I was wondering if you would have any objection to undoing the most recent changes by DaivdWestT to the Walter O'Brien page back to the 11th. I noticed you had made some changes. The things added by this person seem very.. promotional. The vast majority of the changes he has made have been to this page and in the same letter. byo (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention. Just following the sources that are reporting. See O'Brien talk page.DavidWestT (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Thanks for the correction. Anyway, the problem is not that Dead Man's Chest is "improperly" called a sea chanty, but the internal link itself. Disambiguation pages are mainly used for resolving conflicts in article titles (see: Help:Disambiguation). And, in this case, it does not improve readers understanding. Also, both the disambiguation page ("[...]a song sung by sailor's (not necessarily a shanty), as defined by the OED") and the Sea shanty page ([...]in recent, popular usage, the scope of its definition is sometimes expanded to admit a wider range of repertoire and characteristics, or to refer to a “maritime work song” in general") only serve to increase the confusion over the subject. IMHO, linking to Sea shanty, which is the nearest article on the subject, or eventually unlinking it are the best solutions to apply. However, do what you see fit for this case. There is no need to reply to this post, and happy editing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well done, thank you! I would have liked to suggest you to add a new section about sea songs within that article (Sea shanty), but I didn't notice that a section about sea songs already exists, or I would have linked it to the proper section. Once again, thank you … and happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! We tried to send your your WP:Questia account access but your Wikiedia email was not enabled in Special:Preferences as requested by the signup application. To remedy this, could you please email me using the emailuser feature or directly at wikiocaasiyahoo.com. Your code will be on the way shortly thereafter. Thanks! Ocaasit | c17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for publishing and maintaining the page for Mohawk Guy, Bobak Ferdowsi. Just wanted to point out a error in the record. Bobak was not actually flight director during Curiosity's landing. He was seated in an activity lead position adjacent to Martin Greco, who was in fact the activity lead for the landing. I hesitate to make edits to the page myself since I was involved with the mission and therefore could be construed as having a conflict of interest. I respectfully request that you investigate and improve the accuracy of the article yourself. I recommend that you source the original NASA footage and photographs of the events rather than second hand reports, many of which are taken out of context. The cited photo captures everyone in their assigned position in the weeks prior to the landing.[1]--Shamu91 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the right questions. Entries made by NASAJPL on the Gigapan image are the authoritative source for responsibilities during the landing but don't address roles before and after the landing shift itself. Thanks! Shamu91 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't quite realised until I revisited tonight that the page you "created" at the Orange Prize is in fact almost a copy-and-paste of the text that was created in the lead of the list of winners, can you show me where you provide the attribution of this text in accordance with the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you didn't get it, try reading this. It works into and out of Wikipedia, but also within. You shouldn't be copy-and-pasting (and tweaking) other people's work without attribution. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so but I've never seen anyone give attribution for inter-wiki text, copying goes on all the time as articles are split and merged and so on. Do you have an example of someone doing this? Are there templates? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't copy-and-paste major parts of articles, tweak them a bit and claim them for themselves, as you've done. Fix it please, or delete it. Try WP:COPYPASTE. And then tell me why we need virtually identical text in two articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I told you a long time ago when the split was done that there was a problem of duplicate text.[4] At the time I said:
Logically it would make sense to copy it all over the main article, add section breaks and a summary lead section, I'd do that if your agreeable, but I'm not sure what it would imply for this article since it might then look redundant. So I just kept the main article short for now, but at least the structure is in place for future additions by myself or others.
This still holds true - and you never replied to it BTW for whatever reason. What should happen is the entire 6 paragraphs should be copied over to the full article (well beyond a stub) and the list article should have a 1 or 2 paragraph lead section because that's all that is required for this list. To do this would require a feature review so it can be unfrozen from changes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "freeze" you keep referring to? What policy or guideline are you referring to? Could you link me to it please? Also, you haven't quite answered the question why you need a main article which duplicates most of the prose and references verbatim and then has a blank section for linking out to the winners, when a simple single article could cover that, imagine how much easier that is for our readers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The freeze? Take a look at your very own actions during last years discussion at the Orange Prize:
"It would also appear that we'll need to run it through WP:FLRC again if you wish to make radical changes, it's only fair on the community to see a highly revised version of a previously reviewed list, to determine if it still meets the featured list criteria."
You prevented an editor from making any major changes to the article without going through FLRC which can take weeks of time and effort and essentially most people will never do it (I didn't). In effect, the article is frozen by being a FL (though not frozen solid, it can be melted with some considerable effort). We should not be putting up roadblocks to editors this way on articles that we know ahead of time will be expanding in size and scope down the road. The awards articles deserve to be full articles because they are notable topics in their own right separate of the list. Now, what about merging the Orange Prize prose section into the main article and making the lead section of the list 1 or 2 paragraphs? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a freeze at all then, in reality an invitation for not just for the self-proclaimed expert to decide, but for the community consensus to be achieved? The lead section of the Orange Prize featured list meets our criteria for comprehensiveness. Reducing it just to link back to the copy-and-paste naff stub is utterly pointless. Are you sure you can't see that? Why would you want the readers of this website to have to visit a pathetic stub or c-class article when the three or four extra paragraphs could simply exist in the featured list which also has substantially higher quality control than the stubs/ c-class articles you're advocating? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take this up centrally, and I don't just mean an obscure talk page at MOS. Start an RFC so the community gets a chance to determine if the "pathetic copy-and-paste stub/worse list" or "comprehensive featured list" best serves our reader. Night. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed my comment because that is what I meant to say, it's a typo, and so that it wouldn't cause unnecessary confusion for other readers, not to make you "look stupid". Just go ahead and change your comment now that I fixed mine, it's a trivial thing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few qualities of this comment (and, potentially, the editor that left it) give me pause, specifically:
They are very well read on the current literature, particularly that of Wells
They discuss Wells the most, in particular how much his work "agrees" with and transcends all others
They are most concerned with adding a statistical and mathematical analysis with a "top-down" approach, the focus of Wells work
They wish to add said material "early on", similar to lede expansion/mutilation in this revision
...and maybe it's just me, but even they're writing style bears some resemblance to an editor with whom we've recently dealt with on that page.
Which is why I ask: is it just me, or do you see it too?
Mind you, I'm not about to go there and makerashaccusations. Despite the impressions my comments on that page may have given, I'm not fundamentally opposed to a professional author rewriting that page, as long as they do it incrementally, in line with policy, and without obvious bias toward there own (or any one) work. (In particular, I'm still concerned that Wells meets the criteria of a "fringe" viewpoint.) From what I saw, the author in question was unable or unwilling to meet those criteria, so I may have been a bit harsh, and hence I am treading even more lightly now. MysteriousWhisper01:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following the format of the Roman Empire article to a considerable extent, but the analogy is not exact. Those historians were largely contradicting one another, but in our case the scholars largely agree on the big picture that humanity is in trouble due to proliferating hazards from new technology, and that the time scale is 100 years, maybe less. However, their ideas sometimes conflict regarding which hazards are important and what to do about them.
TeddyLiu (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Structurally it is like the Roman Empire article, but has problems for Wikipedia. It reads like an original essay of personal opinions. It is also unsourced. It would run into many complaints from other editors. Some examples from the first few paragraphs:
"This thick book".. is the writer's subjective opinion to label a book "thick" and not neutral - who called it "thick", is there a source for that? Also not appropriate to link to Amazon customer reviews, they are not considered reliable sources since anyone can write an Amazon review.
"..inventor of the Java computer language. [Joy] fears the sort of cybertechnology to which he has made major contributions." .. Joy fears the Java Computer Language?
"For this conviction Joy has been called a Neo-Luddite." By who?
"We have seen this happen already in the US when the Bush administration put restrictions on research with human embryos." .. who is "we" and that's a political hot button introducing POV into the article.
I could go on but there is a lot of issues for Wikipedia purposes. Suggest checking out WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. This is a good base if you can source stuff and tone down the language to be more NPOV with no opinionated language or POV's. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your review of "Published Research" on 15 April
Having make ten or more edits to the article on Phineas Gage, or commented on its Talk in the last two years, perhaps you will be interested in the Good Article Review currently underway. I am particularly interested in gathering broader opinion on the following comment by the reviewer: "Many sentences are much too long for easy reading and to my mind overuse complicated constructions ... I will very strongly recommend a copy edit with ease of reading in mind, breaking up complex sentences and disentwining some of the flowery language."
EEng (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epic (genre) 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. Srnec (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, GilderienChat|What I've done23:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
Thanks very much for all your help. As Feudal Monarchy was all copyvio, I've rolled back to the redirect. However, I think a section on the subject might be appropriate in Fedualism but I'm not sure I'm the one to write it - interested? Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know a little something about Feudalism and the concept is new to me. No one in 10+ years of Wikipedia thought to consider it before and we have some knowledgeable people. I'd prefer to sit on it for now and keep it in mind. My sense it's a neologism occasionally used to label certain monarch's as Feudal after the period of Feudalism has traditionally thought to have ended. Feudalism is a politicized concept often abused, not an easy topic to get right. Thanks for clearing that page and agree with the redirect. What a mess overall. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD has been re-opened and the article is back for continued work. Remove those youtube links and tighten the thing up and it may well survive. 06:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I happened to see your vote on an article that was nominated for deletion, just one section below another entry which I'm currently opposing. So I randomly decided to kindly ask you and the other two users - only if you want of course - to take a quick look this article. Then, I'd really appreciate it if you could vote either for(delete) or against(keep) its deletion proposal, because I'm convinced that more views are needed there and think yours can be trusted. Thanks in advance, Shalom11111 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I seem to be getting mixed messages about the current state of Wikipedia's future. On one hand editors are encouraged to submit articles and urge others to do so as well. Then I get messages stating some articles are not worthy of their hard drive space. I didn't realize up until now that some books, especially those published by small companies, don't make the grade.
To answer your question I am in no way realated to or have any financial involvement with Mr. Lansdale. I've only met him once about 4 years ago. I live in the far north suburbs of Chicago near the Wisconsin border and he lives in a small city in East Texas. I would be less than honest if I didn't state, and I think it's pretty obvious, I am a huge fan of his work. I'm also a huge fan of many writers and grew up reading Stephen King. That being stated if you feel some of these limited edition books, no matter how wonderful, shouldn't all have their own articles, I'll stop. PKDASD (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatestone Institute: By reacting on Hawkswin, who didn't sign his his message, and by entering the word keep by an anonymous user, it appears that your vote for delete was nullified by Hawkswin's vote, which, by lack of a signature, is counted as your vote. See here. Maybe you can look what can be done by it. If some lazy administrator just want to count the votes, the article will stay for all the wrong reasons. And I don't want that to happen. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some secondary references to the Oxford Brookes Students' Union article, which should prove its notability. I agree that TLE is a primary source, however as a student magazine it represents a complete week-by-week record of the history of the university, such knowledge could not be found elsewhere in any secondary sources.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve de Leon Allen 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. —Darkwind (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling that Juan and Blander were the same person or working together. Blander had never edited anything on the Nathaniel Raymond article or talk page, and then submitted it for Afd using the exact same arguments that Juan had used. DavidinNJ (talk)
Actually, there are instances where something has been deleted at an open AfD per the G4 and/or G5 criteria. There is no need to encourage pov-pushers, socks, meats and PR types, after all. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just thought I'd ask for some help with what looks like it'll be a fairly weighty article subject. It's for Cuckold (book), which I started per a request on the request board. I'm busy with schoolwork and I'm kind of feeling like I'm getting the flu all of a sudden, so I don't know how much time I can really give to it and it looks like it'd be something that would take some digging for sources. I know you're good with sourcing books, so I thought I'd drop you a line. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)06:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the sources are excellent, scholarly in-depth, better than most book articles. The plot could be expanded but leave that for someone who just finished. I checked the commercial databases and found very little surprisingly. Never heard of the author/book but appears to be significant, historical fiction can be really great or really boring. Will add it to my watchlist see what happens. Good luck with school and flu (no relation). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with me or with SpacemanSpiff (talk·contribs) wrt hounding then take either or both of us to WP:ANI, please. Making random suggestions at an AfD will achieve nothing. FWIW, the article was almost a complete copy/paste and for that reason has to be deleted - we cannot leave such blatant copyright violations even in the history, so a rewrite was not feasible. Of course, anyone is welcome to recreate provided that they act within our policies/guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article now should be able to survive AfD if listed there again. However, a Wikipedian looking at a variety of sources and concluding and posting "In 2013 ... Capturing Love: The Art of Lesbian and Gay Wedding Photography ... was reviewed by (insert numerous sources)" is original research by the Wikipedian, not a summary of what the sources are saying. The original research is why the article received all the negative reactions. That ""In 2013" information in the article should be revised to instead summarize what the cited sources say about the topic. There's no reason to keep a lightning rod in the article and editing it out of the article will significantly lower resistance to the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Email: auto71249192000@hushmail.com .. when you send an email let me know as I won't normally monitor it, this is a temporary email created for our conversation, thanks. Also this email account expires after 3 weeks of inactivity. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just want to know how can I delete my account as I am not able to work- continuously tracked by 5-6 editors of Wikipedia. They do not have any other work but to track my contributions, immediately land there and put it for deletion or speedy deletion. I also want to complain before deleting my account and state my reason for deleting my account. The admin wl chk and can see themselves how they are hounding me. Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. If there are any articles you want help editing or finding sources, send me the name. I am talking to Coffee about why he closed Delete instead of Keep but it is not going well. It will probably need more book reviews or a major award. You can't delete an account on Wikipedia, but you can delete the userpage by putting {{db-user}} at the top of User:Ananyaprasad. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am i missing something, are these photos of the same person. [5][6]. They certainly don't to me and if its a photo of the journalist or whatever its a bit odd. I also removed the CNN blog its highly questionable given links that its been subjected to proper editorial control.BletheringScot21:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re CNN the blog post contains links we block, it also is a blog posting whilst even by a quality journalist doesn't read or look like its been subject to full editorial control. We don't need it anyway as it adds nothing the other sources don't, so theres no point wasting time on it. I would also note I'm not questioning the reliability of book reviews, but don't feel theres much in them that adds much to notability or to the article until its expanded or am i questioning that time can be used and i have actually tidied the article up a bit as well, but its a stub thats over line sourced at the minute per amount of sentences. BletheringScot22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying about local San Diego news not being given much weight, but on top of the Today Show and Huffington Post, I would argue that TechCrunch should have as much weight as Huffington Post as a source.
References 7-10 are for pioneering medical research in the field of colon cancer and were published in national medical journals. They are available online through PubMed. What criteria are used for determining the weight of medical research and sources?
Techcrunch is a trivial mention, there is no information in it that I could call "significant" (quantity or quality). The asco.org article is not independent coverage, since he is a member of ASCO. Likewise with 7-10, they are papers published by Eisenberg not about, they are not independent sources. You've said the papers are "pioneering medical research" -- that's highly significant -- can that be verified somewhere in a source that is independent of Eisenberg? Typically that is done through recognition by peers with Awards and Prizes or biographical articles or books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please remove the "pending review" tag? Not sure why one editor first decided to change the name of the entry (until another editor switched it back to the correct, original entry), then he marked the article for deletion and he is not really paying attention to all the external sources. He searched for "Frank Ra" and commented the subject of the page is not the only one there, but the editor did not notice the other entries are not about Frank Ra but people called Frank RaMON etc. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.157.184 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the reason the pending review tag is on there is because the IP (who I strongly suspect is the author) keeps removing the AFD notice. Also when first created it was created as Frank ra, I made the mistake when moving it of hitting an extra R. After this I had Acroterian help fix that and after a search that didn't show clear notability I nominated for AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Green Cardamom, Hi I noticed in your contribtuion to the Afd for that you have longish list of reviews of some of the books. Several of them are to a publication Reference & Research Book News. Do you know anything about this publication? It seems to me, and this is only an impression without expert knowledge, that it might be an on demand reviewing service where they provide a review of all the books sent to them (i.e. it could be "A vanity reviewer"). Do you know about them at all? I am asking because I am bit worried about the article. I have voted keep in a previous afd and think we should probably keep a trimmed down version of the page but it is very problematic as it stands. Also looking at Google scholar - one of his most cited works is "Towards a Socio-Liberal Theory of World Development." This is reported as being cited 45 times http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Towards+a+Socio-Liberal+Theory+of+World+Development.%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= but when you look at the citations most (by far) seem to be self citations. There are though at least a couple of reviews of it in your list in "normal" journals - Politcal Studies and Journal of Econ Lit - but how long are these? The PS one is only about a paragraph in a longer review (a page) on a series of books. I have not accessed the JEL one yet - but it might easily be just a listing. Any thoughts? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
R&RBN is not vanity, it's a product of Book News )(not to be confused with USA Book News which is vanity). BN reviews a lot of academic books but they are original reviews. There are three types[7] of book reviews: Summary, Opinion and Academic. BN is Summary. Most books published are never reviewed at all. What's important for notability is that it was reviewed, we do not bias against Summary - Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews are also Summary. So long as some of the reviews are Opinion or Academic, and that is the case with Academic reviews in Politcal Studies and Journal of Econ Lit and some others. They are available through WP:REX to verify. I don't know about the state of the article but it doesn't matter to me in AfD discussions since it can always be replaced with a 2 sentence stub, takes all of 1 minute, no big deal. Worst case. The citations are one path to notability, the guidelines allow for multiple paths. It's not an encyclopedia of just Professors with high citation counts. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the Cloudmachine article. It was however not declined on notability issues on the Dutch wikipedia. It just was written bad.
Cloudmachine has more fans outsie of Holland than inside, nobody made the page in the Netherlands. I do think the band is notable enough given all the connections.
You said to ask here, on your user page. Nice big book cover image! I couldn't get past much beyond The Metamorphosis. It always bothered me, how that apple got stuck and embedded in Gregor Samsa's post-transformation carapace. I wish I could have pried it out for him, at least done that much, you know?
You can email me with the contact details. I set up email here in the usual way. Or I could you leave you a message on Pastebin, or have a chat on open Twitter, or in the comment section of one of my innumerable unvisited blogs, just not here on your talk page or mine! It isn't anything urgent, not at all. It isn't anything bad. You seem very astute and sensible. Thank you for your time! --FeralOink (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you had raised those points and sources during the deletion discussions and it was rebutted by at least one other participant. Since their interpretation of policies involved are within valid range to be considered, I cannot disregard their opinion. Taking their argument into account, there were in my opinion a clear consensus for deletion. Of course, I'm not infallible, so if you still believe my interpretation of the consensus to be incorrect, you are welcome to raise this at Wikipedia:Deletion review for further outside opinion. Thank you -- KTC (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo. The way it works, is that you first have to submit it, then wait a few minutes for the bot to catch up, and then accept it. (The system defaults to listing you as the submitter, but you can change that) . However, it needs some work--it's a partial rewrite of a properly rejected G11, and I have marked it as under review and I am cleaning it up a little, & will then accept it. The first thing I did was move the named professorship to the first sentence, because, according to WP:PROF, that's the simplest proof of notability, AfC is weird. There is no excuse for the complications, which discourage rather than encourage proper reviews. I have had so much resistance in trying to get it improved that I've given up, and just work around it. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_%282nd_nomination%29
Give me another 15-20 minutes to tweak the most glaring problems with this article then you can come back and tag away. But let me take a whack at it first. Montanabw(talk)01:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm done. I restored the in-universe tag because you are right about that, even with what edits I could do without access to the books, but I had different reasons and noted them. The notability tag is a bit too snarky, given the AfD discussion (which is accessible on the talk page for anyone else who cares), and I think it suitable to drop that stick. I put a fair use rationale on the Bradbury image, so that's now cleaned up. It's probably as good as can be done, I hope Smerus (who I presume has the books) can do a bit more with it now. Montanabw(talk)01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Firstly, thank you for producing this - it is a great help to a beginner (such as myself).
However, I was wondering if you would be able to update it?
There are new modules out from MMP and one upcomming (Decision at Elst).
If not I could try and formulate a new diagram base on what you have provided?
Thanks again - a great resource.
John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red mcl (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the chart but worked with someone who did to make a version suitable for Wikipedia. I think the only new module is a combo of older ones (GungHo and Bushido) so dependencies didn't change, and DaE is for Starter Kit, module is standalone with no dependencies. I'm going to hold off asking for updates unless there are significant changes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are also now additional action packs available from MMP which are not shown. So long as it will be updated in the future time goes by - that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red mcl (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sorry about my editing but i'm trying to improve the the "List of animated films in the public domain in the United States" page, The Superman cartoons are not the only public domain cartoons you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.215.107 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Green Cardamom: The above abandoned Afc draft was declined because it lacked sources. I added some, but now it can't be added to the encyclopedia because there is a stub article which you created. The Afc article is much more extensive. Would you object if thie Afc version replaced the one your created? It appears to predate it, and it looks as though yours was intended as a placeholder. Yours could become a redirect if you like. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that discussion was about that particular paragraph that listed the magazines she was published in. This is new content entirely that concerns her philosophy and ideas. The article is incomplete without putting her into proper historical context as a feminist and part of the women's movement, in particular see women in the workplace and the huge revolution that took place in the USA when women moved out of the home into the workplace. It's inconceivable to me that anyone would want to censor that information or considers it trivial, it's what this person is about. -- GreenC07:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to try to not participate in this debate, but please don't assume the others are attempting to censor this information. Assume good faith, and that they legitimately just disagree with about about how trivial this information is. Might be worth to start a discussion at the talk page. It's hard to justify yourself to people that disagree with you in edit summaries. Sancho07:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:The Story Of Vernon And Irene Castle - The Yama Yama Man.ogv
Thanks for uploading File:The Story Of Vernon And Irene Castle - The Yama Yama Man.ogv. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right I've been doing it manually for 10 years now and this brings tears to my eyes. Thank you, this is amazing. -- GreenC20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, links to it used to be on some of the Orphaned article templates, but now that we have made that template, its less and less visible. I love linking pages, its a great low-energy way to contribute, that adds a lot of value, Sadads (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Zimmerman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
My art work allows me to reflect, providing a therapeutic outlet and allows me to remain indoors :-)".<ref name=waxman/>
Hi. I just want to be sure you noticed this. You may want to look here for more information about someone named "Jeff" and USA Book News, although this may be a complete coincidence. - tucoxn\talk23:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "libel" to report what sources say and it's not a WP:BLP. If Jeff and USBN have a problem they should take it up with the source. They probably have to no effect, so they come here and try to delete it. -- GreenC00:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Schlossberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Pioneer to Receive 2013 John F. Kennedy New Frontier Awards |publisher=[John F. Kennedy Library]] |author= |date=November 11, 2013 |accessdate=February 13, 2014}}</ref>
Thanks for catching me on being fast and loose at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gregory_Orfalea. Indeed Library holdings themselves are not codified as notable, similarly to h-indexes. But while a high h-index (or low) is a good proxy for "something actually notable will be found" for scientists, high library holdings have seemed a very good proxy for something notable in the humanities and non-quantitative social sciences. I can't think of an AfD I've participated in where an author with library holdings above 400 has been deleted (it may even be as low as 250 that I've ever seen deleted, but I'm almost 100% confident at 400). As you noted, it probably means that there are reviews out there -- indeed the only way that 400 libraries know to buy a book is either that it's from an extremely important press (I would assert, almost notable in itself) or that it has been reviewed somewhere that librarians read. I was sloppy in my presentation at AfD, but one of the forces I am most pushing against is the notion held by some who participate in AfDs often that h-indexes mean anything in the humanities. I've been on a lot of hiring and promotion cases in musicology and never heard the words h-index or citation count emerge in any discussion. Thanks for listening. Maybe we can continue the discussion on WP:PROF? Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)17:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add some observations: (1) There are journals in the humanities and humanities scholars do publish in them, so h-index can be relevant to humanities AfDs. Empirically, it is admittedly the exception and I think an old saying is apropos here: absence of evidence (of high h-index) is not necessarily evidence of absence (of notability) in the humanities. So, I don't think the a blanket view that h-index is never relevant in the humanities makes any sense. (2) Book holdings are not (yet) codified in WP:PROF, but are taken by the precedent of numerous AfDs to be indicative of criterion 1 – the subject has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Holdings, especially with respect to academic books, do not indicate "popularity" in the sense stated here, but rather that certain books are considered to be sufficiently important in the eyes of a committee so as to justify institutional acquisition. These acquisitions are a proxy of impact, very similar to citations. So, holdings themselves are similar to h-index: if they are appreciable, the notability argument is conclusive. (3) Reviews and holdings are probably highly correlated, as was stated, but some reviews are "more equal" than others. For example, routine pieces in trade publications like Publishers Weekly or Kirkus Reviews (outlets that review tens of thousands of new books per year) do not indicate notability – otherwise it'd justify >10,000 new WP articles per year just for books – whereas a review in a very selective source, like NYT or Nature, probably renders notability in and of itself. (4) Way too many bios are sourced with web ephemera and other non WP:RS – such do neither WP nor their subjects a service. One of the forces I am most pushing against is the notion held by some who participate in AfDs often is that these are OK. They're not – especially for BLPs. In the end, I think it's fair to say that while many AfDs are "easy" i.e. obvious notability based on one or more of these aspects, many others are not and require thoughtful review/analysis. Having at times been at odds, I've enjoyed debating both of you in the past because you're willing to do the homework. All the best, Agricola44 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Article Rescue Squadron for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! buffbills770113:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm no longer an active user. While checking out some old issues for old times sake, I saw that a certain user has been harassing you. You asked him his age, and I want to say that I think that was a 100% understandable question which had crossed my mind when I had crossed his path. That user acts like a 23 year old know it all with no maturity or basic manners. His actual age (if you believe him) is shocking. I can't believe anyone that age would make the comments he does to other people in a community of supposedly educated adults. Stand your ground. You are in the right. Regards. 68.199.99.92 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Artfrog. I think people see "marketing professional" and they assume that Blackman wrote the article or someone associate with Blackman is abusing Wikipedia as a marketing channel and so they feel they must fight back and stop the spam or whatever they think it is. So in a case like this the sources have to be impeccable and undeniable evidence of notability. Poor quality sources will actually hurt as it makes it look like an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes and further anger people. So the first thing is to go through all the sources and just delete whatever isn't a strong source, to deny any complaints. See what people wrote in the AfD on this as I believe some sources were singled out. Next is to look for better sources, have you looked in databases like Gale, NewsBank, ProQuest, Ebsco? I have not looked into it closely so I don't know how good the sourcing potential is. It will hurt to re-add the article into main space until or unless the article has been significantly improved from the prior version so take time before re-adding. -- GreenC19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me about the Wikilegal response. It is very inconclusive though I dare say that is the only kind of response they could have made given the way the law is right now. There is a potential problem with non-free use of sound files on WP. It has not escaped some people's attention that federal fair use law is a prerequisite for WP hosting "non-free" files. With no federal protection for old records, there is not (may not be) federal fair use exemption either.
BTW, on my way here I was distracted by your user page and I'm glad to have seen it before someone sends it to MFD! What a fascinating paper about oligarchies. It's not as simple as whether or not someone is an administrator. Many admins have little influence. And a few non-admins are very influential indeed, for good or for ill. But I'll admit I find it usefult to use the CSS script that highlights admins names so I know who I am dealing with! Thincat (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really thing it was inconclusive? It seemed conclusive in the last line: Although pre-1972 sound recordings are under the domain of state copyright law, some of these works may still be posted to Commons if they have been freely licensed by the owner. (bold added) This is saying ignore the state copyright law, but only if there is evidence the work is freely licensed by the owner. Which in practice most everything pre-72 is an orphan work - the copyright holders long dead, unknown or inaccessible - so no way to get a free license. I suspect this finding will be the death of most of the copyrighted recordings hosted on Commons (if someone decides to act on it).
Glad you liked the page. You make good points. It's like the debate over government vs private sector, both sides have power. If someone wants to MFD all the better, these are things that had been posted to Signpost that I thought were interesting for Wikipedia and society in general. Do you mind if I ask what CSS script your referring to? That would be good to have. -- GreenC01:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I should have said "indecisive" rather that "inconclusive". They could have said that because it is infeasible to take into account the laws of all US states, it is in specified circumstances acceptable to WMF for people to upload old sound files at their own risk with warnings to users and reusers. Images would be taken down on DMCA request. But they didn't say that. Effectively we already have just that situation for non-US images. Someone (even a US citizen in the US) can break UK law by uploading a third-country image that Commons will willingly host and which might lead to an officer of WMF being sued in the UK courts. Watch out Jimbo! In the other direction, the US have been known to seek extradition of UK people (Richard O'Dwyer) accused of breaking US copyright law even when the infringing material was not hosted in the US. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the userscript that's really useful. It will certainly continue to be a source of debate. The US copyright system for recorded sounds is truly broken even the LoC is trying to get laws changed so maybe if we hang on long enough things will take care. --GreenC15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you are cooperating to improve and keep the article "Noureddin, Son of Iran". Your presence makes me more enthusiastic to keep it. Thank You very much.Mhhossein (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Author and hypnotherapist Dolores Cannon's page was deleted in October of 2013 and the person who deleted it, Mark Arsten, no longer has a talk page. Would you please consider reinstating the page after looking at the following supporting articles? Dolores Cannon is an established author; her 18th book, "The Search for Sacred Knowledge," will be published this summer. She is the founder of Ozark Mountain Publishing, which publishes books written by dozens of other authors. Dolores Cannon has been included in Watkins Books (London) list of The 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People for three years in a row and has been ranked higher in each successive year (in 2014 she was ranked #57, in 2013 she was ranked #67 and in 2012 she was ranked #95). All the links are provided below. Also below is a recent article about Dolores Cannon in the influential online publication Collective Evolution, which has an enormous social media presence. Dolores Cannon is a relevant author, hypnotherapist and speaker who teaches her Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique (QHHT) throughout the world and maintains a searchable global database of her certified practitioners. Thank you for your help.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cry of the Kalahari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I will take your word for it that the source (the Israel book) says that the font was sourced from the NYT. This is interesting if true. Would it be possible to quote the exact passage where the source says that? 1969 was before PCs, so they couldn't just use Times New Roman. The typeface is definitely Times, but some of the letters look distressed, as if printed on rough newspaper stock. Look at the differences between the capital "A"s and the two "e"s. The one on the top is sharp, the one on the bottom looks like 18th century printing. How did they do that? Did they photocopy the actual letters in the newspaper, or did they use some other technique? -- Margin1522 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My wish to delete my page was simply frustration talking and not at all what I wish.
I would just like an accurate article about me posted without the controversy or criticism.
And I would be happy to provide more facts, backup or information to clarify any issue. I, too, seek an honest and properly researched page.
You are doing a hell of a good job arguing the case. I've written multiple responses that are obviously too hard core for this group. So I'm just backing off and letting you handle it with some things I'm not good at, politics and tact. If you need my comment or contribution in support, please write. Trackinfo (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Serving suggestions: The phrase I've been introduced is WP:Wikilawyering, trying to find a fine line distinction between the presumed Notability Guideline and GNG. By the way, with 19 sources, how can this possibly be considered to not meet GNG? Trackinfo (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you'd think right? Thanks for the suggestion, Wikilawyering is kind of a pejorative I don't see that obviously yet, the same could be said of me, it's just normal debate about how the guidelines. They are really after this guy because he wrote the article about himself and that's end of story no matter what the guidelines or sources say - it's a larger political position within Wikipedia on paid editing, promotion, PR etc which many believe is an existential threat. Strategy is try to stick them to the guidelines and sources and hope the closing admin sees the same. I give this a 25% chance of succeeding, if not can try rewriting from scratch ourselves a little later, best to not burn bridges :) -- GreenC21:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a long path of people I've pissed off and who have pissed me off. Maybe that's why I've got the attitude. I'm probably 75% at AfD, that still means the 25% that got deleted were bad decisions in my mind. I don't come to bat for junk. I try to battle for articles with substance. Unfortunately on the other side, there are enough minions who will come in and "vote" no that its not a fair fight. The bar is raised. You don't have to battle the facts of a specific subject's worthiness, you also have to battle a crew of mindless idiots who overwhelm many debates just by sheer number. Good thing they didn't find this one. Each time I roam through AfD debates, it raises my blood pressure, but I know I need to do it or wikipedia might be full of blank pages. Good to know I'm not alone. Trackinfo (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. If you want or haven't already monitor the ARS list. Or check out Dream Focus's home page he's been at this a long time and has some interesting comments or bits of wisdom. In my estimation unfair AfD leads to paid editing to get past the gatekeepers. Blowback. -- GreenC04:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Herman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gorky. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
On 25 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kenton Grua, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1977, Kenton Grua was the first person in recorded history to walk through the entire length of the Grand Canyon(pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kenton Grua. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Thanks for your feedback. I believe that George Pearson Centre is notable, having existed in Vancouver for over 60 years and being so unique. So now to prove it...I finally got around to adding some references as suggested - from larger newspapers such as Vancouver Sun, The Province and The Straight. I can keep going, but do you think this would suffice? I know there are articles here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22George+Pearson+Centre%22 but don't know if that would help. Any further advice is appreciated. I have photos to add too. And sorry if I am not doing this right, this whole system is pretty complex and not my area of expertise! I've never otherwise used the tilde... Mooack (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PEN/ESPN Award for Literary Sports Writing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Anderson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Costa Book Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gone Girl. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for starting the article! Anyway I linked to the Google Books version but I notice the page numbers don't exactly match up. What edition of the book are you using?
I searched for "Shootdown" in the Google books version and found a passage about the Chungking/Kweilin being put down for good. This confirms what you've written in the article. Good job! BTW I notified the Japanese Wikipedia that there should be a Japanese article written on it, and I'll notify the Chinese Wikipedia.
WhisperToMe (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I want to find a Chinese person who is willing to start an article on the incident. That way, more Chinese sources may be added to that article, and interchange can come between the English, Chinese, and Japanese articles and userbases. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked this move discussion to see if it is ready to be closed. You are the proponent, but you might want to add a new comment since the DAB pages have been merged. There is now a combined DAB at Goldfinch. Your argument that it is wasteful to have a single DAB at The Goldfinch with only two entries seems no longer relevant. You might also comment on whether you support combining the DABs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP isn't a registered editor, "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users." So yes. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green Cardamom/List of American Jihadists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Al-Shabaab and Islamic State. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have given three examples Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DCH in a bit of a rush, will find more, the two newspapers I read today stated that they had not named the person in respect to the family's request. Thank you for the prompt! Edmund Patrick – confer20:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
an addition; I was going to vote for keep if the removal of the article was solely as not to name the person as a few UK press papers have now broken the request and named him. Strangely now maybe we really do need the article to give hopefully correct facts etc. Thanks, Edmund Patrick – confer05:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell that we don't agree on some issues regarding what is or isn't suitable for this project, however please don't have any resentments toward me. If there's anything you think you need to tell me or you think I'm out of line please feel free to contact me on my talk page or email me. Thanks! ~Technophant (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will probably embolden a certain Opposer to cry fowl and try to invalidate the result. Wait for an admin closesure could take some time but worth it to solidify the consensus. -- GreenC16:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm wondering at the logic of adding Archive.org searches to articles. I'm fairly skeptical of "further reading" and "see also" and "external links" at all times - excellent cruft-magnets - but in the case of a search, we aren't even pointing to an actual list of works that any Wikipedia editor has checked, as the list is presumably dynamic and could include duplicates, minor editions and commentaries on works, old discredited or corrupt versions, almost anything. Ordinary readers are hardly going to work their way through such a search; people who do can presumably work out how to use a search box for themselves, given they've used the boxes on Wikipedia, Google, Amazon and everywhere else. Editors seeking to improve the article might possibly find such a thing useful, but then they will surely know how to find and search archives for themselves, and in any case editing tools do not belong in main space. All in all, I'd oppose putting these searches in the great majority of articles, if not all of them - and would want to see justification for them in each individual case. Sorry, but there it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinrich Heine Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarah Kirsch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
GC, not sure if you can help or not. Last November (2013), you took an article, Slate Political Gabfest, I'd submitted and sent it live. I'm back in my account now (Oct 2014), getting ready to lead my students through their assignment, and noticing that when I click on my Sandbox, I'm redirected to the article. Anyway to undo that? Or do I need to create a new account and lose a connection to the 66 edits I've made? Thanks, Aschuet1 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC) aschuet1[reply]
@Aschuet1:.. I just removed the redirect so User:Aschuet1/sandbox is there again, probably added by some automated process when the article went live. But you can create as many files as you want of any name, User:Aschuet1/sandboxen, User:Aschuet1/gonefishing. etc.. To work with multiple people on developing a new article another option is to use the Draft namespace, for example Draft:Gone Fishing. Type whatever name into the search box (including the "Draft:" portion), it will say "article doesn't exist do you want to create it?" -- GreenC04:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GreenC. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
Hi, Green Cardamom. I've removed your addition to the List of literary awards page as it included an external link in a list entry instead of a link to a Wikipedia article. Please feel free to add the list entry back with a link to an existing Wikipedia article about the subject. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A "existing Wikipedia article about the subject" is not a requirement for inclusion in the list. It's not a navigation or disambiguation page. -- GreenC21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy discussion on photo here. RfC here. RfC closure is "editors were opposed to using photo #2, but there was a consensus of editors in favor of using photo #1 (not for the infobox)." -- GreenC15:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had forgotten about it (even though I am !vote #2!) Perhaps it would be good to include a link to that archive in your comment for others. 15:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Heath Robinson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Strand and The Idler. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blaine Harden, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Geographic and Frontline. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you wish to post something about improving the article at Talk:Solar Roadways by all means please do. This edit, which you restored even after my initial promo complaint, is not about article improvement but rather its about corporate damage control and investor relations. That means the intent is promotional, which is outside the scope of the talk page guidelines. Note I have redacted corporate slams for the same reason. We could have a great article if partisans stuck to our policy on WP:NPOV. Please try harder and add whatever you wish - pro or con - that is relevant and supported by WP:Reliable sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Costa Book Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Marsh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 14:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Angelina Grimké may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
appealtochristian00grim.pdf For the Grimké-Beecher exchange, see]</ref> Sarah Grimké wrote [http://archive.org/details/lettersonequali00grimgoog "Letters on the Province of Woman, addressed
Please don't "WorldCat move to authority control" robotically (and that edit summary is inappropriate where the "move" is a "deletion" as for Cornelia Meigs). There is a clue or two in the code that you should examine --two in case of Cornelia Meigs (recent change), both the annotation "Meigs using pseudonym" and the name parameter value "|Adair Aldon" that is distinct from the primary name.
Most of the {worldcat id} footer links that I have created in biographies that include template {Authority control} --certainly dozens-- must be different from this example [a] library use of multiple ID for one person. Either [b] distinct persons such as family members and occasional co-creators, commonly without their own wikipedia pages, who do have LCCN that WorldCat uses. Or [c] people without LCCN, whose WorldCat id thus begins with 'np' or 'viaf' or something else other than 'lccn'.
Your work on this appears more than once on my Watchlist. I don't plan to check any others this weekend but please take care. I provided an explanation for "everyone" at Template talk:Worldcat id#Superseded by Template:Authority control? but I wonder whether "no one" visits that page.
I doubt that I have created literally redundant {worldcat id} links but I understand --and have noted on both template talk pages-- why someone might do so. Because template {{authority control}} is located in the code following any genuine external link and any internal navbox or succession box, its message may be displayed far below the top of the section, certainly beyond the first External links screen. See Aristotle#External links, for instance (one where you deleted {worldcat id}).
Probably I found LCCN for Adair Aldon by VIAF search 'aldon, adair'. There are distinct LCCN pages at VIAF in those two bundles but I don't find the second one at lccn.loc.gov
No problem, it's all in the script. It's not so much "promotion" though. GB is a commercial service and their books are liable to disappear at any time (and many have) if a reprint is published. IA is a non profit and their books and URL will be stable. Also, the links are to the exact same digital copy that was/is on GB since they were copied over to IA at one time by Aaron Swartz (ie. user "tpb" on IA). -- GreenC16:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I wrote a script that extracts the Google Book ID's in an article, checks IA to see if that ID exists, and then change the URL in the article to the book at IA. There are some caveats. It won't find every Google Book on IA, only those that were uploaded to IA by user "tpb" (aka Aaron Swartz) - a few years ago he downloaded about a million books from Google and uploaded them to IA and included the GB ID in the metadata at IA so it's now possible to map GB <-> IA for those million or so. Another caveat is page numbers, if the Google URL has a page number it's hard to translate to a IA page number as they use different systems. So it's not something I would recommend building into AWB automatic at this time. However I hope to try and improve it in the future. -- GreenC01:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You pop up on my radar too infrequently. I was checking out your user page and there's some thematic overlap with mine -- but you're better than I am at staying out of trouble [10]. EEng (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Yes, I agree about the 3% there are a few really difficult entrenched toxic-leader admins who should long ago have been jettisoned and there is no mechanism when its systemic and nuanced. There's no smoking gun or single thing, rather long-term patterns of bullying, hounding, immaturity, difficult to document and near impossible to prosecute. WP is a culture where there is no strong central authority (ie. no central police or effective court system). The natural result is civil disobedience by otherwise good faith editors, not unlike many 3rd world countries that don't have effective justice systems, people take it into their own hands. The solution is better justice, better enforcements of CIVIL and and other rules of behavior. But again the entrenched powers don't want that because it's how they retain power. As Auerbach said in his Slate article "I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka's The Trial I have ever witnessed, editors and administrators giving conflicting and confusing advice, complaints getting “boomeranged” onto complainants who then face disciplinary action for complaining, and very little consistency in the standards applied." -- GreenC14:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Supremacism (My Awakening to the Jewish Question)
Hello, GreenC. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Total Newbie Bonehead here who was pointed your way because I was hoping to put links on wikipedia articles on books to LibriVox recordings. I found the WorksByProject page and thought "I better contact Mr. Green before I mess things up completely." If you are this Mr. Green, please let me know and may I ask you about one bazillion questions? TimoleonWash (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TimoleonWash: - yep that's me. Currently in the process of adding all LibriVox authors and should be done in a few weeks. Happy to answer your questions if I can. -- GreenC12:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great news Mr. GreenC, thx. I just read more of your project for LibriVox and am not yet clear on this "author" link. Does this mean the librivox link on the wikipedia book page will contain a link to the wikipedia author page along with links to the audio book and librivox wikipedia page? Anyway, I've been consulting with the LibriVox folks and they are anxious to have links on all possible pages, but they have a concern that I don't understand yet (I've asked them about it.) It has something to do with replacing the "?" in search strings with "GET". Does this mean anything to you? The big thing for me is that I don't want to do anything that would interfere with your project or anything wikipedia and am hoping you'll prevent me from doing so :) 68.101.206.143 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two ways to link to LibriVox from Wikipedia: via {{Librivox author}} for author pages (see H. G. Wells) and {{Librivox}} for book pages (see The Time Machine). I'm currently focusing on making sure every author on LibriVox - who has an article on Wikipedia - has the {{Librivox author}} template. There are about 4000 to 5000 total authors (with a Wikipedia page) and I have about 2300 entered so far. I wrote software to find those authors on Librivox who have a corresponding Wikipedia page. Books are a separate and much larger project I have not looked into yet. The hardest part is determining which books on Librivox have a corresponding Wikipedia article. You could do it manually, but I would not recommend it as it would take 100s of hours and be dreadful work, there are 10s of thousands of books(!). It really requires software to automate as much as possible, the size of the problem is probably beyond doing it manually. Do you have programming experience? -- GreenC17:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used to work a a programmer, GreenC, a long time ago and I don't think I would be much help now. I would be happy to start manually adding librivox templates to wikipedia book pages, at least until the process is automated. My big concern is that some folks at LibriVox fear the current template may not work as it was set up to work, and also that they might change the interface on their website which may "break" the template. I have asked if, considering the changes they have in mind, the template couldn't be updated then, as long as it still process the author's name along with the book's title. I'll keep you posted on this. Regarding your existing project, it doesn't sound like my efforts would interfere. I have asked another wikipedia-er if they could verify - by code inspectoin - the current template works for author & book and hope to hear back soon. Is there anything else I need to know or do, or could do for you? Just curious, what computer languages/environments are involved in your current author project? TimoleonWash (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For this stage of the project I'm using unix shell scripts + awk interfaced to the WP:AWB program. If the new system at LibriVox requires author+booktitle in the URL then it will requiring updating every article that uses the template to add an author field to the template. That would present a problem. Fortunately at the moment there are only 49 articles (list) which use {{Librivox}}, so the template is hardly being used. The current template is written in an older language that I don't work in. Most templates these days are being written in WP:Lua which is easier and a more powerful language. I would suggest that we rewrite {{Librivox}} in Lua and have it reflect the new Librivox URL requirements. Do you know when Librivox is switching to the new URL format, or does it already exist and the current template is broken? -- GreenC13:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick Mr. GreenC, thx. Regarding LibriVox's requirements, so far I can't say. I have bitten off perhaps more than I can chew and I am having a difficult time understanding everything necessary to be expert. Still, I think if LibriVox changes anything in the future they will consider the requirements of this new template. And Wow! It is very clear. I'll be adding some links in wikipedia in the next few days and if it ever gets to the point at LibriVox that they make this an official process any issues at that time would get worked out. For now, it works wonderfully for my purposes. I'll keep you posted and don't know what I can say to thank you enough. I will try to pass it along. TimoleonWash (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Tagishsimon. Thanks for the suggestion. I know about Hathi. Hathi is good and I seriously considered it before starting. The problem is a lot of it is search-only and the full-text is often (though not always) duplicated at IA. And can't download PDFs. And I didn't want to add too many links or people might complain so I figured three sites was reasonable. There are at least 10 PD text sites commonly linked at Wikipedia. Probably what's needed in the future is something like the ISBN system except instead of book sellers it would be for PD text hosting sites: Online Book Page, Hathi, UNZ.org, Gutenberg, IA, etc... but since there is no universal ISBN number, each site would need a "map" database telling which wikipedia article corosponds to which name at the service site (eg. "John Smith (pastor)" at Wikipedia = "Smith, John, 1650-700" at Hathi).. and creating those maps is very hard when dealing with 10s of thousands of names (in Hathi's case it would be easier though not trivial). I gained a lot of experience doing this for Gutenberg and wrote some tools that are adaptable. -- GreenC03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good that you've given it thought - I was mainly concerned that it was on your radar. Again, thanks for worksbyproject; I very much appreciate your efforts. --Tagishsimon(talk)16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Folio Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fiennes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Those AFDs obviously look very systematic and either personal or politically motivated, but I did not want to say so on the AFD talk. Is there something going on that I am missing? HullIntegrity\ talk /13:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone in the ANI discussion thinks it's a spillover from a dispute at fawiki which is probably accurate. -- GreenC15:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is another thing you can do while you are adding WorldCat data. If you add the LCCN Number from the Library of Congress to the Authority Control (AC) template it will automatically add in the WorldCat link to the AC template. Here is one you added recently, and I added in the LCCN Number: Thomas Chalmers Harbaugh.
I am being told that the url you provided to the pdf of Morrell's Voyages is not currently serviced, and am being advised to contact the maintainer, presumably you. Can you throw any light on this glitch? Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brianboulton, the computer it is on occasionally stops. I've restarted it and working again. If you know how it would be good to save the book on your computer. Anyway the web link will stay there if you still need it. Ping me if it goes down again. -- GreenC23:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First off, nice to meet you. I noticed some of your recent AWB edits for the "Works By Project" and saw an unintended formatting change that leaves two blank lines after any templates at the top of pages. See here (immediately following line 1) and here (immediately following line 1). This addition of space leaves quite a bit of whitespace in between the templates and the beginnings of articles. Do you think you could fix this for upcoming changes made through AWB? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈16:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Airplaneman, good to meet you too. I see what you mean, that's not good. That looks like a bug in the AWB "General Fixes", which I don't have much control over. Started a discussion .. In the interim if I see that I will try to manually correct it. -- GreenC16:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Independent Foreign Fiction Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tomás González. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I've reached out to a few editors on this page already encouraging them to observe Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith and Civility policies, by focusing on content, rather than the editors. I think the discussion is making progress and (hopefully) new editors are learning how to collaborate with other editors productively through this process. However, it doesn't help with comments like "And editors like Winkelvi will assume bad faith." That's not a good argument for making content decisions at all.
It's certainly not the worst type of conduct problem we've seen on the page, but it's basically taunting another editor to perpetuate the type of bickering that is best avoided and has been problematic throughout the article's history. I'd encourage you to to strike or remove it, so we can try to keep the discussion focused on content questions. CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good your working towards that goal. I hope you succeed and I will work with you on that. Nevertheless Winkelvi has clearly asserted multiple times ever since he arrived on the page that he does not assume good faith in 3 out of the 4 editors. He continually says so and his actions have mirrored it. His position has not changed, he said so yesterday. My comment wasn't directed at W or meant to taunt, it was a statement of fact that everyone already knows, but I'll remove it since you think it might be seen as a taunt. But he can't also keep doing it forever while we turn a blind eye, his bad faith makes the page toxic. -- GreenC18:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you were involved in raising socking questions related to MMA AfDs involving the IP being discussed at a current AfD, I thought I would bring this to your attention. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche. Yeah I don't know what to do about it. It's so obvious. When I tried a SP investigation it got closed down. Maybe you have additional evidence that would help. Probably any IP from HCC should be at least topic banned from participating in MMA AfDs. -- GreenC14:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Why are you reverting the Quality Distribution page to the older, stale information? In the new version, there is no marketing material, etc. If you review a Quality Distribution earnings release (Nasdaq: QLTY), you will see under "About Quality" the information listed is accurate as in our 10K, etc. that you can find on SEC.gov.
The information listed currently is stale and not accurate, let's come to a conclusion so that the information does not get reverted back and forth.
Green, I'm following your revert of my edit on Walter O'Brien. That "homeland security" showed up on O'Brien's doorstep at age 13 is EXCEPTIONAL however Gabel, the actor who plays the fictional Walter O'Brien on CBS is the one who conjured the story. You reverted my edit that clarified that "Gabel said..." Was that your intent?DavidWestT (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DavidWestT This is a controversial topic discussed by many editors on the talk page please review previous discussions and open a new discussion on proposed edits to see if there is consensus. -- GreenC23:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than categorically revert these edits to Walter O'Brien please consider the rationale.
It was not categorical there were multiple edits with edit comments, it was restoration of sourced material that was deleted.
-We're simply not following the sources on the "Boston Bombing", leading to the straw man created by Asher Langdon.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
-The IQ is an accuracy question brought up by Karlin. She is one of those who interviewed him about it. The questions on IQ belong with her other questions about his bio.
You can't make the extraordinary claim about his IQ in the bio without explanation otherwise it looks like an assertion of fact without challenge. It leads to imbalance and improper weight and will cause trouble as editors will begin complaining about pro-O'Brien bias.
The community "wikis" we refer to aren't all wikis. And the random selection of one stating revenues of $66k is gratuitous. The point is online there is unreliable (per Karlin) info and it's conflicting.
I don't know but simply deleting these sources doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
I see you've edited Wilhelm von Humboldt recently; I edited the article a few months ago to improve the prose and correct minor errors. I don't understand this edit, and I don't think the edit summary is the most appropriate language. [11] Regardless of whether this editor is correct or not, I thought I'd point out an incomplete sentence that was not changed by this edit: "This essay on the philosophy of speech:" and what looks like an orphaned set of close-curly brackets. Perhaps you can review the edit and make the needed corrections. CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The part at the bottom I agree with the removal but the editor could have saved the references and not delete it. I'll restore it. -- GreenC01:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Eliot Higgins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilNtalk to me21:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note you claim a BLP exemption for reverts here. There is no blanket exemption for removing controversial but properly sourced information from a BLP. Continue edit warring and you will end up blocked. --NeilNtalk to me21:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:NeilN - Alright, thanks for the warning. Multiple editors have raised concerns that Mnnlaxer is adding a BLP violation. If it is or nor remains to be seen, there is an open RfC. Until that RfC is resolved, my understanding is we don't include the material out of caution, it's consensus to add not consensus to delete. My reverts were made in that context. WP:3RR #7 does allow for removal of material even if properly sourced, though it says it can be "controversial". Honestly the more serious concern here is an editor who is telling people their !votes don't count and ignoring the RfC. -- GreenC21:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, I'm writing here because (as Kingsindian suggested) polluting the talk page of Eliot Higgins is not a good idea.
I'm concerned that you think my editing has an anti-Higgins bias. You say: "The only thing you have contributed to this article is criticism of Higgins". Can I point out that referencing criticism is not inherently a bias if it uses reputable sources (and the RfC that ruled in my favour agreed the sources were admissible). Our current RfC concerns whether Richard Lloyd can be called "a former UN weapons inspector". I don't know whether this will be the final wording but again it is not biased to call him such. Professors Wallace and Silander call him exactly that (see citations in the talk page) and I assume you are not accusing them of bias. In short, it seems to me that you seem to be conflating criticism with bias - or am I missing something? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Thanks for the post, GC. WP:RfC says that an RfC can close "if the community's response became obvious very quickly". I interpret this to mean that if it's obvious that consent is not going to be reached (eg, editors accept that they will not come to a compromise), then it's time for a "[f]ormal requests for closure" to "be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure".
Yes that sentence you quoted links to WP:SNOW which gives you (the creator) the power to withdraw the RfC if it's a WP:SNOWball decision. However this is not a SNOWball case because Mnnlaxer strongly believes he is right, and others strongly believe otherwise. This RfC could go either way it's impossible to know there is strong contention either way. Regarding when to close, RFC states "Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." Since there is still participation it doesn't make sense to close it before others are done commenting or had a chance to participate. It's only 6 days old. -- GreenC19:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Green Cardamom. Sorry, but the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license is not considered as a compatible license for prose, because According to the WMF legal team, it is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, it looks like you are correct. "CC BY SA 4.0" is not backwards compatible, but "CC BY 4.0" is okay. Sorry, my mistake. I will restore the article (someone has already deleted it). Thank you, always glad to learn something new -- Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read the train attack article. I don't know what is a Thalys but I do know what a train is. That is what I searched for. However, I cannot vote in that talk page. Sorry. It is locked to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lake of Butter (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stats for2015 Thalys attack shows that the article has already been viewed 22,997 times, while the talk page has been viewed 643 times. That's 2.7% of the traffic.
Keeping this tag up on a high traffic article for 7 whole days means that it is likely to be viewed by more than 22,000 people reading the article. Of those, fewer than 2.7% will have any input to make.
Out of these options, you have chosen the worst one. The {{disputed title}} includes a wikilink to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, when the proposed title only adds the word "train" - and there is no dispute over the accuracy of the original page title (just stylistic choice) and the article's factual contents are not in dispute. The caution sign and bold text convey to readers that there is a major issue that they need to be aware of, which is inappropriate when there is no dispute over factual accuracy or neutrality of the current title.
You can change this to {{Cleanup-articletitle}} that uses a yellow line with the cleanup symbol, and it will still have bold text that the current article is "inappropriate for Wikipedia" (when the proposal is to add the word "train" to the title).
The {{Inappropriate title-soft}} option has the purple tag, that does not have a warning logo and does not have bold text, but still invites readers to read the talk page and join the discussion on the suggestion to move the page, without stating in bold text that the current title is inappropriate, or the source of an Accuracy Dispute.
Taking 7 days to address this will expose 22,000 people to the hazard symbol.
Ok I didn't see the {{Inappropriate title-soft}} that is better. BTW anyone can close the discussion and make the move - unless they have participated in the move discussion. We'd need someone willing to declare WP:SNOW and close. -- GreenC16:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dabiq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theodore Morison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armstrong College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi User:Cunard, I don't have access, just the EBSCO database index which is sufficient, at least for mentioning in the AfD there are now 9 reviews. For book reviews at EBSCO, try this [12] .. but no luck on this one. -- GreenC20:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for finding those book reviews. It's too bad there aren't more sources at EBSCO about The Next Internet Millionaire, which I'd like to expand. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've just undone my separation of the primary and secondary uses of "existential risk". The secondary use might be cliched and opportunistic, but I believe I provided sufficient reliable and notable sources for it, so if you can find a better way to incorporate them please do so. Otherwise I wonder whether you may have been a little hasty in undoing my good faith attempt? - Pointillist (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that a significant amount – perhaps the majority – of current usage in popular media is about threats to the continuing existence of human institutions (e.g. Israel) rather than humanity. Are you proposing that I re-create my text as a new article, and then change Existential risk from a redirect to a DAB that points to my new article and Global catastrophic risk? - Pointillist (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For random usage in popular media see WP:NOTNEWS. Mere existence in the news doesn't mean much. There is no academic tradition about that kind of usage, no one has written about the term in that context, only used it as a buzzword. There is extensive academic support for the other usage. As a primary topic (WP:PTOPIC) it would continue to redirect to Global catastrophic risk. -- GreenC22:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one template {{Authority control}} is permitted for one article, and that one should fit the article, so a joint or group biography should carry the template only if VIAF recognizes a corporate entity. Example: Brothers Hildebrandt#External links. The AC templates for the Clarks are on their personal redirects Kenneth Bancroft Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark --and their joint biography footer carries manual LCCN/WorldCat links-- since my April revision [14].
User:P64 -- Thanks for the info. I did not know that about using AC in redirects and combo AC in certain cases. I haven't done more of this work but in the future will keep it in mind. Regards. -- GreenC22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there were a few editions (and a decade or so) between "Marc Miller's Traveller" on which Whitman had his only involvement in Traveller, and the publication of the Mongoose version of Traveller. If that doesn't make a difference, would it help if I switched to the Evil Hat Games edition of Designers & Dragons? That should remove even the tenuous connection. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this the Mongoose edition was the first edition, the Evil Hat edition was a later updated edition. It seems plausible that the author would focus on Traveller history in more detail when selling it to the publisher of Traveller. If Whitman was covered in detail in other sources it would be less an issue but this is the only source that really covers him much. I understand gamer bios can be difficult to source. Often times they have write ups in local papers or game magazines. Also awards. -- GreenC13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt he has earned any awards - or much respect - from the gaming community. :) Writeups in gaming magazines would be more likely, in fact I suspect very likely since he has been controversial, but unless you actually own a copy of such publications it may be very difficult to find that out from just internet searches. Which can be very frustrating - it is easy to have a subject for which plenty of legitimate sources do exist, but which are out of your reach at the moment. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.
Hello, there is a book article being proposed for deletion, the book was written by the same author of another controversial book, that Wikipedia article about that book was also proposed for deletion, you were part of the discussion of the previous book so I thought you might want to be involved in this discussion, here's the link to book's article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Make_the_Black_Kids_Angry
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Marks Awards for Poetry Pamphlets, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ian McMillan, Andrew McCulloch and Alan Jenkins. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Green Cardamom, I have seen you around the AfD and from what I gather you are exceptionally good at determining notability. I have a few questions that I am pretty sure you can answer.
If a person has received NYFA fellowship and a Pollock Krasner grant, does it make the notable even when they have not received a lot of media coverage? I am referring to the artist Mariella Bisson.
Second, are all Guggenheim fellows notable? I see that there are quite a lot of GF fellows who are not on Wikipedia. Would it be a good idea to pick artists from there and write their pages?
Hi Susana Hodge, thanks for the kind words. It's very hard to say without seeing the article and AfD, but if all that existed is NYFA fellowship and a Pollock Krasner grant that would probably not pass notability on its own. However Maria has a lot of news coverage for WP:GNG. For WP:ARTIST #4b her work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" or #4d "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" might also apply if there are sources that fit those clauses.
The argument for Guggenheim fellows would be WP:ANYBIO #1 -- Guggenheim fellows there are a lot of them so I don't believe the community would agree it is automatically notable, though it would bear weight and it seems likely Guggenheim fellows would have other sources. It's a good place to look for article ideas.
Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.
Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Can you please mark this article for deletion? I would do it myself, but I don't know how to do it. The subject seems non-notable to me and the author has barely done anything to prove otherwise.Susana Hodge (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Yuletides! 
yahoo.com. Your code will be on the way shortly thereafter. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_(2nd_nomination). Benboy00 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Zimmerman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Done [9] Typo. Thnks.-- GreenC 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
