've come very far in improving it. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Prepon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Prepon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Your editing at The Rainard School is in violation of RfC: Religion in infoboxes, which had a clear consensus that in all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

In addition Your recent editing history at The Rainard School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm apparently nicer than you, at least today, I'll see your ridiculous template with a milder one of Wikipe-tan scolding you, which you certainly deserve. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. You coult have written me a nice note and chose not to. Also see WP:NOTBURO which is an actual policy which your are egregiously and deliberately violating. You are trying to read that discussion as an Etruscan priest might read a goat's liver, and that's not how we roll here. Of the four discussions you point to, three have nothing -- literally and absolutely nothing -- to do with the matter at hand, and the fourth was made when religion was part of the infoboxes for individuals and the discussion was entirely about individuals. And you know this, so stop implying otherwise.

For your sake, I'll let let it go for the time being rather than calling the cops and turning this into a dramafest, as you would apparently like. In this, I am doing you a favor as you are not only in the wrong but self-evidently in the wrong and your desire to escalate would likely only result in blowback for you. You're welcome.

You're doing all this because you have no comeback for "this would help the reader because ________" and you know that you don't. Fine, I get it: when you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, pound the table. I opened a discussion on the matter, which is too bad since it's a waste of time to have to adjudicate what normally could be handled by common sense, but whatever. It's here: Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as secular as well as religious? and you're welcome to make your point -- whatever it is -- there. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The arguments in the essay WP:DTTR are inferior to the arguments in the essay WP:TTR.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dude. You fucking templated me. This was a deliberate and egregious insult and you know that it is. You threatened to try to get me fucking blocked because of your ridiculous and frankly marginally insane obsession, on which you are not only wrong on the merits but self-evidently wrong. I don't know if you're a militant atheist or what your fucking reason for twisting the truth is, and I don't care. Go away and to not attempt to address me again over this matter, OK? I've opened a RfC at the place pointed to, and make your case there. Stay away, and any attempt to further contact me on this matter I will consider harassment and cause for escalation. Herostratus (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox? has been snow closed. The Wikipedia community has decided, once again, that without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion=' parameter of the infobox on any article anywhere on Wikipedia. As amusing as your continued personal attacks are, I am unwatching your user talk page, and intend to ignore you from now on. Feel free to have the last word; I will not see it.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I asked you to stay off my talk page and you chose to ignore that request, so this has now become a problem. Second of all, for some reason you decided to add the icon with an admonition to not make personal attacks on anyone. I haven't made any such attacks and you know I haven't, so it appears that you're going out of your way to be obnoxious and annoy people, even at the price of violating the WP:HARASSMENT policy. I'd advise against this. Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Gant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Gant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Images

A few months ago I asked if you could help me with uploading Images. However I forgot to mention that I use the mobile version which apparently doesn't allow images to be uploaded. Sorry for that trouble I caused as well... Dinah In Wonderland 20:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not trouble, it's fine. Always glad to help with any other questions you have. Yes the mobile version is fine for reading, but for serious editing you want a computer. Herostratus (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know... However my computer doesn't work yet on internet T^T Dinah In Wonderland 00:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I cried because I had no wifi... until I met a man who had no browser. EEng 00:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh. Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait.. computer doesn't work on internet.... is that even a thing? Herostratus (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Public Service Announcement: No internet access? Email us now for free help! EEng 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup my family doesn't have internet yet. I only use data on my phone and it's not to bad.... Besides the fact it takes a while to load sometimes and if you lay down while on it you can't have internet... Dinah In Wonderland 13:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way can one of you take out the Wikipedia links on my Draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dinah_Liddell it's really getting on my nerves and no-one will help. (Plus with the mobile view you can't) Dinah In Wonderland 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Oliver

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Oliver. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Panzermadels for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Panzermadels is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panzermadels until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Trump orb for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump orb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump orb (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KMF (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dina Powell

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dina Powell. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

12 years of editing

Hey, Herostratus. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! "I have grown not only grey, but nearly blind in your service..." -- George Washington

Orphaned non-free image File:TrumpOrb.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TrumpOrb.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ducati Monster

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ducati Monster. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

My Living Doll

First thank you for your advice and correction of my (misguided) link to a commercial service. I intend to avoid that in the future.

Second, thanks also for the recast of my inline ref to regular ref.

However, the ref became linked within the article twice. This would be fine except that the 'quote' portion of the original ref addressed only the controversy (Cummings v. Newmar/Leeds) but not the existence of the colorized versions.

Therefore, I split this into 2 separate refs, changing the 'quote' portion of the second ref to address the existence of the (non-commercial) colorized. Although slightly awkward, I kept this in the form of an abridged quote from the original article.

I hope this is acceptable and makes the refs clearer to the reader. QUESTION: Is there a (less awkward) more correct way to add explanatory text within a ref, other than as a 'quote'?

( Noted here because I forgot to mention this as I applied the edit.)

Best Regards, Jmonti824 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I see your point about splitting the ref since one had a quote... I have not considered this before and I'm not sure if we have a rule or normal procedure for this (probably not, it is rare I guess), but what you did was probably the best solution.

On the general issue, a rule of thumb here is: Put in the text if it's useful. Don't overly worry about the formatting, someone will be along to fix it eventually. Teamwork. Ditto for making a "mistake" like your pointer to the commercial site. It's fine. Don't be overly timid, be WP:BOLD. Someone will be along to fix it presently.

---

As to putting the notes in the text without using quotes, there is, and I use it a fair amount (and also the quote field at times.) It's a bit more involved than using the quote field though.

At the place where you want to put the explanatory text, you write {{#tag:ref|your text|group=note}}. Like for instance {{#tag:ref|Some sources disagree and say blah-blah-blah|group=note}} (or whatever). This goes right in the article text at the desired place.

Them you make a separate section called "Notes" right above the "References" section (or right below if you prefer). In this section you put one thing: {{reflist|group=note}}

The text you wrote in the article text (at {{#tag:ref|your text|group=note}}) will appear in the Notes section AND if the person hovers over the note in the article text.

(FWIW "notes" in the above example is not a magic word, you could name it "my_notes" or whatever, as long as you use the same name in both places.)

If you have more than one footnote, just also do {{#tag:ref|different text|group=note}} at the second place, and so forth. I think this automatically generates "Note 1" and "Note 2" in the article text (not 100% sure of that).

The Thames (steamship) is an example.

---

BUT there's another way to do it if you prefer:

Write {{efn|name=FOO}} in the article text, and you DON'T put your explanatory text there, then in the "Notes" section which you've made you put {{efn|name=FOO | your text}}. This lets you write your explanatory text in the "Notes" section if you prefer or if you think your text will cause too much clutter for future editors. It appears identically to the reader as the first method I described. (Of course "FOO" can be any string you like.)

See Alyosha Monument, Murmansk for an example of this approach.

---

AND some people don't like the "Note 1" etc in the article text, and prefer "A", "B", etc. as it is shorter. You do {{ref label|note01|A|^}} for the first one, {{ref label|note02|B|^}} for the second, {{|ref label|note03|C|^}}/ for the third, and so forth. You don't write your text there.

Then in your Notes section you write

'''A.'''{{note label|note01|A|^}}Your text for the first note.

'''B.'''{{note label|note02|B|^}}Your text for the second note.

'''C.'''{{note label|note03|C|^}}Your text for the third note, etc.

I'm pretty sure the "Note01" can be any string, and the "A" can be any string, as long at the two uses match, but letters are usually used, I think. List of tallest buildings by U.S. state is an example.

---

As a general rule and speaking strictly for myself, I use the quotes field to pick out the relevant passage in the source so the person can quickly find it in the source (which might be a long article or whatever) rather than reading through the entire source. I use the "Note" scheme described above for some aside or explanation which might be useful to the reader but isn't important enough or is two technical to be in the main text. See The Thames (steamship) for a couple examples of this.

Hope this helps, happy wiki'ing, and I'm here to answer any other questions if you wish. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Nazi family.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nazi family.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roman Polanski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roman Polanski. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Energy East

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Energy East. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

COI Edit request

I'm trying to clear the backlog of COI edit requests, and your request is one of the last ones left. It received a response just yesterday. May I close the request as answered, or would you prefer I keep it open? Please advise. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  07:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It is answered and you may mark it such. Herostratus (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Red Raven (gastropub) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Raven (gastropub) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Raven (gastropub) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TM 14:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

NPA

Hello, I'm The Quixotic Potato. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. You obviously enjoy starting fights which where you can use passive aggression to bait people into getting angry with you and exhibit a holier-than-thou attitude, escalating to implied threats with templates. Wheeee. I guess you've had fun then! All righty-roo! So can we move on now? A good start might be you stopping putting ridiculously large images and text on my userpage. Then we can move on to you going away and bothering someone else. Herostratus (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Annoying and insulting people random people on the internet is unwise. Some potential victims are smarter than you are, and will demonstrate their superior skill in the game you play. I have forgiven you, let's move on and pretend this never happened. If you really want to you can have the last word, but it is probably better to go improve some articles. I will do the same. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

WTF?

This crusade against Quixotic Potato seems completely out of character for you. He can be a complete dick, but the brackets thing? That's going nowhere. I recommend you ignore him, and if he hounds you, then you'll have strong grounds for action. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I mean they guy has a famously ant-semitic symbol in his sig. Yes, technically it's being used as anti-anti-semitism. Sure, and a signature of "NiggahBoy is technically anti-racist (if used by a African American or someone who claims to be) on grounds of defusing a fraught word, and a sig of "OpposedTo" is technically anti-Nazi and not a way to get a swastika up in everybody's face.

Sure.

I not only think there's potential for trolling with all this, I think the editor is trolling. I mean he wrote "Much of my entertainment is people doing stupid shit" which indicates he's doing this for the lulz; I didn't realize the Wikipedia was an entertainment venue now.

I'm OK with a result if "It's fine, it's not a problem". I'm not OK with a result of "it's illegitimate to even raise the question of whether it's OK to throw around anti-semitic symbols here" which was the result. It's not a good look, not at all. And it's not going to go away. I'm not done here. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you not know that this is used as a badge of pride by those who are Jewish or who oppose neo-Nazism? A bunch of my friends on Twitter - Jews and goyim alike - use it as a show of strength against the alt-right. Unlike the swastika, its meaning is really known only to the initiates. In other words, anyone who would be offended knows it is not being used offensively. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

My prior interactions with TQP have led to his being blocked twice for harassing myself (and others). One particular demonstration of that harassment was the (mis)use of a civility template like the one above. I can understand why it's hard to let the issue go given his annoying demeanor, but as TQP noted himself on ANI, there is an encyclopedia to be built. He's probably not going to contribute much to that endeavor, but thankfully we have credible, net-positive editors like yourself who will. He's not going to change his sig and the community won't make make him do it, so I don't think you'll benefit from pursuing it any further. Lepricavark (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 02:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pink tide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pink tide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Malaya Sadovaya Street (painting).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Malaya Sadovaya Street (painting).png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kate Mara

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kate Mara. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Juliana Gromova.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Juliana Gromova.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Recreating the A-Style Wikipedia page

Hello,

I'm interested in re-creating the A-Style Wikipedia page. I'm Italian, and I'm willing to translate the content from the Italian Wikipedia onto the English one.

However, when I wanted to create the page, I saw you already had deleted the page because it was more like an advertising than a notable article. Over 10 year later, I feel like that is no longer the case.

I had to contact you first, as the infobox suggested me to do that. Please reply swiftly, so I can start ASAP.

MatteoNL97 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, fine, I'll respond in more detail on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of The Red Hen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Red Hen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Hen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo - The Red Hen Lexington Virginia.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo - The Red Hen Lexington Virginia.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martha McSally

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martha McSally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Kearney?

Hello Herostratus,

I was wondering how/where you found so much information on Patrick Kearney?

Patrick Kearney was my wife's great-grandfather. Her grandmother was Deidre, his second daughter.

I attempted to search for information on him a while back and couldn't find nearly as much as you have here.

I'll have to confirm this, but I don't think his first daughter, Monica; was with Elizabeth.

I believe Monica was a product of an earlier marriage.

It's my understanding that Kearney was an abusive alcoholic and Elizabeth divorced him before his suicide.

Elizabeth married a wealthy New York businessman, Sheldon Coons; who raised Deidre as his own.

Very little is known now about the personal life of Patrick Kearney, since he was a dark chapter that was preferred left in the dark.

Regarding Elizabeth's lawsuit against Paramount, I believe they did settle with a small one-time royalty payment as Kearney was credited as the screenwriter.

Also, I believe he may have committed suicide when he lived in Hollywood following an attempt to become a studio writer.

I'll have to find an old newspaper clipping about his suicide, but I believe it states the address where he was living in Hollywood. He committed suicide by putting his head in an unlit gas oven.

I can be reached at bsdevlin@hotmail.com if you have any other information.

Cheers, Stewart Devlin Bsdevlin (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm glad you liked it. I believe I got all the info from the internet, mostly or entirely just by Googling I think. I think that all the references (at the bottom of the article) are online.

Yeah I was curious about what happened with the A Place In The Sun situation. I had the facts of the dispute, but not the outcome. It makes sense that Paramount Pictures, being large and rich with many lawyers, could have offered a fairly small settlement and had it accepted.

All of this is interesting, but most of it we can't use, since we require published sources (it's not that I don't believe you, but the reader has to be able to check the sources). However, I think I'll remove the statement that Monica was Elizabeth's daughter; I won't say she wasn't, but I won't say she was either.

As to the place of death, I have that as coming from United Press International, and published in the Bakersfield Californian on March 29, 1933. It was UPI boilerplate, so it was probably published in many papers on or near that date. I don't suppose the Californian had any special interest in or connection to Mr Kearny, they just needed a column-inch to fill or something and grabbed it from the top of the UPI feed. Probably. I had access to that paper through Newspapers.com, which has a huge database of small-city papers. It's a subscription service, but they give some Wikipedia editors a free subscription. If you want you can follow that link (it's #19 at the bottom of the article, take the 7 day trial subscription, read the article, and then cancel (I assume).

Of course UPI could be wrong, but probably not -- they're pretty reliable, and need to be to stay in business. So I'm sticking with the NYC location for now. He did write a screenplay for a 1932 movie, so it makes sense that he was living in Hollywood. Maybe he went back to New York for a visit or whatever?

Right, I get what you're saying about a dark chapter, but on the other hand he was a lot more accomplished than most people, with some Broadway plays and of course the connection with Dreiser. Well, that's how it goes sometime I guess.

Incidentally I got interested in Mr Kearny because I became interested in the Huntington Hartford Theater in LA, which (under the name Vine St Theater then) was the first Broadway-class legit theater in LA, and since An American Tragedy was the first production mounted there, that led me to Mr Kearny, and I figured I'd write his article. We're always filling in these little holes here at the Wikipedia.

Thanks for your most interesting communication! Herostratus (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Mnmh, OK, so here, here, and [5] we have more info on Sheldon Coons, and from this I deduce the following as being probably true:

• Monica was a good deal older than Dierdre, since Dierdre is listed as living, in 1940, as an 11-year-old with Elizabeth and Sheldon Coons, but Monica is not -- she was probably grown and living on her own by then would be my guess, assuming that she was alive.
• Monica would therefore have been at least 18 in 1940, quite likely older, so there would have been at least an gap of seven years, probably more, between the girls, so it makes sense that Monica's mother was not Elizabeth. Although this is far from certain.
• Sheldon Coons may have adopted Dierdre, since she was pretty young, her father was dead, her name was changed to Coons, and she's listed in one of those refs as his daughter (not step-daughter), along with some other children he had with Elizabeth. However, there may not have been a formal adoption.
• Dierdre apparently married a man name Hill, as her name is given as Dierdre Hill at the time of Sheldon's death in 1979.

Sheldon's great-granddaughter (not related in any way to Kearny, since her lineage is from Sheldon) was Rebekah Ann Horner. Rebekah is about 40 now and apparently living in Ripley, West Virginia. She is... if I have this right... your wife's second cousin, although only a half-second-cousin really. Herostratus (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually no. My wife is Rebekah Anne Devlin, nee Horner. Her mother was Randi Kearney Horner, nee Hill; who was the daughter of Deirdre Hill, nee Kearney and/or Coons; who in turn was the daughter of Patrick Kearney and Elizabeth Russell. Here is the wedding announcement in the NYT on 1/17/1928 https://www.nytimes.com/1928/01/17/archives/kearney-playwright-weds-artists-model-civil-ceremony-follows-one.html

I don't know if Deirdre ever officially took Coons as her last name. Divorce was still taboo at the time, and it was probably simpler to just go by Deirdre Coons instead of having to explain the dark past of her father.

Patrick's life was clearly tumultuous. Here is a NTY story on 6/6/1926 describing pursuit of his FIRST wife Anita Day Porterfield to find his daughter Monica who he claimed had been kidnapped https://www.nytimes.com/1926/06/06/archives/charges-exwife-kidnapped-child-author-gets-a-warrant-for-her-arrest.html

Here is the NYT on 6/10/1926 regarding the resolution of the "kidnapping" https://www.nytimes.com/1926/06/10/archives/custody-of-child-given-to-playwright-but-patrick-kearney-must-leave.html

Here is the NYT on 7/10/1926 about the upcoming production of 'An American Tragedy' https://www.nytimes.com/1926/07/10/archives/horace-liveright-to-produce-6-plays-his-next-seasons-plans-include.html

Here is the NYT on 8/9/1935 about RKO finishing production of "His Family Tree" which was adapted from his play "Old Man Murphy" https://www.nytimes.com/1935/08/09/archives/screen-notes.html

Also, Patrick was actually married for the second time to an actress named Irene O'Brien, who divorced him in 1926. Coincidentally the same year he claimed his first wife kidnapped Monica. Here is the story about his suicide in the NYT on 3/29/1933. It gives a little more detail about his professional and personal life. https://www.nytimes.com/1933/03/29/archives/playwright-kills-himself-with-gas-patrick-kearney-dramatist-of-an.html

I have been working with Joe Coons on this research, who is the only child of Sheldon Coons and Elizabeth Russell and younger half-brother of Deirdre. So that makes him my wife's half-great uncle.

Elizabeth and Sheldon Coons did win a judgement against the movie studio for "A Place In The Sun". Joe tells me that is was around $20,000 which would be about $174,000 today. Sheldon paid all the legal fees so all of the winnings was split between Kearney's only heirs Monica and Deirdre. I will pass along any information we can find regarding the date and records of the lawsuit.

While I've been using Wikipedia for a very long time this is now only my second attempt at being an active participant, so please excuse any incorrect formatting or procedures. Thanks Bsdevlin (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Lulu (singer)

It's basic WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 07:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I'm certainly sensitive to BLP. However, let me offer a different perspective.

The spirit of BLP was expressed by Jimbo when it was being made: "We are not here to make people sad". There're three main purposes to BLP: 1) Protect people's feelings (to the extent we possibly can without compromising our mission), 2) Protect people's reputations (to the extent we possibly can without compromising our mission), 3) Protect our own interests, by not running a gossip or character-assassination shop, which moral and mission considerations aside is a headache on various levels.

This is why BLP does not say "In a BLP, if you find any unsourced material, robotically delete it at once." It's more complicated than than that, which is why BLP says "high degree of sensitivity", and "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation" (emphasis in original) and "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and so on.

None of that applies to the material. It's not salacious. It's not gossip. It's not likely to hurt her feelings or harm her reputation. It's not an attack on her privacy. It's not biased. Neither you or anybody else is challenging its veracity, for the good reason that it is very likely to be true (which we can check). (Whether or not it is trivial and not worth including on that ground I don't know, but that's an entirely different question.)

So it should be treated like any unsourced material in any article. There are many millions of statements of fact in the Wikipedia which are not directly sourced. That is a shame and a problem, but I mean it has to be triaged in a reasonable way. This is why, if someone made a robot to delete all unsourced material, it would not be approved (and people who go thru the Wikipedia mechanically deleting swaths of unsourced material are made to back off).

Because good approach to finding unsourced material which is very likely true is something along the lines of:

1. Fix it.
2. If you can't find refs or can't be bothered to look, then tag it so someone else can. (If you check back in couple years or whatever and nobody's bothered to fix it, it's reasonable to delete it then -- altho a lot more reasonable to look up the refs, if you didn't earlier).
3. If you don't want to tag it, let it go.

If the material is probably not true or even just seems sketchy, that's different. If it's in some way possibly harmful, that's different.

But this is probably true, because 1) altho nothing's impossible, this does not look like the work of a vandal, and 2) it hangs together in a way that indicates it is probably the work of somebody who knows what she's about and just didn't have or provide references. It's possible that the editor has their info wrong tho; I consider that unlikely enough for me, personally, to skip over it, but since it's an issue to you, let's look.

There's three statements of fact. The first is

On 1 April 2017, she appeared as a guest on All Round to Mrs. Brown's alongside Holly Willoughby and Philip Schofield.

Is this true? It is according to the BBC. Next is

On 17 August 2017, she took part in the BBC's Who Do You Think You Are programme.

True? Yes, it is.[6][7]. Finally, we have

On 19 March 2018, she joined the cast of 42nd Street (musical) playing the lead role Dorothy Brock for a 16 week tenure.

Also true.

So, now I'll restore the material with these refs. It's useful work, but I'm not super happy about taking the time to do that, because I don't really care about this particular issue. You do, and so you should have been the one to to do the work, IMO. Herostratus (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Now, Forager theatrical poster.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Good bot. Have a washer. Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sephora

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sephora. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Herostratus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Herostratus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Defense of Tsaritsyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defense of Tsaritsyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)