User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 12

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our sixth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

	new good articles since last newsletter include Thyroid, Hypoglossal nerve, Axillary arch, Human brain, Cerebrospinal fluid, Accessory nerve, Gallbladder, and Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)
	I write an Introduction to Anatomy on Wikipedia in the Journal of Anatomy [1]
	Vagina receives a lot of attention on its way to good article status.
	We reach two projects goals of 20 good articles, and less than half of our articles as stubs, in July 2017. [2]
	A discussion about two preferred section titles takes place here.

Introduction to WikiProject Anatomy and Anatomy on Wikipedia

We welcome all those interested in anatomy!

Seeing as we have so many new members, and a constant stream of new editors to our articles, I would like to write in this issue about how our project and articles are arranged.

The main page for WikiProject Anatomy is here. We are a WikiProject, which is a group of editors interested in editing and maintaining anatomy articles. Our editors come from all sorts of disciplines, from academically trained anatomists, students, and lay readers, to experienced Wikipedia editors. Based on previous discussions, members of our project have chosen to focus mainly on human anatomy ([3]), with a separate project for animal anatomy (WP:ANAN). A WikiProject has no specific rights or abilities on Wikipedia, however it does allow a central venue for discussion on different issues where interested editors can be asked to contribute, collaborate, and perhaps reach a consensus.

Project and article structure

Wikipedia has about 5,500,000 articles. Of these, about 20,000 fall under our project, about 5,000 of which are text-containing articles. Articles are manually assigned by editors as relating to our project (many using the rater tool). As well as articles, other Wikipedia pages in our project include, lists, disambiguation pages, and redirects. Our articles are improving over time, and you can have a look at our goals and progress, or last newsletter, to get a better idea about this.

Our articles are structured according to the manual of style, specifically here. The manual of style is a guideline, which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and prescribes the layout of anatomy articles, most of which follow it.

Our articles are organised in a particular way. Most articles have a infobox in its lead, describing key characteristics about the article. Because we have so many articles, articles are often linked together in different ways. An article tends to focus on the primary topic it is written about. Further information can be linked like this, or piped (like this). We use navboxes, which are the boxes at the bottom of articles providing links to similar topics, as well as hatnotes. Typical hatnotes in articles include {{main}}, {{see also}} and {{further}}. This lets us link to relevant and related articles. The bottom of articles also shows categories, which store groups of related articles.

Tools

For interested editors, our project offers a number of additional tools to help edit our articles. On our main page appears a log of the most edited recent articles. An automatic list of recent changes to all our articles is here. We have a list of the most popular pages (WP:ANAT500). To keep abreast of news and discussions, it is best to monitor our talk page, newsletters, and our article alerts, which automatically lists deletion, good article, featured article, and move proposals. We also have a open tasks page for editors to create lists of tasks that other editors can collaborate with. Articles are also manually assigned to a "discipline", so interested editors in for example, gross anatomy, histology, or embryology can easily locate articles via here.

Our project has all sorts of smaller items that editors may or may not know about, including a barnstar, user box ({{User WPAnatomy}}), welcoming template ({{WPANATOMY welcome}}) and fairly comprehensive listing of templates (here).

Invitation

We are always happy to help out, and I invite new editors, or for those with any questions relating to how to get around the confusing environment that is Wikipedia, to post on our talk page or, for a kind introduction to questions, at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

How can I contribute?

Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask!
Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

Please comment on Talk:Carroll Quigley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carroll Quigley. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tino Sanandaji

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tino Sanandaji. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:James D. Zirin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

Op-ed: Do editors have the right to be forgotten?

Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible

Recent research: Automated Q&A from Wikipedia articles; Who succeeds in talk page discussions?

Blog: New monthly dataset shows where people fall into Wikipedia rabbit holes

Interview: Interview with The Rambling Man, Wikipedia's top contributor of Featured Lists

Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles

Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative

Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues

In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations

Humour: You really are in Wonderland

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Strandell

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Strandell. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlane

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlane. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators

Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back

Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases

Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain

Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history

Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks

Humour: Impossible and unexplained traffic report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Coco Austin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coco Austin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dana Loesch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Aaron Rodgers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aaron Rodgers. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David Ogden Stiers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ogden Stiers. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Peftiev

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Peftiev. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bergen County Executive

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bergen County Executive. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:George Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Peter Thiel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Thiel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Abiy Ahmed Ali

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abiy Ahmed Ali. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Peter Navarro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Navarro. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

Discussion report: The future of portals

Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dana Loesch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Peter Thiel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Thiel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Paulson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Paulson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Alicia Keys

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alicia Keys. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jeff Novitzky

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeff Novitzky. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Nicholas Hoult

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nicholas Hoult. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Please note that your edit summary "A user who scans and obsessively responds to every infobox discussion on the project is plastering DS warnings to those random users who were brought to one such discussion by an RfC notice? Yeah, we're getting back towards another ArbCom case for sure." is uncivil and is in certain breach of the very notice I left on your page (and calling another user obsessive is uncivil. Your comment is also incorrect. I do not respond to every IB discussion, and indeed I ignore most of them, as my evidence at the recent ArbCom case showed very carefully. Neither have I been "plastering DS warnings to those random users who were brought to one such discussion". You were the only one at which I placed a warning, and I did so because your comments crossed a line. If you took a few seconds to check, it was an Arb, BU Rob13, who placed the notices on the talk pages of the other users. If you are going to be uncivil to me or about me, please at least get the facts correct when you do so. – SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, it was perhaps a bit more terse than it needed to be, but regardless of whether you respond literally to every last infobox discussion on the project, I can tell you with absolute certainty that you have shown up at every such discussion that I have been RfC'd to on this topic, going back quite a few years. Every one. To be fair to you and your "side" in these ridiculous "infobox wars", you are not the only one; I knew, for example, that it was only a matter of time before I saw Gerda's name pop up too, for example. There's about a dozen or more of you (about evenly distributed between the two sides) that I expect to see every time I get an RfC notice to a discussion involving an infobox, and it is clear at this point that both sides have clearly organized complicated mechanisms for knowing about these discussions and coordinating mass responses, which needlessly complicates the discussion with the same old arguments from both of the utterly intractable roving feud, that moves from article to article. Even where this behaviour does not rise to a per se violation of WP:CANVAS, it certainly is in clear violation of the spirit of the policy. And frankly, often it is clear that the level of coordination is probably a brightline violation of the policy as well. You aren't all just ending up at these discussions by accident, clearly.

I am not the first and I will not be the last to tell you that community patience has been pretty thoroughly exhausted with this behaviour; indeed that is something which ought to have been clear from the last ArbCom case to which you were subject. From my perspective looking in on this feud, I can see how both sides have trapped themselves in an arms race, where the other does not want to give ground on these practices because they fear the other will exploit their silence. So each side tracks these discussions and shows up ready to litigate the matter to the extremes, despite the fact that each side already knows the arguments the other will present, rather than just leaving the matter to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as it is meant to operate in these circumstances. You should know that for the last couple of years of having to watch this disruptive mess unfold time after time, I've been contemplating putting before the community a proposal for a sanction that would limit all of you cannot restrain your responses to this topic to involvment in a set number of such discussions per year. After watching hundreds of local discussions, numerous ANIs, and ArbCom cases, it is clear self-regulation is not an option for some. As to my "crossing a line", I find that suggestion bemusing; my comments were brief, perfectly civil, and I was only at that discussion by way of a random RfC notice. I shared my perspective on the issue in a appropriate fashion, as I always do when I get a random notice. I'm curious if you can elucidate me as to how you arrived at that discussion, though?

In any event, however pro forma a DS notice may be in most contexts, you should know it sometimes feels like they are being used in the context of this battle as a bludgeon, to either chill discussion or to posture, especially when they are used repeatedly by the same heavily involved parties of this roving dispute, and put on the talk pages of other editors who disagreed with their interpretation of the issue and who clearly already know about the DS status of the topic field. I may have been the only recipient on this occasion, but I think we both know that you are no stranger to that notice, and I would caution a more restrained use (i.e. actually informing people who are unaware of the existence of the sanctions, rather than trying to make a point). Again, my edit summary was perhaps more terse than it needed to be, but it comes from a place of real frustration and declining patience from this community on this battle to which you (amongst several others) are a regular and persistent party. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How I arrived here? I watch the page. How I arrived at the actor? I saw a link in a complaint. I consistently believe that telling readers at a glance when and where a person was born doesn't hurt, but my patience with being blamed for organizing a "side" in a "war" is also getting thinner. Several others happen to believe the same, that's all. I received my DS notice by RexxS, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gerda, I'm generally in agreement with you on that underlying content issue--in a majority of contexts, anyway. But I believe these discussions become overly inflammatory and needlessly complicated as a consequence of the fact that two groups of editors regularly parachute into each and every infobox discussion (or at least every last one that I have seen going back years), prepared to slug it out once again. In my opinion that is an abrogation of the normal local consensus process; the editors already working on the article in question would normally be able to come to a consensus decision on the matter much more quickly and efficiently if not for the influence of these two groups, with their strong and increasingly inflexible positions on the matter. Furthermore, the two groups normally cancel out eachother's !votes, meaning you are all bloating these discussions for very little in terms of shifting the needle on the outcome of these discussions. If both groups could agree to stop these practices, a lot of editorial time would be saved for both groups and for the community at large.

I honestly don't know how much the presence of these same actors is the result of tracking Wikiprojects, or stalking eachother's talk pages, or direct communication between the involved editors (on project or off) but I do know that it is a statistical impossibility that we'd be seeing the same people at each of these discussions if they were arriving there organically through random notices and coming across the issues at random. You are all clearly making a concerted effort to form ranks for each such discussion. I'm sure that the techniques among these parties vary considerably, and some are more directly in violation of WP:CANVAS than others; I'm sure some of you at least probably manage to arrive at these discussions without doing anything that is a brightline violation of policy. But I continue to feel that what you all do collectively to bring your stock arguments to bear on these discussions is disruptive and counterproductive to our normal consensus processes and at least in violation of the spirit of those policies which are meant to keep the same groups of editors from showing up en masse for discussion after discussion on the same topic. Many of you have received warnings about conduct in this vein from one community body or another, but the habits persist, within the margins between those behaviours prohibited by policy and those which are not. I just wish you would all take a break from infobox discussions for a year and let the regular editors of given articles debate the matter for themselves--in most cases they will be perfectly capable of forming a reasonable consensus, and when they can't, that's what RfCs are for. The regular infobox partisans only bring more volume, and often more heat, and you've locked eachother into this cycle. But as I said above, self-regulation seems to be a non-starter here, and I suspect the community will eventually have to once again step in with one solution or another, whether it is by tightening the wording of WP:CANVAS or once again scrutinizing the behaviour of particular editors who can't seem to drop the stick on infoboxes. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I noticed Nicholas Hoult here. (I have to admit that I don't know him as an actor, and when I saw the name in requests for FAC review, I postponed it.) Look in the edit history (of that article or any other) for the names of my close friends (WP:QAI), - we all try to avoid the topic, afaik. If you have the time, make a little list of names in the history of discussions or edit wars, and check if it's really "the same names" who believe that nothing is wrong with a bit of structured information at the top. There are only few who believe otherwise. If these few would keep their belief to articles they write, and not carry it to those that others have written, the "war" would be over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I know each little step you take in this contest of wills feels natural to you, but I'd like to point something out for your consideration: when I received that RfC notice and realized what the discussion was about on arrival, I predicted the arrival of the regular infobox partisans about half a day before you and Schrocat showed up there. That's how predicable the activities of both groups are (and have been for a long time). I didn't manage that because I know a magic trick, I simply pointed to an inevitability. As I said above, some of the means by which you all keep arriving at these discussions may be less of a brightline violation of policy than others are. There are very likely times that these editors arrive at these discussions completely by random. But the overall pattern precludes the possibility of editors who are generally "avoiding the topic" as you suggest you all are. Though certainly some of you should be, as some have previously been given sanctions in this area. And while I am not prepared to either refute your position that one side is more "aggressive" than the other when measured over time, I should like to point out that, though SchroCat participated in this latest thread, they have not (as yet) lodged a formal !vote, whereas you have. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. I avoid the topic, I don't initiate discussions the last was Pierre Boulez, 2015), I tell others not to do so, I review FAC without commenting the ibox (as SchroCat will confirm), I resist the temptation to revive that on Jean Sibelius, although he is going to appear with a featured picture, and the "no consensus" in the last discussion was weak. - I request, however to be permitted to go to an RfC, the same way as everybody else is. I considered not to comment at all on Nicholas Hoult, but changed my mind when I saw it "in danger", because some think the whole infobox has to go if one parameter is debatable (Alma mater). - There is no feud, try to see that. - Yes, I received sanctions, for no good reason (just for defending Andy, and for promoting {{infobox opera}} which is now part of around 1k articles, [https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Infobox_opera&namespace=10#bottom 982 as I write this), which were rescinded in 2015. - Singing is more fun! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually SchroCat, I'd like to say that, with a day away from our discussion and another review of my edit summary, I can agree that I could have worded it differently. I should be clear that I do not agree with your description of it as uncivil, but it was perhaps a little more polemic than I generally try to be on-project. Even though I feel that the use of that notice was inadvisable in the circumstances, nothing was stopping me from just removing it and holding my observations. I do stand by my broader comments in the discussion above, but if I am going to utilize my position as an outsider to what I perceive as a feud to try to urge it to stop, I have to first hold myself to the strictest of standards of objective observation, or else I only undercut that effort. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Observing Lund's Tower, determined to stay away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been solved, but I wonder why a newcomer (not only to the topic but Wikipedia) was treated to editing by edit summary (several times), and not offered an explanation on their talk. I remember when I was new and was just surprised that an edit I made had "vanished", not knowing anything about article history and edit summaries. Of course, it first needs accepting that someone is new, AGF that is. Turned out they knew about edit summaries and history, a promising editor, I'd say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Wedding dress of Meghan Markle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wedding dress of Meghan Markle. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

Traffic report: We love our superheroes

Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

Humour: Play with your food

Gallery: Wine not?

From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Julius Evola

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julius Evola. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tolstoy noodles

(He made wonderful noodles, every day for lunch, and invited guests for talks and feast) Hi, very nice user page!, and thanks on the Tolstoy comment. Saw your note, and answered there, and appreciate your effort and ideas. "Somewhere on the page" is my personal third choice, but still a choice, and thanks for originally bringing it up. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Randy! I never knew that about the noodles (or if I did, I'd forgotten) though it is completely consistent with the other details I've picked up over the years, regarding his daily regimen and minimalist lifestyle perspectives. And thank you for the compliment as regards the user page; I'm sure you can see now why I was so pleased to meet a scholar working in the vein of non-violence, and humanism broadly. :)

I'm glad that you consider a non-lead mention as an option, but if I can give you some personal advice, I would switch to throwing your full weight behind that option sooner, rather than later, rather than give it comparably more tepid and short-shrift "third choice" support you have thus far. At present, we are almost three weeks into the RfC and because the !votes (on their face) will look like a landslide to a closer, the discussion could be closed at any point now. I would suspect you that you have, at best, a week and a half to bring around a significant number of editors to avoid a close which reads consensus as requiring that Bevel not be mentioned in the article altogether. Unfortunately, I fear the nuance of my and SMcCandlish's views endorsing the "somewhere on the page" solution may be lost if you keep your focus on the lead. You may have already noted that I said as much on the talk just now (interlaced with some criticism which I hope you will interpret with the same civility and consideration you have previously displayed on that page, even as we have disagreed about particulars).

Whatever your approach or the immediate outcome, you can feel free to ping me back to the discussion if you feel I can be of assistance in rendering a consensus. In the meantime, happy editing--I hope you will continue to contribute in this most vital of areas! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The noodle recipe and story behind it are in a book by Ryan Berry which is a collection of recipes from famous vegetarians. There is one by da Vinci that's amazing. Thanks for your comments, and you have been a calm voice within the discussion. I do go overboard sometimes, especially in such a long discussion where it seems I'm repeating myself while replying to individual editors, and I've explained a bit more on the talk page. The use of Bevel's name somewhere on the page, if at all, would depend on placement, what already exists on the page, and if there is further text about the impact of Tolstoy's book on the activists of the 20th century. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: I'm sorry, Randy, with regard to this I overstated my position. I do have some of those concerns about your objectivity and quasi-WP:SPA/COI focus on Bevel, but I have not done (nor intend to do) nearly the level of examination of other articles to corroborate or dismiss those concerns, and so I should probably have avoided re-introducing them into the discussion at all. Truthfully, my motivation was to strengthen the argument for inclusion of Bevel by, in effect, saying the following: "Yes, I share the skepticism and concerns voiced here regarding motivations, but that has only caused me to look at Randy's support for the mention of Bevel "under a microscope"/with an extra layer of skepticism. But even at that high standard, I think the case for some degree of inclusion has been met." But I could have done that without making reference to matters outside the present content dispute, so please do accept my apology for muddying the waters. I've made my response to you here, rather than on the talk page, so as not to provide encouragement to your opposition to take discussion back in that direction, which I think would be counter-productive.

Thanks, and no need at all to apologize. I appreciate your caring for Wikipedia, and delving into any editor's work who has an interest in a particular topic that they have researched and dwelt within, and are considered a subject matter expert in, but yet have spent considerable time editing Wikipedia, seems very appropriate. I would welcome any editor investigating my Bevel edits, and will answer any questions about them.

If someone does go through my edits one-by-one they would find I have interests in many areas. My interest in improving Wikipedia even extends to making it look more professional to readers, researchers, and those on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee (I've consistently said that Wikipedians will be the NPPrize recipient in 2024, give or take a couple of years).

But yes, of course I have an interest in seeing that Bevel gets accurate coverage across-the-board here, but because I hesitate to personally add the more historical ground-breaking aspects of my published papers into articles other than the Bevel page (and even there much is left out), that accuracy is a long way from being achieved. The main reason I've kept discussing at length and answering concerns at the Leo Tolstoy page is that the subjective word "pivotal" is used, without a qualifier such as "well known". Knowing that Bevel is among the Gandhi-King-Bevel trio of pivotal 20th century nonviolent activists, keeping his name in that sentence retains encyclopedic accuracy not only for Bevel and his accumulated accomplishments but for all of the involved topics (Tolstoy, Tolstoy's book, and Tolstoy's noodles). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your long and well-thought out suggestions at the Tolstoy page. You've spent a lot of time with that discussion, and have done much to stabilize and center its various wanderings and thoughts. You may get this a lot, but you seem to be one of the most level-headed, courteous, and thoughtful editors I've come across on the site. It's been a pleasure to see your work in action. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that Randy, truly. I also appreciate your consistently civil responses to issues raised on the talk page. And this is as good a time as any to say that, despite some sharp criticisms on certain of those issues over the course of the discussion, the overall benefit of the discussion has been high, in my estimation; you may not have walked away from the consensus process with exactly what you had hoped to achieve at the outset, but the overall outcome of the discussion was to introduce new passage which covers an aspect of Tolstoy's legacy which was absent from the article previously, including some historical associations which I personally was previously unaware of before doing the research necessary to discuss the matter--so yay for learning too. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 08:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, as I expect you may have replied on the talk page, I will try to respond there tomorrow. At the moment, I can barely keep my eyes open--a long last week, on the other side of the project portal. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Joy-Ann Reid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joy-Ann Reid. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well considered response

Just want to thank you for your clear and well considered response here.[4] I don't agree with your conclusion, but I see your point. I just wish that Wikipedia had more collegial interactions like this. You made my day. Best, --LK (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lawrencekhoo, that is very kind of you to say. Like you, I put a premium on civility and good will as community values, so it is always nice to hear when my comments have been received in such a light. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 12:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Taffer&oldid=844210220

Why did you undo my revert due to WP:V while accepting the same edit that introduces broken grammar? Thanks. Narwaro (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake Narwaro, I must have gotten mixed up while bouncing between diffs; I had meant to remove said content, not re-insert it. I'm not sure how I made that mistake, except to say I was looking through the string of edits by that single editor even as you accepted them. In any event, my apologies on the needless revert. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a problem, I corrected it, after being a bit confused for a moment. Cheers, Narwaro (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ellen DeGeneres

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ellen DeGeneres. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Roseanne Barr

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roseanne Barr. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jordan Peterson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jordan Peterson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the request review, Tony! Snow ^{let's rap} 16:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mehmet Oz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mehmet Oz. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Snow Rise, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

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

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

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

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

Please comment on Talk:H.J. Whitley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:H.J. Whitley. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI close

Series of edit conflicts -- sorry if I messed up some of your close. I moved my comment outside of the closure while, I think, you were reclosing and including it. My edit summary "bungled" was directed at myself (assuming I copied my comments without removing the original), not at you. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]