User talk:Oldperson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Oldperson/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ariconte (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

I'll help you with some minor technical edits with your permission.

Hi, Alvanhholmes, with your permission I will do some really basic technical edits on your page. I see where you've tried to create links and I'd like to fix those for you. Remember, any edits that I make you can revert using the page history. This way you can fix anything that I may have misunderstood. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 22:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Some changes made, hope you can see how to do inline references now

I hope my (our) changes have been helpful. See Help:Referencing for beginners for some guidance. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I also want to recommend this page WP:MOSBIO. But remember, don't let all these guidelines stop you from making progress. You don't have to follow every single guideline now. I've been learning as I go too. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 02:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear, Alvanhholmes.

While creating a reference out of some of the information you provided as references, I discovered that some of the webpages didn't exist anymore. However, you'll see that I was able to find web archives of those pages for you which you'll find in your sandbox (where you're making your draft). Out of curiosity, I searched for one of those pages to see if they had a new home page and I think this might be their new one: http://www.jamestowne.org/about-us.html You might find it useful as you work on your article. If I can find a tutorial video that explains how to use the visual editor to create references, I'll share it with you here. Don't hesitate to ask for help and direction. Don't let the learning curve stop you from generating the prose necessary for a quality article.

Also, I wanted to point out that you can view the edit history in your sandbox to see the code (called "wikitext") that we've been changing on your page. Here is a guide to how to understand the page history interface: WP:PAGEHIST 🤠 Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 06:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Alvanhholmes,

I've been trying to find better learning material for you and I found higher quality tutorials on another wikipedia project called Wiki Education. These tutorials are meant for students whose professors have incorporated editing wikipedia into their course assignments. I've gone through one that I recommend here: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/how-to-edit

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Answering your email

Yes, I will look at the page again.

You have been writing on User talk:Shashi Sushila Murray so you have figured out how to do it....

Being 79 or 13 is no barrier to writing on Wikipedia! The hard part is writing good encyclopedia articles.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

How to submit, and should you submit.

You submit your article for review by clicking the submit button at the top of the article.

I don't think it is ready. I think there is too much genealogy; see: WP:NOTGENEALOGY and not enough focus on why this particular gentleman was notable. As Shashi Sushila Murray said (above) have a look at WP:MOSBIO.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I will comply. My apologies on using the email link. I'm an old codger and there are three year olds more adept at this than me, I can email so I reverted to what I know and am comfortable with.

I am slowly getting a handle on this new fangled thing. Not sure why I took it on. I asked a couple of other people younger and more adept,, but evidently they don't have the time and all I have is time, until the hourglass runs out.

Thanks again for your help and consideraton. Alvanhholmes (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome! Keep plugging away. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply to emails about references

The reason you're not seeing the full list of references in the source editor is they're scattered around the article: They're written in the text and tagged so that they automatically get added to a list. And then {{reflist}} shows that list. References for specific facts should be on the list. References for the article as a whole can be kept in a subsection, typically called "Bibliography", "Sources" or "Further reading".

I'll look at the references now, especially those with page numbers. – Pretended leer {talk} 18:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Previous article on William Farrar????

In your Teahouse post you say "IN 2009 someone pulled an article about Councillor William Farrar who arrived at Jamestown in 1618...".

What article are you referring to? Was it a Wikipedia article? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariconte: William Farrar is disambiguation page. But looking at its history and then clicking "show logs" I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=William+Farrar Seems like it did exist and got deleted. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I have asked for it to be WP:USERFIED.... stay tuned. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvanhholmes - in answer to your email: If it is userfied, it will be put in a subpage of my userspace. I will then be able to understand why it was deleted. It won't have any effect on what is in your sandbox. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvanhholmes - in answer to your email: If I get a copy or reasoning why it was deleted; I will share it with you. Please communicate with me using this page or my talk page. It has the advantage that others can see it. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvanhholmes - the old article has been restored to the history. You can see it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Farrar&oldid=257110535

Shashi Sushila Murray and Pretended leer - I didn't see anything that needed saving.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Ariconte, thank you! I'm learning so much from this lol. :D Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Shashi: If I could impose one more time. I spent all day on William Farrar (settler) adding internal links, citations from books and url's. I am stymied as to how to make a citation with a page number for a book,and there are a few of them that I have added.

Other than that I think I am finished, unless I missed something I have cited everything that I could see needed a source.

I would appreciate it if you looked it over, perhaps cleaned it up a little, and told me what I was doing wrong

Ever gratefulAlvanhholmes (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:William Farrar, from its old location at User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Farrar (settler) has been accepted

William Farrar (settler), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Broken references

Why do you add all these broken references???? See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Farrar_%28settler%29&type=revision&diff=868260249&oldid=868244074

Scroll down to the bottom and see all the red errors!

When this happens you should immediately reverse the edit and research what the problem is..... it will be easier if you just do one reference at a time.

See Help:Referencing for beginners.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article William Farrar (settler) ‎. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kuru. I just received notice from you that I incorrectly used some references that were mirrors of Wiki. Please be patient, not only is this my first attempt but I am 79 trying to recover from the remoal of a brain tumor and radiation. Has left me with deficits, but I function well enough Just some memory problems and reading problems.

Anyway I can't think of any sites I referenced that are mirrors of wiki or anything else. I used internal wiki links [[ ]] I thought that we were suppose to refence wikipedia links where they existed. and some websites with books, But I can't think of any sites which might violate standards. You would help me understand if you could inform me f the specific links so I would know what to look for. I honestly don't understand what you are saying Thank youAlvanhholmes (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

In this edit, you added "WikiVisually" as source. That site clearly copies material from Wikipedia; the material there is an exact copy of Jordan Point, Virginia, and the site acknowledges that they use our material with a specific disclaimer: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." It's pretty unusual for articles to move through AFC with an overt mirror still attached - @Frayae: may have insight into the review process, which typically includes a look at the reliability of the sources.

A few hours after the article was moved into mainspace, I removed the link to "WikiVisually" and left a clear edit summary indicating the problem. This indicates the exact source that was a problem, and a link to the policy it violated.

In this edit, you added another reference to the same statement. The site given was "Revolvy", another clearly identfied mirror. Note that the material is exactly the same as our article again, and there is a notice stating "Content from Wikipedia" with the Wikipedia logo and link back to our article. I removed that link, noting again that this was a clear mirror. Unfortunately, you re-added the material and the link to the mirror. I'll correct that again.

Please be more careful in selecting your sources. It is usually not a good idea to search google with the exact phrase you're trying to support - that will often return mirrors, some of which may not be identified as clearly as the two you've been adding. Given the warning I left previously, I'm not sure how else to explain why mirrors are not appropriate sources. If you have a specific question, I'm happy to help. Kuru (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I understand. I thought that wikivisually and revolvy were part of wikipedia. Please realize that there is a lot about this and the web that I don't understand. I've only used the web for browsing, buying and email. I hope that you see this response since it is on my page. I will copy it onto your talk page 16:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Alvanhholmes! You created a thread called Help creating an article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply to the email from the 9th of November, 2018

I had a look at the text you emailed me about Farrar's Island, and here are some changes I'd make:

• We refer to months by their full names: so we write April rather than just Apr.
• Articles can only use images that are on either Wikipedia or Commons. But for articles about places, they should probably be on Commons.
• Also, in order to upload an image to Commons you'd need its author's permission. There are exceptions to this, such as if the image is very old. But without knowing where the image comes from, I can't see if that is the case.
• Template:cite web automatically links the URL. You don't need square brackets around it. So instead of {{cite web [url= https://mapcarta.com/21862716/Map|As Farrar’s Island looks today}}</ref>}} I'd write <ref name="mapcarta">{{cite web |url= https://mapcarta.com/21862716/Map |title=As Farrar's Island looks today}}</ref>}}. That reference was also missing a |title, but the other ones did have titles.
• We don't use curly apostrophes here, so instead of Farrar’s Island we write Farrar's Island.
• Inside the quotation, there's a place that says ]] (a closing double square bracket). But there doesn't seem to be a [[ (an opening double square bracket) before it.
• woods...Due is missing a space: woods... Due
• Not everyone reading Wikipedia measures distances in miles: {{convert|17.5|mi|km}} should show as 17.5 miles (28.2 km)
• There's a comma and full stop (period) at the end of one of the last paragraphs.
• References should go after sentences. Not necessarily after every sentence, but they shouldn't be before the first sentence.

– Pretended leer {talk} 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

User pages

Alvan-

There is a good discussion of User pages at WP:USERPAGE

Normally your User Page is used to say something about yourself ...... not for building articles. See a subsection on this at WP:UPGOOD.

Your sandbox is normally used for article drafts and any other 'work in progress'. You can find your user sandbox here.

Your sandbox currently contains a Redirect..... You can delete that anytime you want.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

William Farrar is probably one of the best drafts for an article that I've seen in a while. While it certainly still needs cleanup, you are far beyond other first users... Naraht (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Images

There are two different things I should probably say about images:

• When adding images, you don't need to specify the exact position and size if you're using |thumb
  • The wikicode |thumb automatically changes the size of an image. |300px changes it again. When |thumb is used on its own, different people may see the image at different sizes. For example, people with slow connections can select a smaller size at Special:Preferences, so that the images will be smaller and load faster. There's more information about image wikicode at Help:Image syntax.
  • |right is redundant. On English Wikipedia, images with |thumb are automatically put to the right of the text. This probably applies to all languages where text is written from left to right.
• Some images you've uploaded, might not follow the inclusion criteria:
  • File:Farrar's Island Marker K199.jpg shows a sign. Whether an image on Commons can show that sign might depend on who wrote the text on the sign and where it is. Now, assuming it is in the USA and that it's meant to stay for a long time, we probably don't need the writer's permission. But we could still need permission from the photographer. Now, since the sign is mostly flat and its contents should be okay to show, we could cut out the other parts of the image. Or we could ask someone to go there and take another picture. In any case, where it asks for a source, you should put the adress of a webpage containing the image rather than that of the image itself.
  • File:Farrar's Island today.jpg is probably still copyrighted, and in that case we'd need the author's permission. If this was made by several people, we'd need permission from all of them. If it was made by a US government employee at work, or if it was, with the author's permission, permanently installed in a place where freedom of panorama would apply, then it might be okay to use. But without knowing the circumstances it was made under, we can't use it here. In any case, I think the source is http://www.1horizon.net/farrarinc/Farrar_Island.html .
  • File:Farrar's Island in the 17th Century.jpg seems to come from https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/SlideShows/TrentsReach/TrentsReachSketchslide6.html . So the source could be set to that. The image is from 1864, but US copyright law is a bit of a mess. If the US navy scouts that drew it count as US government employees, then it could be used with {{template:PD-USGov}} or maybe {{template:PD-USGov-Military}}. Otherwise, it depends on when it was first published. I think this image should be okay to use, but we should still find out which template to use.

Also, I've already reset the thumbnail sizes and removed the part about which side of the text they should be on.

And about the issue mentioned in another section on this page, the one about your userpage being a draft: I'd suggest moving User:Alvanhholmes to User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox without moving the talk page. You can't do that yourself because User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox already exists, but you can add a section to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests, and someone will look at it. If you're not sure how to add a section there, you could ask at the Teahouse.

And finally, I might be away for a while, so if you write something later this month, it might take some time before I see it. If you have some question you want answered in the meantime, you could ask it at the Teahouse or on a user talk page. Maybe even on your own user talk page. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for fixing your user page and sandbox. And for the article creation! Ariconte (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Alvanhholmes. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Ariconte (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Watch lists and article histories - things you may find useful

See: Help:Watchlist

and: Help:Page history

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Beggars Bush article

I have moved your article on Beggers Bush to: Draft:Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia)

because I don't think it is ready for article space and it may be speedily deleted..... You can edit it there. Please add information on why this place is notable.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Farrar's Island has been accepted

Farrar's Island, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jordan Point, Virginia into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I have made an edit summary to fix the issue in the Richard Bland article.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ariconte: You are probably on vacation or whatever takes you away from this board. I wish you an enjoyable and productive time.

I have tried, to the best of my abilities, to do what you said, and put a summary on the page of Richard Bland I hope that suffices.

I will try to follow those instructions any time I perform an edit on a published article. But do I have to make a summary on my own edits on my own articles?

Alvanhholmes (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please. See: Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Oldperson/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Please don't use Wikipedia as a source

See WP:CIRCULAR. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Alvanhholmes! You created a thread called Changing the title of an article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Alvanhholmes! You created a thread called How do I move an article out of draft:.... to being reviewed for publication? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Ferrar (Virginia settler) (November 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Ferrar (Virginia settler) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:John Ferrar (Virginia settler), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Alvanhholmes! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:John Ferrar (Virginia settler) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Ferrar (Virginia settler). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:John Ferrar (Lincolnshire esquire) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Ferrar (Lincolnshire esquire). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

John Ferrar drafts

I have reviewed your drafts on the two John Ferrars. I have a few comments. First, were they written in your own words, or copied? They both appear to be written in a nineteenth-century style. Second, I have tried to disambiguate them, but am not sure that I have the best disambiguations. We probably need a brief article on the Ferrar family, who appear to be major figures in the early history of Virginia and minor figures in the history of Lincolnshire (if they were indeed from Lincolnshire). I have also created a Draft: John Ferrar as a disambiguation page that should be moved into article space when the two John Ferrars are accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia) (November 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Vincent60030 were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Beggars Bush (Colony of Virginia), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Ferrar (Lincolnshire esquire) (November 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Ferrar (Lincolnshire esquire) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:John Ferrar (Lincolnshire esquire), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

John Ferrar (Talk)

Hello user:Alvanhholmes Following yor request for feedback I created a John Ferrar talkpage for discussion of your proposed WP article on John Ferrar, and stated a number of article shortcomings. A response in the talk page would be appropriate even if it is only to acknowledge your intent of incorporating all the suggested corrections into your draft. thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Username issue

You wrote on your userpage here that your username is a tribute to the real person Alvanh Holmes. That is not OK here, per WP:IMPERSONATE. Would you please change your username, using this form? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for pointing this out to Alvanhholmes. Please have patience while they navigate the rules and processes to comply. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvanhholmes, as a suggestion so that you can keep the spirit of your username (assuming that it is within the rules, Jytdog), perhaps you can make a username like "Fan of Alvanhholmes" or something else that distinguishes you from the author. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Thanks, I should have waited, but already followed instructions and offered oldperson. I am not very imaginative and didn't want to come up with one that was hard to remember. It is under review.Alvanhholmes (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• all done! thanks for taking care of that bit. Jytdog (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator.

You appear to be editing solely about people in the Ferrar family, which makes it appear that you have some connection with this family.

Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Alvanhholmes. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the Ferrar family? After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: In considering the rules and your comments. Unless someone is being paid to produce an article, and that in itself is a conflict of interest for one is being paid to write an article about someone or something. The only reasons I can see for contributing to WP is to be an author, a teacher, a professor who wants to put something on the web that is in his area of interest, and that too is a conflict of interest. Another reason might be an avid hobbyist (which is what I am) and that is not a conflict of interest. It just so happens that my hobby is the subject of which I am trying to create articles. Whether I am a descendant of that family is immaterial as they are over 400 years dead, and we are all descendants of people (or at least the majority of us are) about which articles are written, especially royalty. So how many people have ancestry to William the Conqueror or the Plantagenets for instance, at least 1/4th of the population of England and possible more in America, number wise, than in England. Yet persons in that line of descent probably wrote articles.

I can understand not writing articles about a current or relatively recent family members, but personages 400 or more years dead? That is hardly a conflict of interest. Or maybe I can get someone else to write the same article and use a subterfuge, perhaps I should have started out by using a different user name and I would had I known that this would have been a problem. There is no benefit for being upfront and honesty is not rewardedAlvanhholmes (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As I noted, there are ways for people to work on content where they have a conflict of interest, which I will be happy to explain to you - please don't make assumptions about the consequences of being honest.

Also, I didn't ask you to determine if you have a conflict of interest or not (and your criteria are not correct in any case). I asked if you have a connection with the Ferrar family. Please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes I have a connection to the Ferrars, but it is 400 years old. So do millions of others, and I am not exaggerating, for instance Neil Patrick Harris and Bill Hader. Except by the most narrow of definitions, and those levied by some seeking justification, can such be considered a COI. It is then COI's aboundAlvanhholmes (talk)

Thanks for disclosing that you have a connection to Ferrar family. You have a very clear conflict of interest, and it is driving your poor behavior here in Wikipedia (this is what conflict of interest does). Lots of people with a keen interest in genealogy come here and try to create geneaologies here in WP and promote their ancestors; this is not OK here. If you wish to dispute that you a conflict of interest, we can take this to WP:COIN. Do let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, could you please chime in here? I thought that our discussion on my talk page had resolved this. Isn't this hair splitting? Alvanhholmes has as much of a connection to the Ferrar family as I have to Africa considering that humanity first evolved there. Pinging Jytdog for your benefit. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 22:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: since we're talking about past "poor behavior," I want to draw your attention to this disclosure: User:Jytdog#Privileges_removed_then_restored while privileges may have been restored, I think that this explains a lot here considering the history of Alvanhholmes's past good faith edits and sincerity in learning what is appropriate, what is inappropriate, the rules and policies, etc. A review of their history of editing should eliminate the accusation of "poor behavior" (what kind of bizarre scolding is this?). Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 22:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please don't ping me again. I am watching this page. Your analysis is incorrect. People very interested in their own geneaologies, who come here to edit about people in their family as WP:SPAs, edit as advocates and often behave badly and the reason is conflict of interest. The first line of the COI guideline is Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. And please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not disputing your analysis. I am disputing your application to myself. I did not come here to create a genealogy of my family. As stated I have already done that elsewheres. I came to rectify an oversight of history. And I do not see that as a conflict of interest, for it is not MY FAMILY, but a person who happens to be a very very distant ancestor. There is a difference, in fact the man under question is not even an ancestor (John Ferrar, Deputy Treasurer), the other John Ferrar, the elder is. I will even self delete him, however too many people conflate the two and that causes problems. They encounter John Ferrar Deputy Treasurer and assume that his is their ancestor and thus the brother of Nicholas Ferrar.Alvanhholmes (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you really not see, that all of your editing is driven by your family connections? (you just wrote that your interest in the non-family member is driven solely by people conflating him with the family member/ancestor...) Before you reply, please understand that the reason I am trying to help you understand COI in Wikipedia, is to help you be present here in a way that is better for everyone, including yourself. A lot of the problems that occur here when people edit under a COI is that they don't understand how COI influences them, and a) make edits and comments that are not productive here, and b) won't take the time to understand the fundamentals of this place. I can help you get better oriented, but the first step is this disclosure and with it, the self-categorization and self-awareness that will help make everything that follows flow easier. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"All" of my editing is driven by being a noob, and a techno-idiot. I do not understand what is meant when the comments are the equivalent of "you messed up", sans explanation.In truth I almost gave up days ago when I started to encounter such vague criticisms, but decided to hang on, if anything as a learning experience, that in future if I wish to publish an article I would have some knowledge. Never the less I felt the article on John Ferrar Deputy treasure was wothwhile as he was just aimportant to the Virginia company as his brother Nicholas and he is not an ancestor. As regards the other John Ferrar, the elder. Well I have already let him go. But my "behavior" is not driven by a self interest. As regards the COI, I guess when you read my user page, that triggered the comment, and it has nothing to do with my behavior, except perhaps your dislike for it (shouldn't end a sentence with a preoposition)

yet.. I posted a question on unrelated article's talk page and then couldn't find it. When I asked I was told that it was transcluded. I asked what was transcluded and was given a link. I had already read the article and what I wanted to know is why it was transcluded. As concerns my beahavior, outside of asking questions and needing guidance. My behavior has been at all respectful, even when being accused of "poor behavior"c:)Alvanhholmes (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvanhholmes, thanks for your clear and logical distinction between those Ferrars (and other spellings) who you have a connection to and those who you do not. It seems that you are editing as a subject expert, as many editors do, with regard to the figures you researched who you have no lineage from. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That they are an expert in the Ferrar genealogy is actually another level of the difficulty here, on top of the COI issues. Many people who are experts in some thing, come here expecting WP to work the same way as whatever forum they express their expertise in. Scientists come here expecting to write the same way they do in a scientific article; genealogists want to write the same way and use the same sources they do in whatever foruns they do their thing in. They have a hard time seeing Wikipedia for what it is and mistake our openness for an invitation to treat it like where ever they came from. The essay WP:EXPERT was written to help them adapt to being in this place. Again this is an entirely separate layer. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC):::::::::User:Shashi Sushila Murray Jytdog. You are trying hard to rationalize your own behavior and position, such that you are wandering far afield. And into the personal, in fact you did that many posts again. You have it your mind that I see wikipedia as this or that, thus engage in mindreading. I totally understand and agree with you that people with specialist backgrounds will use the same style on wikipedia,and have to learn new styles and new rules, but they aren't lambasted with accusations and talked down as you have done to me. Frankly I appreciate your help, but I resent your behavior which is, to me, unseemly and "high falutin'" I strongly maintain that your interpretation of WP COI is in error, more stringent than even implied in the WP COI page. I recognize the psychological forces at play here, having many years experience. Once a position is taken it must be defended at all costs, to reverse onself is to "back down" ,to admit weakness and allow the (self created) antagonist through.In other words you took a position and, having authority, have to stand fast and defend it at all costsAlvanhholmes (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jytdog, refer to Alvanhholmes's user page for the disclaimer: the user name is not their given name in any way whatsoever and is rather a tip of the hat to the source that helped them to find the information that they were seeking in genealogical research. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC) User:Shashi Sushila Murray see the section above this one. This is a username violation and has nothing to do with the COI inquiry. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Jytdog, thanks. I noticed it and posted a reply just as you posted this reply. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(edit conflict) Alvanhholmes, yes you have recognized that you don't understand the technical stuff here, and have asked real questions about that, as you did with regard to transclusion below. When I said "editing" i meant your efforts to change content in articles. As a "for example", you are very committed to using the book by Alvanh Holmes; you carried that commitment with you into Wikipedia. Cullen's response to you here was an as-perfect-as-it-gets explanation of how the editing community thinks about "reliable sources" - however instead of engaging with him and asking questions to learn how this place works, you argued. And in perfect Wikipedian style, Cullen pointed you to RSN (where you are only going to hear more of the same answer, as Cullen well knew).

After you become self-aware that your pre-commitments are causing you to be biased and are getting in the way of your learning how this place works, you will start to respond to this sort of thing differently. Instead of arguing, you will ask questions (real questions, like the question about transclusion) This is what I mean about behaving badly and about wasting your own time, and the time of other people. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: If those embedded links above were correct. I was not arguing with Cullen, but explaining how the sentence he referenced was gone when I looked at the article, and explaining why I used the phrase that I did. WP it seems is more of a dictat, where the user understands, without clarification, what the reviewer or expert means, and "hops to it", at least that is how I am perceiving the situation. The expert speaks and the noob doesn't even ask how high, but reads the mind.

I know you all are very busy, but is there no room for discussion and explainingAlvanhholmes (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In this diff (same one as above), at the beginning you responded about some US history stuff, then made statements based on your own authority about Holmes' book. But what Cullen had said was evaluate both the reputation of the author and the reputation of the publisher.. Cullen could have been a bit more clear that this "evaluation" means looking at what reliable sources WP:RS) say about the author, or book, and publisher. Nobody has personal authority here. Sources have authority. If there is a question about a source, then we look at other sources about it!

I'd like to take a pause here, and point you to User:Jytdog/How, which I wrote to try to help new users get oriented to how Wikipedia works, and why it works that way. You might find it helpful... Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Indenting and signing

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense.

Also, at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.

Threading and signing, are how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I didn't know about the indents I thank you for that. But don't know how I can keep track of the number of indents, but will try. I am sure that this attempt is too much.As regards the number of {{ or [[. A little confession. I am somewhat palsied, thanks to an operation to remove a brain tumor and 10 sessions of radiation. I do my best, but there are times that my finger stutters. I try my best to catch them, along with my eyesight is not the best. I had left side blindness, a deficit caught by my doctor which resulted in an MRI that disclosed my tumor. Things happen when they operate on the brain. That is no excuse, it just means that I must be extra careful when I review my posts and edits before publishing. Thanks for making me more aware, and I try to count the tildes when I typeAlvanhholmes (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with this. All you have to do is look at the comment above yours, when you open the editing window to reply to someone. Your comment has one colon (after it was fixed here) as is appropriate, as mine had none. Yours has one, so this one has two. You can see them! If you reply to this, yours should have three. Etc. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Tranclusion question moved from Talk:William Ferrers, 5th Baron Ferrers of Groby

@Ariconte: What is transcluding. My question is now hidden on the articles talk page. Is that the Purpose?Alvanhholmes (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Transclusion. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariconte:Thanks for that. Confession: I had already read the link,but didn't understand it then, don't understand it now. Was hoping for a clear simple explanation. RegardsAlvanhholmes (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariconte:My last comment/question was inartful and imprecise. What I meant to ask is what is the purpose of transclusion. In other words why was the question I asked on the page of William Ferrers 5thBaron Groby transcluded on his talk page. when I went to his talk page it could not be seen.Alvanhholmes (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: @Ariconte:. I get the impression that they just revised your question to remove the question about transclusion, because they wanted to keep the talk page of the higher quality article focused on the content of the article (hence Ariconte selectively deleted your question about transclusion, then moved it here to both serve that purpose and answer your important question as a new user). Did I get that right, Arictone?

Yes, Ariconte (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You mention that a question was now hidden on the article talk page (perhaps I misread and that was just about the transclusion). I'll investigate that issue as well and report back. You might have just overlooked it after posting it, but I'll report back after I read through the revision history, since I'm more capable of learning the technical side of this website for you (plus I'm finding that helping you is also helping me to learn too as an effective baby-editor). Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 02:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be relevant... quoting the user you were addressing "I have to just remind you that an article's talk page is for discussion of the article rather than the topic generally." So, indeed, yes, Ariconte was helping you out by enforcing the purpose of the talk page without completely removing the question. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 02:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I just read through all of your question and looked through all of the edit history. The only question that was removed was about transclusion. Your original question on the article's talk page is still there just above the reply from the article's editor who you pinged. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 02:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Retitlng Drafts submitted for review at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Revealing commentary.

With regard to our recent (revealing) new experiences, I coincidentally found some relevant commentary while reading through this site's various critics: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7573 Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 22:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This post in particular is by someone who details their modus operandi: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7573#p184074 Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 22:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

[reply to|Shashi Sushila Murray} Thanks Shash. I've been thinking about you, after seeing the above closed comments. I appreciate link, and am thrilled to find that I am not the only one to hold those opinions. FYI. You were correct, he was trying to entrap you so that he could call you a sockpuppet and block you. In a previous post to me he "demanded" that I tell him that my user name was a tribute to an author, and I had already done so in my user page. His reply basically was ahah, got you , not only did he demand that I change my user name, he went on to claim I was a COI, nonsense. That seems to be his obsession or one of them. He isalso a stalker. I can't literally prove it, but it is apparent in that he has my username on his watchlist, and watches everything I do so he can then jump in. He probably does hte same thing to you and anyone else that dares question his highness. There is a psychiatric trait amongst authoritarians, and those predisposed to and supportive of authoritarians and that is an inability and unwillingess to admit error or apologize, and the more one defends or explains oneself, the angrier they get, turning one into an antagonist, and an obsession.

On my part. I had vowed to cease and desist posting on Teahouse or talk pages or creating articles,and would have until your ping showed up in my mailbox. The last thing I want to do is bring any grief upon you.The other party should be severely chastised by management such as is, for he is guilty of that which he accuses others , such as bad behavior. He slings around insults like salt on ice. But "management" will always close ranks with their own, and unless the activity is really egregious and has a possibility of causing legal problems for WP, then I fear that the dog is off the leash (pun intended). I fully expect that the subject will read these comments and come back with a denial, excuse or as his style to turn it aroundOldperson (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've really appreciated learning about Wikipedia with you. Learning about the style guide, policies, templates, getting help from experienced editors, and learning a new "mode" of critical reading has been very edifying. I also don't have the same knowledge of any particular subject to be able to create new content in the way that you do, so it was more gratifying to try to give (albeit qualified with my inexperience) constructive feedback and criticism to help with new content creation.

You are right about the "stalking" aspect (not that that's against any rules here). Unfortunately, he thinks it's against the rules to disagree with him and for me to have strengthened your rebuff of him on my talk page. So, my account is now under the scrutiny of the administrators. Thankfully, a review of my editing history will show that I'm primarily concerned with incomplete citations and fact checking articles, helping our fellow new editors at the Teahouse through quick googling, flagging unreferenced material, inadequate citations, and the like. However, I get the impression that there won't be a commitment to neutrality at that forum in the same way that it's bannered about everywhere else (and being a Wikipedia-skeptic, regardless of contribution, might be anathema). Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

[reply to|Shashi Sushila Murray}How does one know that they are under scrutiny by Admins? How does one find out if they are being stalked? How does one put a user on their watch list?Oldperson (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Shashi Sushila Murray|message me]]) Our mutual friend states that he believes in the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (reminds me of the Five Pillars of Islam) except, by demonstrated performance, pillar four (4)Oldperson (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

He posted a template on my talk page notifying me, so that's how you find out that something as minor as this is being brought to the attention of the admins (pretty paranoid if you ask me, since it seems like it's based purely on the speculation that you so eloquently rebuffed from earlier). You can't view who is "stalking" you also called watching a page (except, I imagine, admins and other users given special privileges for maintenance tasks). To put a user on your watch list, you go to the top of their page and click the star to "watch" the page. Then you can go to the handy interface in the top right of the Wikipedia menu to view your watch list. This will give you a compilation of edits to the pages that you've watched organized by time and separated into days.

Your references to the authoritarian personality type remind me of a book I've been meaning to read for years: Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm.

PS. I'm waiting on making edits to make it easier for the admins to review my recent edit history and see context, so I'll sit and wait on much interaction until then. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 01:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We have pretty good articles about Escape from Freedom and my favorite Fromm book, The Art of Loving. He was quite a guy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation, Cullen328. I'll add it to my list and hit them both in one go when I finally do it. I really have to say, you're a cut above everyone I've seen on here. You have acute emotional intelligence with your demonstrated empathy, and you are able to adapt and react in different contexts with such probity. I'm really glad to have gotten to exchange thoughts with you and I really value your perspective and insight. It's helped me a lot. Looking forward to working with you. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 07:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Art of Loving is a relatively short but very worthwhile book that you should be able to soak up quickly, Shashi Sushila Murray. I appreciate your kind words, but if you go to your recommended website, WikipediaSucks.co, you can learn what a terribly incompetent and deluded person I am. Insults flow freely there. You can also ask Kumioko over at Wikipediocracy who will go on and on endlessly about how worthless I am, plus pretty much every single administrator he has ever interacted with. If you contact me privately, I will tell you my version of the truth about those crude misrepresentations, and you can do your own independent fact checking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As you know from our prior discussions, besides improving Wikipedia I'm here to learn about who editors are, how they interact, etc. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 07:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears there's a history there that the experienced users with authority are already familiar with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog It certainly did feel like bullying (as they put it) and considering how polite I was when introducing myself, I was shocked at the incivility and rebuke I was met with since all the other users I've interacted with have cordial conversations with us. So I'm glad that at least some gears here are trying to turn towards justice and are willing to acknowledge problematic incivil and inappropriate behavior that would get an editor of a published encyclopedia fired. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed comment from Teahouse

I removed your "Hall Monitor" musings from the Teahouse as off-topic. The topic of the Teahouse is to answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thus proving my point. I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to do just that. Not long at all :)Oldperson (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read the guideline at WP:POINT. Disruptive editing to make a point is still disruptive editing. If you expected your post would be removed, it indicates that you knew the rules and intentionally violated them. You're an adult playing the role of unruly schoolboy mocking the hall monitor. Straighten up and fly right. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I made a post on the teahouse, which you acknowledged, not an edit much less a disruptive edit. I didn't ping you, but made a comment on my own user page. I am flattered and this is not an edit either, merely a post on my user page.Oldperson (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

since I know you are watching this page. I have to ask. Who do you think you are to talk down to anyone, much less your elders? There are other ways to make your point,besides "chastising", using demeaning language and callling names, and you know it. Part of the problem here is that certain editors abuse their authority, their position and their anonymonity, but it is their "authority" that they abuse. I have been curious as to how things work here, as to who has the authority to take action, how some people can get away with insults and disruptive language and yet put someone who responds in kind on notice with admin. I was also amazed to discoer that some people can make a comment somewhere and discover that they are being watched. Such as my posting on my own user page and not pinging you, and voila you appear. One needs to know the mechanics of a board, and the pecking orderOldperson (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia pecking order is pretty flat. Anyone can edit and anyone can call someone else on violating the rules, whether bright line rules or not so bright. Yes, I take particular interest in pages that I have recently edited, so I can be responsive to people who may not know how to properly ping someone. One of my goals is to help new editors learn how to edit, so I make accommodations for anticipateable shortcomings.

As for talking down, or speaking of "elders", I can't imagine where you get that from. There are very respected editors and admins on Wikipedia who earned their reputations starting in their teens. Most editors don't give much indication of how old they are and the culture here is not prone to respecting people (or not respecting people) merely based on apparent age.

Rulebreakers will be reverted and warned. If it becomes apparent that the rule-breaking was intentional and not in good faith, the warnings will be stronger. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Understood and I don't intetionally break rules. However some of the comments made by "editors" to users are beyond the pale, insulting and disruptive and they truck on without fear of admonishment, so double standards. And by the way that was not an edit, it was a post on teahouse and there is a difference, I have yet to see a "hall monitor" admit error or apologize for jumping the gun or speaking (typing) in an insulting manner. "double standards?" looks that way from here Should I be flattered that you are watching me on my on talk page?.Oldperson (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

CricketsOldperson (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You may have a distinction in your mind between "edits" made to articlespace and "comments" made in other parts of the project, but everything you do on Wikipedia is expected to be for the good of the project. If you think someone is out of line, tell them directly rather than making general complaints about bad behavior on WP. This place is not perfect, but the rules, guidelines and cultural expectations that have been built up have generally allowed the project to continue without breaking down. When there are deficiencies, see - for example - WP:Systematic bias - we identify the problems and editors try to work together on addressing them. Many different viewpoints, many different participants, but with some agreed-upon common goals. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Clearly understood and I totally agree. Now that is the mature and respectful kind of response I respect. However my user page is mine, and I certainly should be able to conduct any kind of conversation short of profane or obscene. A person doesn't have to look at my user page. It is their choice. In a similar vein, subject article talk pages. The public does not see these pages, thus the reputation of WP is not compromised. They should be a place for back and forth exchanges where one editor asks another for clarification and examples, or even disputes their judgement without being accused of bad behavior threatened with being blocked. And I must tell the truth, I really am flattered that I am important enough to you, for you to watch my post, without the necessity of pinging, which I did this time. Again thanks for well spoken explanation and criticism.Oldperson (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggest reading WP:OWN and particularly Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#User_pages. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ariconte: Thank you. I understood from the start, thanks I think to you, that I don't OWN my user page, never the less it is not a public document, thus what transpires on it, does no harm to the public perception and reputation of wikipedia, and thus does not or should not suffer the same constraints as an article, which does have public access, so long as there is no profane or unseemly words.. It is a place to sort out differences, a place to ask for an explanation if the critique is vague and generalized. And that has been one of the problems, critiques are readily given, but requests for explanation are considered, at least by some, as "poor behavior. This leads to a "obey your elders" perception, criticisms of poor behavior and veiled threats. Result frustration. As an aside there is something that you might be able to explain to me. How is that conversations I am having on a talk page, have non involved persons "chiming" in. Is there a page which shows "latest posts" as there are on some forums. Or is there a way for a person to track a user, not a page, but a user By the way there is a difference between "I don't accept your critiques or changes and "I don't understand what you mean, please show an example. At least I take the time to explain, though it means being wordy and time consumingOldperson (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You can 'Watch' pages; I tried to say this to you here: User_talk:Oldperson#Watch_lists_and_article_histories_-_things_you_may_find_useful.

All Wikipedia pages are available to the public; so you can look at mine or any other user's pages (or talk pages, sand boxes, etc). Usually that is helpful - an example is Shasha's edit to this page (a few minutes ago) to help you with indenting. Look at the page history if you don't believe this. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you but that statement requires some clarification. I take you to mean that the public, whether or not they are a WP user/editor or such has access to what goes on behind the scences. From Admin decisions to User kerfuffles. Or by public do you mean users that are logged in to edit or create, not just to troll?Oldperson (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Anybody, logged in or not can look at any Wikipedia page. Log out and try it yourself. Ariconte (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Holy moly, I can even edit, at least I went to my userpage. The system will let me edit but enters my ip rather than a user name. but I don'thave access to watchlist, other features and unless I am or was a user, I would be unfamiliar with the likes of user pages, admin pages, article talk pages and thus not have access to them. If you don't know something exists you can't access it, you have to know the combination to enter the safe, or have an oxy cutterOldperson (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you do that?.

@David notMD: Most forums on the interwebs have a page, latest posts, or even a means to watch a user. I see nothing like this on WP. Yet, mysteriously to me, editors show up on pages where they are not pinged and on drafts:New Articles. How is that. I have a couple of tabs open, and I know that there are articles being created all of the time, and that there are pages being edited, but for the life of me I have no idea, yet long term editors do, they seem right on top of what is happening, without being pinged.How can you do that? Is there a WP function or capability of which I am not aware?Oldperson (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello! WP:WATCHLIST may be part of what you're after. About watching others, WP is pretty open about everything for everybody. For example, if you go to David notMD's (or anybodys) userpage, you can click the link "user contributions" under "tools" in the left column. Here you see his edits, and if you click "diff" you see exactly what he did in it. You can also scroll to the bottom of a "user contributions" page and look at "Edit count" for more statistics than anybody could possibly want. You may find Wikipedia:Dashboard interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I am aware of watchlist, and in fact I use it. That is not what I am talking about. For instance your post here, in response to my question. Am I on your watchlist? If so why? If not how did you see my post. I know that WP is open to everyone, but I find the ability of people to jump in on and edit even new articles or users. There has to be something about WP that I don't understand, it doesn't compute that people have new articles on their watch list or even noobs like me. If so then how did I come to your attention to put me on your watchlist, that in itself is a mystery to meOldperson (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but don't expect this to make too much sense. As I remember it, I noticed a thread of yours at the Teahouse, which is a place I look at most days. On a whim I checked your edithistory, found William Farrar (settler), did a few edits, and on a similar whim I now looked at your talkpage, saw you had a question and decided to give it a shot. That was my personal "method", I'm sure other editors have other ways. Part of the point of a wiki is that such things can and does happen. People notice stuff and decide to do something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Gråbergs Gråa Sång:It makes total sense as far as your appearance. What I still don't understand is how LTE's(long term editors) can even see a new article to commence editing. I mean there must be tens of thousands of WP articles and daily at least 10 new ones, and yet these LTE's show up out of the blue as if by magic (at least to me)19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It probably varies, but this may be a significant part of it: Pages that link to "Farrar's Island". A couple of those are bot-generated lists that are probably watched by interested LTE's (who else would know they exist?). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oldperson, I have about 13,000 pages on my watchlist. Every page I have ever edited is on that list and if I run across an editor who interests me in any way, positive or negative, I will add their user page and talk page to my list. Similarly with articles. If a specific article has been discussed at the Teahouse or on some noticeboard, I may well add it to my watchlist. Or if I am reading the encyclopedia to pursue my personal interests and run across an article that has obvious ongoing problems, I add it to my watchlist. I check my watchlist frequently, and ignore most of what I see. If two experienced editors are discussing routine matters, I ignore that and move on. If a trusted editor makes a change to a routine article, I will not bother to examine that edit. But I see a new editor or an IP editor making a significant change to a known controversial article, I take a look at the edit and revert if it is vandalism or violates a policy or guideline. If things are OK, I just move on. I am looking for anything that appears "fishy", or any situation where an administrator may be helpful. As for new articles, there is a "feed" that can be monitored, by editors doing work called "new pages patrolling". I rarely look at that feed because I am too busy doing other things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I thank you for that, it answers my question. A follow up. I understand articles have their own talk pages. Is that correct? If so how does one access them?Oldperson (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Every article has a talk page which can be reached by clicking the "Talk" tab in the upper left hand corner of the article. Another method is to type "Talk:" followed by the exact article title in the search box. For example, typing "Talk: Abraham Lincoln" in the search box takes you to Talk: Abraham Lincoln. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks very much. I will try hard to remember this. I think I have been told before. Sometimers disease :)Oldperson (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

There are also lists of new pages genrated and they go into New Page Patrol. Lots of ways to find new content. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Thank you so very much. That is exactly the answer I was looking for. Is there a link to New Page Patrol? I was reading some WP page, perhaps Administrators Noticeboard, and learned that there are patrol pages. I did not know that at the time I made the original post. I assume that there are various methods for "patrolling" including users, that doesn't include monitoring a watchlist. I suspect that there is in fact a way for an interested admin or senior trusted editor, to patrol individuals. Stalking would be a more accurate term,but WP editors "don't stalk", do they?Oldperson (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPP. Stalking has a very specific meaning here as part of WP:HARASSMENT - basically following another editor around and making their life miserable. It's happened to me. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

[@LegacyPac:It has happened to me too, fortunately the stalker went too far and stalked the wrong person, getting their phone number and reaching out off forum, they were blocked for a mere 24 hours, but decided to leave of their own accord (of course that is hard to believe, but they Haven't posted in ages). However there is STALKING and there is stalking. In other words following a user around trying or hoping to catch them in something, which in turn makes them miserable. My two cents is that nobody is worth that much of my time, nor will I give them free rent in my head, they just aren't that important. Read my user page, not talk page and you might understand I'm already six months past my expiration dateOldperson (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I pinged you above, but mistyped your user name with a Capital P, not that my comment matters much :)Oldperson (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Would someone look over this draft please at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Renaming Draft at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Backstage at Wikipedia

For your information: The hope is that editors-to-be register one time and edit under their one User name. There are people who by choice edit only unregistered. There are others who register multiple names and use all of those, sometimes to create appearance of more than one person editing an article. This "sock puppetry" is not allowed. You clearly replaced one User name with another, which is allowed. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD:Thank you I recently learned that. However as much trouble that I have had I find unregistered editors to be very disturbing and unethical, why is that even allowed, surely the site can be coded to prohibit the acivity.Oldperson (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's day-one philosophy is that everyone can edit. So we get incompletely educated youngsters, people with malice in mind, and people with advanced degrees and research focus on the very topics they want to edit, all mixed together. The thinking that Wikipedia self-corrects is more true for articles of high interest than the more obscure. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Your request for help on my talk page

I have replied to "A slight request for help" on my page. You can look at the history of the article to see what I did, Ariconte (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Oldperson/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ariconte (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Refdesk query

You mistakenly posted a query on the main WP:RD page rather than asking for assistance on its talk page. I've moved it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Deor (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called When is an article not a Family History project or a Conflict of Interest? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thank you David. I am aware of the requirement and how to sign your posts. Unfortunately my user name is accurate and apparently sometimes I forget,:) apologiesOldperson (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Empty Title help at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Why am I getting this new user window. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called What is wrong with this syntax at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called How to open a document in mrc format at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called what is this everybody wiki at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Searching Article Archives at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Putting a user on your watch list at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Site Mechanics at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Accounts without User pages at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi Oldperson! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

re: AN/I

I'm not professional nor any longer an admin, but can I help? I also see you've had some conversations with Cullen328 here, but he doesn't appear to have noticed you opened a section there; he is an admin and he's a wonderful explainer, so I'm going to ping him, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC) "@Cullen328 and Yngvadottir:Thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated. Thanks to all of the munibots and Seasons Greetings that have slipped in between the subject. I can't remember which ongoing discussion/problem is on the table. I presume it is about non responsive admins or senior editors. I take criticism very well. I appreciate constructive criticism as it helps me improve personally and my skills, but vague and imprecise critiques are not helpful. Critiques such as "you speak in a 19th century style", @Robert McClenon:. I was not aware that I do, but when I asked for an example. Crickets. Not helpful. There were other examples when I was puzzled over a vague critique and a senior editor who no longer posts, and was blocked at least temporarily. Accused me of behaving badly for even asking how, why, an example please. If I do not know what I did wrong, how am I suppose to correct myself? Finally I just had an article rejected by {{ping|K.e.coffman) who claimed that the topic (a notable person, brother of Nicholas Ferrar IS contrary to the purpose of WP. The man was the Deputy Governor and Deputy Treasurer of the Virginia Company of London, and an article about him is contrary to the purpose of WP? I asked K.e. for an explanation and again crickets. I do not understand. I am acting in good faith, earnestly researching and trying to put out quality articles that meet the Five Pillars and I do not even get the courtesy of a response and am treated like a child or a troll, I am neither, check my user:page. Thanks and I hope that this helps.Oldperson (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not respond to your question about a nineteenth-century style because I cannot give a specific example and it was a general observation, and your comment in response to mine was long. If I had known that I would subsequently be scolded not answering the question, I probably would have avoided answering it anyway. I don't like to engage in conversations with people who scold me, and you are scolding. If I am going to be scolded for giving vague and imprecise critiques, I am likely to give no critiques at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for where someone told you that your contribution was Contrary to Wikipedia Policy or Contrary to the Purpose of Wikipedia. I don't see that comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The statement that you take criticism very well is contrary to observation. You are complaining at length about criticism, and that may be one of the reasons why you are having difficulty getting constructive criticism. People don't like to be scolded for not using perfect language in criticism. Under these circumstances, some of us would prefer to leave you alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

""@Robert McClenon: Two issues: If you are going to make an "observattion" such as you write in a 19th Century style. or any other observation. Then you should explain and give an example. Especially to a new editor who looks up to the more experienced for guidance and clarification. I expected you to tell me what I was doing wrong and give me an example so I could correct it.I saw your comment as more than a casual observation, but a fault I had to correct, and had no idea how to correct it.

Making passing observations to someone who takes your comments as serious critiques isn't right.  I am not complaining at length about criticisms. I am complaining at length about the lack of communication with new editors once something is pointed out. I can and do take legitimate criticisms to heart and use them to change my approach. Of course people don't like to be scolded, and I apologize for any scolding.But people don't like to be ignored,ridiculed or talked down to as though they were a child, and that has been an unfortunate experience for me on WP, and please no snide comments about or akin to "you asked for it". I didn't and yes Jytdog is gone, for now, and yes he did accuse me of behaving badly when I asked for clarification.Oldperson (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm. I'll have to give you a quick response since I failed to mention that this is a work day for me. I see that in rejecting the draft on the assistant treasurer, Robert McClenon did start off with a quotation of one sentence whose style had struck him as oldfashioned. I also see you have been having trouble with the citation templates—not uncommon, I struggled with them myself for a long time and still find them unsuited to some kinds of sources with complex publishing histories. Do note that there is a "page=" parameter to cite the specific page the information is on; I tried and failed to search inside one of the books you have cited from Internet Archive digitized versions. But these are common problems, and I see you sometimes have included the page number in your text. So the main piece of advice I would give you concerning draft articles is to remember that (modern) encyclopedias are written in a very dry, "just the facts" style. Say in the lead paragraph who the person was. Then summarize his or her life, footnoting each fact. Distill the sources down to a really brief account. That helps avoid over-close paraphrasing and also non-neutral writing.

I apologize for being brief and only really engaging with one issue, but I must now have my breakfast! As to the rest, this is a large community of volunteers, many of whom are often busy, and yes, it's easy to get worn down by dealing with people who are disruptive, and also to forget that the wording of templated responses may be offputtingly brusque and formal, and that there's quite a steep learning curve for things like the citation templates and that guideline and policy pages are dense and can be hard to understand. That's why the Teahouse was created, in fact. (I started off asking many questions at it's predecessor new editors' noticeboard.) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:Thank you for your kind reply. Those items you noticed were corrected some time ago. The comments were old, and I deleted them (leaving a summary) as they muddied the waters. I am now aware of the problem with overquotations and can fix that. I can't fix the ilicit declination though. @K.e.coffman: Declined the submission with the statement that The Topic is contrary to the purpose of WP". The topic is a notable. The Deputy Governor/deputy Treasurer of the Virginia Company of London and brother of{{Nicholas Ferrar]] who has his own page. Both were major players in the Virginia Company and persons whose efforts led to the creation of the U.S.A. as we know it today. I was going to work on the over quotation problem, but now the project is dead in the water. I believe I know what happened. I have another draft articleDraft:John Ferrar (merchant) That one does not meet the purpose of WP..yet. I need more time to research. However it appears that K.e.coffman saw that article and confused it with a similar named article and declined it. In an event the reason for the declination was in error. He is indeednotable, and I have to work on the quotations, but until the "Declination" is reversed, doing so serves no purpose.Oldperson (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

(Now at work, editing in little bits of time) Caveat: I'm something of a jack of all trades, but American history, especially early American history, is something I know little about. That makes me a poor judge of notability with regards to the topic (and I tend to be a softie anyway, which is the main reason I've never been active at Articles for Creation). Remember, Wikipedia defines notability a bit counter-intuitively: with obvious exceptions such as oceans and Nobel Prize winners, we don't attempt to assess either importance or famousness, but go by whether other, reliable people have written about the person or thing. (And being related to someone notable doesn't count either, so I'm afraid his brother doesn't count toward John's notability.) The AfC process is intended to make sure an article doesn't get created until it's reasonably safe from being nominated for deletion (and some deletions happen very fast), so a responsible AfC reviewer is less tender-hearted than I would be and requires both a clear claim of notability and, unless the topic falls into one of those exceptional classes, solid evidence of it. Your draft cites company archives and at least one book, but to a non-expert it's not entirely demonstrated that he was notable, and as a deputy anything the claim of notability isn't obviously adequate on its face. Hence it isn't an automatic pass. (The first review called for more citations of reliable sources and less "peacock" language—praise terms not presented as quotes or with hefty evidence immediately following in a footnote. Our usage of "notable" is the context for that comment.)

That said, I do think K.e.coffman's rejection as "contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia" could use a bit of explaining. They may mean "notability not demonstrated, so why should we have an article on this person?", but I'm just guessing! However, notice that their edit (that's called a diff, in case nobody explained it to you; I got it by clicking on the "prev" link beside that edit in the History of the page) included a button to press to ask for help; did you do that, or did you ask them personally? Also, their comment that you appear to have deleted from under the rejection templates raised a specific issue, copyvio, and included a link to the page they thought you might have copied from. Over-close copying is very easy to fall into when trying to be accurate and base everything on the sources, and it's less of a concern with 100-year-old books, but it is a serious legal matter. Wikipedia has a very strict and limited interpretation of fair use, and it applies only to files (images and audio), not to text. The reason is that Wikipedia's licence allows everything on the site to be republished elsewhere for absolutely any purpose, provided an acknowledgement is made of where the republisher got it, except for files tagged with clear and intimidating templates. (Wikimedia Commons is for files that can be used anywhere, on or off the various-language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects like Wikinews.) Unintentional copyvio of text is commonly fixed by rewriting to be legal and then having an admin delete offending versions. See this page history for an example. If you did indeed get too close to the wording of one or more of your sources, you need to fix that as soon as possible if you haven't already, by using quotation marks and/or summarizing.

Those are the concerns. The good news is that the conclusion you appear to have reached that that second review is the end of the line for this draft is incorrect. You can resubmit the draft as many times as necessary; reviewers only get stroppy if you haven't attempted to fix the highlighted issues between submissions. It'll normally be reviewed by a different person each time. So I hope some of that is helpful, and I apologize for being so long-winded and for any hash my laptop may have made of this (I'll preview it, but the track pad sometimes sneakily moves things around and that's hard to see in preview). Yngvadottir (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. I take it to heart and would do something, but the current declination has a stop sign and there is no way to resubmit. If I can resubmit how would I do it. On the subject of notability. John Ferrar is as notable as others involved in the company, good or bad, his brother Nicholas actually played a lesser role than John. But point taken, about the only mention of John Ferrar and his role are in the Records of the Virginia Company and the Ferrar Papers of Cambridge, and they are volumnious. The others mentioned. Like his brother Henry gained fame or notoriety via

other means.Like Sir John Harvey. Nicholas claim to fame is that Peter Peckard in the 18th Century, a distant cousin of Nicholas, wrote a book The Memoirs of the Life of Nicholas Ferrar. Nicholas was an ascetic who founded a religious commune that extolled celibacy called Little Giddings. He also was a shareholder (adventurer) in the Virginia Company and has many mentions in the correspondence of the Virginia Company.But I can see your point. It is my opinion, however, that the reason for it being declared as a "Topic not supported by wikipedia" has nothing to do with his particular notability but rather a mistake, as the article for his cousin Draft:John Ferrar (merchant) would be more appropriate. Regardless as a common courtesy I am due,from [[ping]K.e.coffman]] a better explanation than"Topic is not supported by wikipedia"I asked for one and crickets. What I get is attempts byother editors to explain coffman's motives, and of course whatever their motives were for Stopping the article, they now have your explanation. I know the intentions are good and you and others are only trying to be helpful and I appreciate that, but one cannot explain the motives behind the actions behind a third party. "Jane slapped John. I don't know why Jane slapped John and can only impute motives from my own psyche.." That is the difficulty of trying to explain the motives of others. I do believe that an admin who takes an action should be helpful and willing to explain the reason behind the action. Anything other than insults and silence. As regards the article. It can die a natural death. It was an exercise to sharpen my skills and at the same time give me insight into the culture and mentality of WP. The policies and rules of WP make sense, and are good, however their interpretation and application by admin's is another story. And sadly I see way too much ego driven actions by those who wield power.Oldperson (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I now see that K.e.coffman hasn't edited since 5-something am UTC on the 23rd, which is before your post to their talk page, so I'd urge you to wait for them to respond - they may be off-line for the holiday. In any case, they're not an admin; admins have a group of extra buttons and some editors accord them extra respect, but they don't particularly have to do with Articles for Creation. Hmm, I hadn't taken note of the stop sign. ... pause ... OK, I just added {{submit}} to the top of the article and previewed (if I'd saved, the AfC templates would record it as my submission), and it should work. If you want to resubmit it, copy and paste that stuff and if it doesn't work, report back. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:Thank you but apparently your comment and {{AFC submission|||ts=20181224175638|u=Yngvadottir|ns=3}} wasn't saved. I don't know how to do that.

if you check my article againDraft:John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company) you will notice that I took out the lengthy quote and replaced it with even better information and references. I think that the Commentat the top about overquoting can now be removed. Leaving such comments after they have been corrected only causes confusion. Do you agree? Ny the way assuming on the basis of your user name that you are Scandinavian, if that is so I am very impressed. In fact I am quite impressed with editors for whom English is their second language who have a better command of the English language, especially punctutation, than many native speakers like myself. Were I so fluent in SpanishOldperson (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: is there a way to remove the STOP sign declined post. Or could you? I don't want to do it, nor do I want to put up a resubmit template as it looks like vandalism and I do not want to engage in such or in edit wars? Point taken that coffman might be on vacation. If so then a poor decision, making a controversial and damaging comment and then running off on vacation. I would never do that.Oldperson (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh gosh no, I am a native English speaker :-) See my user page for what I can read (people fall about laughing when I speak many of them). You have to put the magic word on the draft, that's the thing. Do what you just did here, but on the draft ... or are you saying it wouldn't let you save? Please clarify. If the latter, I will ask for assistance in the IRC help channel. We're all volunteers here, but there are other reviewers at AfC. (And I haven't seen the stop sign before, so I can baldly ask how final it is.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:Now I am embarrassed. I should have read your user page. It is a habit I should get into I guess.

Im reluctant to put that template on my own article page. It just doesn't seem right, but there is no guarantee that it will be reviewed. Meaning I don't know where the article is moved to after I put it. Considering that. Would it be appropriate FOR ME to delete the Afc comment about overquoting (it is now not necessary as the problem has been resolved) and inserting the Review template is nullified by the Stop delete template, they are mutually exclusive. And it doesn't seem kosher for me to take such actions. What do you think?Oldperson (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: P.S. have you seen the changes I made? I deleted the quote and replaced it. What do you think?Oldperson (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Some at least seem like improvements to me, but I am the last person you should ask to judge. I would personally accept 9/10 of AfC submissions and work like a dog trying to fix them up. Similarly, in my wiki-philosophy, since there's more than one reviewer and since you have tried to make changes to satisfy teh criticisms (and because the last reviewer is clearly out of reach right now), I believe you should resubmit it and let the AfC process work. However, if the stop sign template is actually preventing you from resubmitting, through a template process, then I will ask the experts on IRC (many of them know me as a well-meaning technical semi-competent). But it has to be your decision. It's your draft, and you know the topic of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: By IRC do you mean internet relay chat? If so how does one do that. I am a techno neanderthal. My cell phone is a flip phone which I have only for emergencies, and the only time I used it was to call home from the supermarket once and then I had to get help from a shelf stocker on how to use it, seriouslyOldperson (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your e-mail (blushes) - that's just what it looks like when somebody with many interests noodles around here for a few years; it's actually been more than ten ... there are people here with thousands of articles written, all on serious topics. Yes, Internet Relay Chat. Don't worry, I went ahead and asked, and the stop sign doesn't prevent you from resubmitting, and the editor I spoke to agrees it was harsh. So as I say, I suggest you try again. you've also drawn some advice below from another experienced editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I am in awe, I can't wrap my head around these people creating thousands of articles. Where do they get the time? Are they retired? It takes massive amounts of time to research and even knowing where to start is mindboggling. I wanted to create an article on a living person, but couldn't find basic information, although he is famous, at least within his part of the country, as he is a radio personality, author and comedian. I couldn't even find a reference to where and when he was born.

I emailed him and crickets (don't blame him probably thought I was phishing). One last question. I can put that template as you recommended, but would there be a problem if I removed the comment about overquotes and the Stop Sign, or do I have to leave them in place. Would it be a COI if I removed and replaced. Not sure about the rules. As reagards resubmitting Don't you need a Resubmit template? The one you provided does not have one (i.e. Resubmit button).Oldperson (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's the wrong kind of submission template, either a person or a bot will fix it. I wouldn't remove the previous templates, just go ahead on the basis that you have made changes. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

My recommendation regarding Draft:John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company)

Find at least three sources (no more than several) that fit all the following points:

• professionally-published academic (or even journalistic) sources
• secondary or tertiary -- not primary sources
• specifically about John Ferrar (not Nicholas Ferrar)
• discusses Ferrar at-length (not just passing mentions)

Summarize those few sources.

That's it. That's all you need to do to establish notability. Save other sources for expanding the article after it is approved.

That's how notability is established. Primary sources and sources about his brother only prove he exists, which is not the same as being notable. Just because his brother was notable does not mean he was. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company) has been accepted

John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Catrìona (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse Post

Hi, just saw your post at the Teahouse; as they tend to prefer it short and sweet there, thought I would post here. If you want to go past what google can offer, I find a membership to my State's library invaluable, as most of the good magazines, research papers and newspapers are paywalled these days, but libraries usually have subscriptions to them. Not as good as a University login, but its much better than nothing:). I can use the login code on the membership card to get access to quite a few online databases from home.(And I could apply for it online too, didn't even have to trek into the library). Not sure if it works the same way in your part of the world, but its pretty good in mine. You can also get access to some via wikipedia, see here for the newspaper one [1]and scroll down to the bottom of the page for a full listing of databases. Not sure how many of those are still available, as they only give out a limited number at any time. I had a quick look for Ferrar family stuff and found one interesting looking one -"The sack that never happened: Little Gidding, puritan soldiers, and the making of a myth" on proquest. Curdle (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Theroadislong Please explain what you mean by unconsructive edits. If you mean removing the template, well I had provided a citation for the one instance of citation needed, and there is no original research in the article. If you perceive that there is original research Please the courtesy of an examplel. Otherwise I am stymied and frustrated. Every significant mention has a citation. The lead in paragraph is too brief and is deserving of the one that you reverted. Would you mind if I strengthened the lead in, and please remove the template as it is no longer appropriate. Oldperson (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edit added inappropriate content, the article is now about Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair and NOT about Cecily. The lede section of an article should summarise the body of the article. Theroadislong (talk)

@Theroadislong: I understand now. But Cecily as defendant is the prime actor in this case, and as a lead in some attention should be provided to her. Noting that there is an expansion subsequent. And what about the original research. There is none. Isn't it now appropriate to remove the template? And who vandalized the page by stating that it was a case of bigamy?Oldperson (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Breach of promise

I have removed the content you added to Breach of promise because it was very poorly sourced, Wikipedia ONLY reports on what the reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Original research

You continue to add your own original research to articles such as Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair we need a source that explicitly says it is the first breech of promise case in the USA, using a date to interpret this yourself is NOT acceptable, I'm sorry that you consider my contributions to be negative, but you continue to edit with no concern for Wikipedia's core guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong That is a slanderous and wrong accusation. I have high regard for WP guidelines and strive to comply. Apparently what is or is nor respect or compliance is a matter of opinion. I understand that you are an admin of long standing and experience, and perhaps your constant association with children who come here to play jaundices your outlook towards all new editors. Understandable, but that is not me. I am a mature individual and assume you are as well. I am doing my very best to produce a good article. But when it comes down to it "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and please don't take that literally I don't think this article is a beauty, the phrase is only an analogy.

On the other hand I doubt that a source can be found that explicitly states "First breach of promise" other than the ones I have sourced and you rejected. But in truth that is the same for so many subjects and sources, not just this one. Are all such challenged?Oldperson (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Where can one discuss obtaining a consensus on a subject? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of women in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Farrar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Assault Signal Company

I'm sorry, but your edit: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/877475444

makes unexpected results in:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Assault_Signal_Company#Operations

Can You take a look at this? Thank You

Lien Shan (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Just noticed your statement of health issues. I'm so very sorry for what you're going through, and hope you'll be able to continue. DS (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Red User Names

I saw your question about red user names. With all the Wiki rules they should require registration. But when someone wants to use the rules against an editor, watch out. If someone wants independence and is well liked, then they can do what they want. The answer you received was accurate. Eschoryii (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Farrar (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Additional references needed at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair

Hello, Oldperson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jordan-Pooley-Farrar affair".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 15:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Farrar (settler)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Farrar (settler) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Farrar (settler)

The article William Farrar (settler) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Farrar (settler) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William Farrar (settler)

The article William Farrar (settler) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Farrar (settler) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Native American or American Indian at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alcide S. Benini has been accepted

Alcide S. Benini, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Oldperson! You created a thread called Where can I ask a question to get a consensus at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

@Dilidor: You mentioned on a Plymouth Colony eddit summary that you were trying to work with me. I replied on your user talk page,that I would like to work with you but would like a discussion as to why you insist that the Mayflower compact was THE seed of American Democracy, when in fact it was A seed, as the Great Charter of the Virginia Company preceded the Mayflower compact. I've tried many times to engage you. I will admit my first clumsy attempts were angry and accusatory, for that I apologize, however I would like to discuss with you some issues. I am asking respectfully.Oldperson (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Standard Arbcom advice for editing in gender-related topics

Hi, Oldperson. Thanks for your contribution to TERF. As you are probably aware, this is a controversial topic area of the encyclopedia, and has historically seen disruption. Because of that, special editing rules apply, set up by Arbcom to help keep things civil and stable.

Here's Arbcom's standard notice about this, delivered to everyone who edits in this area. Don't worry about it unduly, but do have a look at it, and make sure you understand it. Follow the links for details. Once you've digested it, it's okay to delete this entire message, if you wish.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Ok, thanks, it would be helpful if I was informed of the page-specific restrictions. Understand please, that I personally understand the need to keep things cool, but editors do push POV's, while expertly playing the game of being academic and neutral. Inexperienced editors like me haven't yet learned to play that game. At this point it gets dicey. If one does not know the rules, then one can't play the game. For instance hunting is not a sport, because the other side doesn't know the rules and has no means of defense. Being aware of page-specific rules willhelp tremendously.Oldperson (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

In reply, first let me reiterate what the blue box attempts to say at the outset: this is a standard notice, and does not mean you did anything you shouldn't have. Everybody who edits in this area, is supposed to get one of these notices, sooner or later. That said, on to your question:

Now, if I understand your question correctly, you are asking if there are special restrictions for the article TERF, that differ from the page restrictions for other articles about gender. Is that a correct understanding of your question?

If yes, then there are no such page-specific restrictions just for TERF. The Discretionary sanctions restrictions that you can read about in the links, apply to *all* pages in this topic area. If not, I must have misunderstood you; can you rephrase your question?

By the way, I'm not an Admin, nor am I associated with Arbcom in any way; I'm just another editor, like you, who happens to edit at that article occasionally, where I noticed your edit, and saw that no one had notified you of the gender-related restrictions before. Nothing more, nor less. For example, you are free to supply other editors who edit there with the same Arbcom message, if you wish (as long as they haven't already received it before). I hope I have answered your question. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot Thanks, much appreciated. Now to figure out what the page restrictions might actually be, that I don't step over into the no no.Oldperson (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The links in the blue box will explain, but they basically mean use WP:1RR instead of WP:3RR as a guideline, and they also make it easier for people who are Admins, to just jump in and block someone who appears to be violating the restrictions. As a rule of thumb: anything you do in good faith, for the first time, is fine. If you make a completely bone-headed move, someone will revert it, and you're still fine. WP:AGF protects you. If you get cranky, and you don't like the revert, and you revert back, that will raise eyebrows, so don't do that; you could be subject to a sanction. Even so, a first-time offender would get a slap on the wrist. Bottom line: don't overthink it; edit in good faith, revert once if you have to, but never twice for the same thing, go to the Talk page whenever necessary to talk out disagreements. You'll be fine.

By the way, have a look at WP:THREAD about how to use indentation in Wikipedia talk threads, to help keep things organized so we know who said what to whom. I've added two colons to your previous reply, to add two tab-stops of indent. This reply of mine has three tabs of indent, so it can be seen as a unified reply to your comment of 21:27. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I just had another look at this Arbcom page, and my interpretation above isn't quite accurate. It looks like an Admin *can* apply restrictions to a specific page, if they want. Let me look more into this, but at first blush, I believe they are explained in the Talk page notice at the top of Talk:TERF. Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot How is this for threading? I sincerely thank you for your help, you are most gracious and helpful. I have a serious problem with non specific instructions and warning. I never could have gotten away with such in my working life. We were taught, early on in our training, about "A Message to Garcia", supposedly the president (TR maybe) called in a Capt and instructed him "take this message to Garcia" and without asking questions of the President set out to figure out who this Garcia was and where he was located. This may have been a true story, but life doesn't work that way, and neither do I. Early on I took on, and still do where I see it, the AfC denial Template that reads simply, This article does not meed the standards of wikipedia" (or some such). What standards? How can a person improve an article unless they know what is wrong with it? In California in 1958, there was a traffic law for speeding called "prima facie" in other words the traffic cop could cite you on the basis of his opinion,or how he felt that moment, if he had been chewed out by his sergeant, or had an argument with his wife. (It happened to me, I was cited for doing 55 mph at night on a freeway. You can't contest such citations. By the same token if action is going to be taken against a person who violates page-specific standards,then they need to know what those standards are. I know you already know this,just like to hear myself talk..Iam afflicted with the teacher/preacher gene, so I've been told. Peace and thanks.Oldperson (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your threading is perfect! One indentation trap to watch out for, is that each paragraph of your reply, has to have the same number of colons in the beginning. This is still the first paragraph. But what happens if you forget to put colons on every paragraph, then what?

Oops, forgot to put colons in front of this, the second paragraph.

But I remembered to put them on this, the third paragraph. Yeah, sometimes all these little coding tricks can be annoying, and somewhere there's a huge discussion going on, about how to improve the whole Talk-page-discussion situation; I just hope they don't make it worse, if they make a big change to it.

I know what you mean about non-specific instructions, that's always bedeviled me in other contexts. That can also be culturally-related, which I wasn't aware of, until I moved abroad and saw how differently different countries' culture could be. In France, for example, there's minimal guidance, and everything seems very hand-wavy sometimes. Can be tough to deal with, if you're not used to it. Other countries were the opposite, so you had to adapt. As for Wikipedia culture (and it is a culture; I wonder if some apsiring doctoral student has written about it yet?), since this is a volunteer project, that adds yet another wrinkle; plus, the "police" is us—besides writing the articles, we write the rule book, too. And just like in jurisdictions where the rules can change at any minute by legislators changing them in session, so can they change here, when one of the policies and guidelines or style manual principles changes. Only here, you don't have to be a legislator to do it: anybody can change the rules (although watchers are legion, and most of your rule-change attempts will be reverted).

So, part of being a seasoned editor here, is just dealing with a certain level of vagueness and uncertainty. However, there are "Noticeboards" about certain major sections of the rules, where you can go to pose a specific question about rules, and you can always go to a Project Talk page (such as, say, Wikipedia talk:Notability or Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources) to pose a specific question there, and be sure that editors who have deep experience and interest in the topic will see your question, and, hopefully, respond. (Just remember, they're volunteers, too.) The Wikipedia:Dashboard lists a bunch of the Noticeboards, and the Nav template I've included below (collapsed; click '[Show]') has some Noticeboards in a different format.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Related discussions at WT:ARBCOM#DS topics (yours), and mine. Mathglot (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Updated my comment above to strike the part about no page restrictions at TERF. There are, indeed, per my later comment. the ongoing discussion at the two discussions at WT:ARBCOM may have more details about this. Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO, pretty much everybody goes a little WTF the first time they get one of these, I certainly did:[2]. The second time [3], not a big deal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:TERF

Hello Oldperson: The comment you directed at me on Talk:TERF was uncalled-for and may be considered a personal attack. Would you mind removing it? Also, I would suggest reading the relevant policies: No personal attacks and Civility. Thank you. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom Sure but you asked us what do we think. So I told you wnat I thought and actually it was tongue in cheek. I know the rules about personal attacks so I thought about my reponse quite a bit. I will remove it, but leave you with a bit of wisdom. Stuck pigs squeal.Oldperson (talk)

FWIW: I don't necessarily disagree with your edit here, but the summary seems needlessly condescending. Snark in contentious topic areas is usually counterproductive. Nblund ^talk 18:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop the snide remarks

As you did in your summary comment directed at me. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 01:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis SolitaryGlass houses better yet first stoneOldperson (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Cut it out. I'm the third editor (1, 2) to tell you that you are crossing lines with your comments.
Since you are into clichés, don't forget the one about digging your own grave. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis SolitarySo now you are stalking and trolling me.Nice to know, and I don't appreciate your threats either.Oldperson (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"stalking and trolling me". Your accusing an editor who has asked you to stop making snide remarks about them, and replies to your response to that request, of "stalking" and "trolling" is a personal attack. Your behavior is not taking place in a vacuum and you do not get a pass to make snide remarks and personal attacks. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 08:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis SolitaryThis is harassment and I don't appreciate it. You have made a mountain out of a molehill. Cease and desist or take your gripe to WP:ANIOldperson (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)