User talk:TheDragonFire/Archives/2017/12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TheDragonFire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of December 2017 Melbourne car attack

The article December 2017 Melbourne car attack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of lasting impact and notability

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of December 2017 Melbourne car attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article December 2017 Melbourne car attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 2017 Melbourne car attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of December 2017 Melbourne car attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article December 2017 Melbourne car attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 2017 Melbourne car attack (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Have a Merry Christmas --ChocolateRabbit 22:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Widr (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello TheDragonFire/Archives/2017, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

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

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

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

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

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

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

Dmytro Kremin

Dear (Redacted),

I have noticed your input on the Wikipedia page I created recently for the Ukrainian poet Dmytro Kremin.

I certainly support your efforts to review new Wikipedia articles, especially those related to Ukrainian matters! I'm writing to you about the qualifier you've placed on my particular article.

This entry is very definitely not a "rough translation" and, of course, not any sort of computer generated English text. In fact, it is my English language entry for Dmytro Kremin created at Kremin's request.

I based my English language entry on the Ukrainian language entry I co-authored with Kremin's son, Taras Kremin.

If you'd care to look me up on the internet, my name is Svetlana Ischenko. I am a Ukrainian-Canadian, and have lived in Canada for twenty years. I return to Ukraine on a regular basis. I am the translator along with the Canadian poet Russell Thornton of Dmytro Kremin's selected poems in English, Poems from the Scythian Wild Field: A Selection of the Poetry of Dmytro Kremin.

I see that you quote from Robert Frost on your Wikipedia User Page -- so you respect poetry! My Wikipedia entry for Kremin is meant to promote this well-known Ukrainian poet in the English language literary world. This is important work that I'm sure you can appreciate. Kremin is one of the very small handful of contemporary Ukrainian poets who have a chance to be nominated for the Nobel Prize.

As I say, I support your efforts to clear away the morass of flagrantly appropriated and mistranslated entries on Wikipedia -- but my entry for Dmytro Kremin is altogether another sort of entry.

I would be grateful if you would remove your qualifier.

Very sincerely,

Svetlana Ischenko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svetlana Ischenko (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Svetlana Ischenko: Hey! Sorry about that, {{Rough translation}} was clearly the wrong template. I think what I was shooting for at the time, was {{Expand Russian}} or {{Expand Ukrainian}}, in order to draw language specific attention so that someone might improve the lack of footnotes, but I clearly didn't think that through very well. I've retagged the article correctly now. A small note that "Sources and External Links" isn't compliant with MOS:LAYOUT and the two sections really need to be split, though I'm unsure how to do this as it's not in English. Thanks for your extensive effort so far, and for your kind note. My only other comment – as I note you have a Wikipedia article about yourself and have edited it – is to ensure that you are familiar with our conflict of interest and autobiography guidelines. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello (Redacted),

Thanks very much for your reply here. I appreciate your suggestions. You’ve given me some excellent advice!

I’ll contact my colleagues in Ukraine about producing better footnoting for the article. I’ll also revisit the “Sources and External Links” for compliancy.

Re: the Wikipedia page on myself: It’s a different issue, of course – but I’ll take a close look at those guidelines.

Thanks again, (Redacted). Svetlana Ischenko (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Gwrhst

Hi. Why did you template a user for edit-warring, when that user had not only ceased EWing (thirty days ago) but hasn't edited anything in 27 days? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Errr... looks like I read the dates very, very wrong on that one. I've reverted. Slaps self with a wet trout. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert at Young Earth creationism

Hi, regarding this revert - I'm pretty sure that I was adding back scientific theories, reverting an edit from a YEC, though I may have missed something. Could you please review your revert? I won't revert it, I just want to make sure it wasn't a mistake. Thanks. :) BytEfLUSh ^Talk 05:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@BytEfLUSh: Hmm. Possibly I miss-clicked in Huggle, because I was trying to make exactly the same edit as you were, but it's rolled back your edit instead. :/ TheDragonFire (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No prob, I was just curious what I did wrong, I re-read it three times afterwards and couldn't find anything fring-y. =D It's back now, so no harm done. BytEfLUSh ^Talk 05:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@BytEfLUSh: As you'll note from the messages above, it's been one of those days where my error rate is way too high, so I might go have a cup of tea and a nap for a few hours. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, haven't looked at the sections above. :) However, as I said - no harm done. Though, do take a break, get some beverage of your choice and have some rest. I hear it's good for health. I'll try that one day. =) BytEfLUSh ^Talk 05:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)