User talk:Rhododendrites

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.

Your GA nomination of Destruction of ivory

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destruction of ivory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, to see the review in motion. :) I'll hover at the page and see if I can pitch in as well. Cheers, cart-Talk 07:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Great! Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft article about Clive Barda

Dear Ryan,
I hope you are keeping well, and that you enjoyed your (partial) wiki-break.
Whenever you might have a few spare minutes, I would be most grateful if you would be so kind as to review the subject draft and to point out areas needing improvements. I am particularly interested in your views concerning my use of flat lists and collapsible tables, which I thought proved appropriately useful in this case, but might be too outlandish for a GA-level quality article, which is the standard I aim to achieve.
Thank you very much for your considered comments, Ryan, which are always helpful and wise.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 11:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Hello there. I had a good couple months of wikibreak, but yeah, it pretty quickly turned "partial." :) I've only given it a very quick look, so I'll just give a few first impressions from its appearance now, and then take a closer look this weekend. Apologies if any of this is wrongheaded due to not having looked closely enough yet.

• Ideally, content in the lead is also in the body somewhere, so the citations could be migrated down. Pretty minor thing, though.

Will do. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not terribly familiar with quote styles, but to me right-justified with small text (and no other differences) looks a little odd. My preference would be either just use {{quote}} or to use a border with the box (and reduce the width, putting it to the side of the text).

I've now added a border to the two quote boxes; does it look less odd to you now? Personally, I quite like the quotes as they were, but if they looked odd to you, then that's an important element of feedback which I'd want to take into account. Please let me know if it's better now and, if not, I'll change it again. Thanks very much, Ryan.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 14:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since he's a photographer I did a quick look for photos. There are a few on Commons. Sadly, a few look to be copyright violations so I nominated them for deletion. There are two with proper OTRS tags, though: File:Scott Ellaway filming OpusYou in 2016 (Photo by Clive Barda).jpg and File:Sarah Beth Briggs playing the piano Ref no 100929 0069 briggs lradj.jpg. Might be worth including one or both somehow?

Thank you so much for identifying those photos! I have now added one in the Method section, and re-adjusted the quote box to occupy the page better. What do you think?
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• "notable portraits" - seems like this means the portraits themselves would have received coverage? Or does this mean the collections/books are notable? Or the people? what criteria went into these lists of selected works?

The collapsible tables summarize the photographs of notable people that were selected for publication in both books. In turn, the names in the flat lists are of the most notable people and are a subset of names from those tables (and are therefore wikilinked in the flat lists but not further down in the tables). The reason for calling the section "notable portraits" is because all of the people in the books are notable artists. I could certainly rename the section title to "Selected works", because every photo published in the two books was selected by the author from his immense collection. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)  Done

• I could be wrong, but I think the typical way to mix a bibliography with footnotes would be to use {{sfn}} instead of citing the book in the bibliography and in the references. So for example, removing the Performance! book in the references, and replacing each instance (along with the page number) with e.g. {{sfn|Barda|2000|p=17}} If you'd prefer to keep the citations as they are, it might make sense to rename "Bibliography" to "further reading".

That's all for now. More later :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ryan,

Very many thanks for your initial review, which seems to have been more than cursory.

I have made a mental note of your most helpful suggestions and will think about each of them carefully. I am going away tomorrow and will be back on Monday. I will wait for you to complete your review this weekend, as you indicated; then will reply to you in greater detail. For now, though, please know that I definitely intend to follow your advice, as well as the pointers you've already provided so helpfully. Thank you so much for your willingness to assist me in getting this right; as you gathered, I am a bit of a perfectionist, so all your input is of immense value to me, and I remain very grateful; thanks once again, Ryan.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 16:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. For now, I have replied to a couple of points, in your bulleted list above. Thank you.

@Pdebee: Thanks. I had a few things I wanted to finish today, and will follow up about this tomorrow. I'll leave a message with responses/feedback on the draft's talk page, in case it's useful for this discussion to stay with the article. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ryan,

Thank you for your latest message, and for finding the time, whenever convenient. As for copying the above exchanges, I had been thinking along the same lines, and have now done so here.  Done

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 16:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Sorry, wound up having more on my plate today than I thought. Will have to return to it tomorrow :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ryan,

Please don't worry: I remain most thankful, as ever, to have the benefit of your advice in the first place, and am happy to wait until you have the time to complete your review; no rush.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive.is Browser Integration

With respect, while some trimming of Archive.is#Browser_Integration may have been warranted, your major revision to this section has made it into a jumbled incoherent mess. I'm going to try to find a happy middle ground. John Navas (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jnavas2: Fair enough. My major objections were about the how-to type of content and linking a non-notable piece of software with no independent sourcing. That said, it seemed harmless to include something brief in the context of "basic facts about the subject" (the sort of information that isn't promotional or controversial and can come directly from the subject itself). You're right that I didn't do a very good job of it, though. :) So thanks for working to fix it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Sounds good. Thank you. John Navas (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Destruction of ivory

The article Destruction of ivory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Destruction of ivory for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

List of fake news websites

Rhodo, thank you for your helpful feedback about List of fake news websites and Fake news website.

I replied to you over at Talk:List of fake news websites. Let us know what you think over there. Sagecandor (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Quanta Live

On 21 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quanta Live, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gilberto Gil said his Grammy Award for Quanta Live was particularly meaningful because the album is a summary of his three decades in music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quanta Live. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Quanta Live), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What convinced you to stay here for such a long time?

Talk to me about your motivations--NetworkOP (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: Hi there. Context for this message please? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you enjoy most about editing Wikipedia?--NetworkOP (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: I understand that part. :P I was asking for more context, though. (e.g. why are you asking me and what is this for). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake News Website reverted edit

Hi, I removed the mention of Russia from this article and you reverted my change. However I cannot find where this claim originates. You said that it was mentioned in the Business Insider article however clicking on that link takes you to the original source of the claim, Buzzfeed. I cannot find any mention of 'Russia' in the Buzzfeed article. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I misunderstood your original objection. Regardless, it looks like someone else has remedied the situation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive.is

Ok. I'm going to close this. I don't think anything positive can come out of it at this point and discussion is ongoing elsewhere.

You've removed all host information. I suggest you at least add back that it's served by Cloudflare. John Navas (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC) @Jnavas2: I removed "It is hosted at [[Mir Telematiki Ltd]] which is in [[Eastern Europe]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://myip.ms/browse/sites_history/1/siteID/415548 |title=archive.is Sites - archive Address on |publisher=Myip.ms |date= |accessdate=2016-11-29}}</ref> The archive runs [[Apache Hadoop]] and [[Apache Accumulo]] software." That source does not verify the statement, as far as I can see, nor the one that existed this morning (before being changed to Mir Telematiki). I didn't look for a replacement because I don't know what the best source for that information would be. You likely know better, so I'd welcome an addition of the correct information with a reliable source. As an aside, what is your opinion of how to improve this article? You seem to be more knowledgeable than I am. My concerns are that it doesn't seem like it's written for a general encyclopedia audience, tends towards the technical, and relies too often on primary sources (sources connected to archive.is, data/databases, etc. as opposed to, say, books and articles in journals/magazines/newspapers... or even decent quality blogs). There are some non-primary, sure, but I'm curious if you have thoughts about a big picture for the article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC) See https://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=archive.is&x=0&y=0 Hostkey is the primary host, distributed by Cloudflare. I don't think it makes sense to duplicate information in Archive site and Web archiving. I think this page should be reserved for information unique to this service. Would you not agree? John Navas (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC) In the future, please discuss with me before removing my contributions. Thank you. John Navas (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC) @Jnavas2: While I can appreciate the frustration of having edits reverted, that's not how this works. The burden is on those looking to add content to justify its inclusion via reliable sources such that it does not conflict with e.g. NPOV, WP:NOT, etc. With unsourced statements in particular, there's WP:BURDEN. Sites going up/down is a very common thing that people add to articles about websites/services, and there's broad consensus per a basic interpretation of editing policies that it's not something to include except when particularly noteworthy (as determined by coverage in reliable sources). That an editor finds something useful or even important is not itself reason to include it. That seems to be a thread throughout these additions we seem to disagree on. Wikipedia isn't here to have all useful information and doesn't base what's important on what editors say is important; it's here to summarize what other reliable sources have already designated as important. There's an exception for basic facts about a subject, so maybe where it's hosted could be viewed along those lines, but status updates most certainly are not. There are many resources out there that are not encyclopedias for that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. While I do respect your point of view, I don't like your tone, and I do think the issue of reliability is both relevant and appropriate to the article. In the future, when you disagree and don't care to discuss it with me first directly, then you should open the topic on the article Talk page. Just starting an edit war is the sort of thing that has driven away so many contributors like me. Wikipedia claims to have turned over a new leaf. I'm hoping that's true. John Navas (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC) @Jnavas2: I apologize if my frustration is coming through in the language I'm using. The frustration is not all in response to you, to be clear. As you may imagine, people add things they think are important with no sources all the time. It's not something we can "agree to disagree" about, because it's a basic policy of Wikipedia: the content is based on what reliable sources say are important, not editors. "Starting an edit war" -- please do familiarize yourself with basic editing norms like those linked above and WP:BRD (summary: one editor adds content; another editor disagrees with the content and reverts; it's then a matter for discussion before restoring it again... not time to restore it and demand discussion prior to removal). I'm happy to continue talking with you if you're indeed interested to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia, but welcoming new editors doesn't mean throwing the policies and guidelines out the window in order to be nice. There is value in those policies like the ones we're talking about. It's why Wikipedia doesn't just devolve into the web in general, with anybody adding whatever they think is important. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Just to add, however, I'm not claiming that the buck stops with me. The buck stops with anyone who has basic editing principles on their side. If you think I'm wrong, you could, for example, start an WP:RFC to get opinions from people who aren't me. Or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet. Or if you're think I'm being a jerk, you could take me to an administrator's noticeboard (I am not an admin, to be clear -- that's just where behavioral issues go). There are options. Repeatedly adding what you think is important is not a good way to go, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Please don't presume to lecture me. As I wrote, I don't like your tone. John Navas (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC) @Jnavas2: Sigh. Ok. If you're going to dismiss my attempt to discuss the problem and explain how things work as a "lecture" and don't like my tone, I won't ping you after this. But then likewise do not tell me to discuss if you're unwilling to discuss and disinterested in basic editing policies. If you wish to take "please do not add content without reliable sources independent of the subject justifying its inclusion" as some sort of negative tone, I don't know what to tell you. Know that if you restore content to an article three times, there is a bright line rule called WP:3RR which results in a block (I will not be the one to block, fyi, so don't take that as a threat -- it's just, again, basic editing). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC) You're not "discussing". You're lecturing from presumed superiority. I invited you to discuss in the appropriate place, the Article Talk page, but you ignored that, so I've now created such a section. Please use it to explain your rationale (without gratuitous lectures on Wikipedia), and resist the urge to delete my contribution before such discussion. Thank you. John Navas (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Hello John Navas. The opinions expressed by User:Rhododendrites are widely shared. See WP:NOT for a better explanation of which facts are encyclopedic and which are not. If you do open a WP:Request for comment or take it to a noticeboard, you may discover that others don't agree with you. --EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Instead of engaging in civil substantive discussion on the Talk page, User:Rhododendrites has chosen escalation and accusation. I think that makes my point. But since I see that Wikipedia hasn't really changed for the better, I'll probably not bother with further contributions in any event. --John Navas (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC) .. sigh .. Ok. I'm going to close this. I don't think anything positive can come out of it at this point and discussion is ongoing elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Rhododendrites: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

@Northamerica1000: Thanks. Your effort to foster community with little mass messages like this one is recognized. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy the holiday season. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Rhododendrites! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks! Happy days to you! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Wishing you a very happy holiday season and a fulfilling 2017. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Thank you! And likewise to you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Rhododendrites!!
	Hi Rhododendrites, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thanks. :) Merry days to you, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

your post at the RfC at VPP

Thank you for your post at WP:VPP#RfC2 on Miss America and Miss USA entrants. 

At this time, it is the only reply I have received to my request for comment, and the RfC has been closed.  The answer to your first question is still visible in the rationale at WP:VPP#RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants, i.e.,

Associated state-level pageants are notable: All of these entrants are winners of notable state-level pageants, see Category:Miss USA state pageants and Category:Miss America state pageants.

As for your second question, I have been trained for both personal and business communication to limit the use of questions, nor is there any requirement for an RfC to be presented as a question, nor do I see that a question improves the RfC.  Reading your response as meaning that you "don't support" the statement as a "ground for action" can you further explain your viewpoint?  What is it that you don't support?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: Thanks for the follow up. My intention with my second question wasn't to give you a hard time for no reason. Indeed, a question is not required. Sometimes it's helpful, though, for clarity's sake. I don't think it was clear what you were asking for comment on. Or, more in line with how I read it, it seemed like you went way out of your way to omit the conclusion, instead asking for comment on less controversial statements from which a consensus claim could be extracted later -- so I opposed because I wasn't sure what my support would be used for. To be clear, I don't think you were trying to pull something sneaky; it's just a style of presentation that I would have a hard time supporting. There's too much room for messiness when the point of the RfC isn't explicit, is all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A comment of yours at VPP was, "The second is just quoting common practice.", but I don't assume that ATD will survive this RfC.  I want to know, because I don't like supporting WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion if it lacks community support. 

If we can agree that our readers want reliably sourced information, as available, about these specific pageant entrants, and that merger of non-notable pageant entrants to suitable targets is accepted policy; what more do you want to know about what this means?  Is this not then a normal content issue?

I've created a draft for a new RfC at my sandbox, [1].  Your comments would be appreciated.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I may not have properly articulated my concern. It may be that, per part one of the hypothesis, contestants in these larger pageants have all won state-level pageants which were also notable (whether readers want it is a fine point to make, but rarely justification in itself). It may also be that, as a matter of general principle, non-notable subjects can be merged into suitable targets. The problem is that the crucial intersection is omitted. We have some context and something that is allowed according to existing rules. That something is allowed, however, doesn't mean it applies to all cases, of course. Non-notable pageant winners can be merged into a suitable target... if there's consensus to do so. :) So the real ask isn't whether such a thing could possibly occur but whether it should happen that non-notable pageant winners of notable pageants be merged [rather than deleted?]. I'm starting work at the moment, so haven't looked at the draft RfC, but will likely do so later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You've used the word "deleted" as if it is something apart from WP:Deletion policy.  The hypothesis specifically references two sections from WP:Deletion policy.  If those two sections don't have community support, I hope you'd agree that it is not acceptable that the policy says that it is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".

Another point that occurs to me in response to your post is that there are no examples of a merged bio in the RfC.  The only one that comes quickly to mind is Thomas Mantell.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the draft RfC to User:Unscintillating/Draft RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants, which provides a talk page for this issue if you want.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The J's with Jamie

On 28 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The J's with Jamie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Time magazine said The J's with Jamie "have probably been heard by more people more times than any other group in the history of sound. Yet next to nobody knows who they are"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The J's with Jamie. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The J's with Jamie), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

J's with Jamie

I was interested to see that the group released a record Hey, Look us Over!, and together with its 1963 date and the fact that they did political ads sometimes, I'm now really curious. Do we know if they ever did work with the Chicago firm of Bob Long Associates? See [2]; Indiana legislator Birch Bayh reached the U.S. Senate in 1963 with a Long-created campaign advertisement featuring a modified version of "Hey, Look Me Over". Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I'm afraid I don't have good answers for you. I came across them when I was looking at one of the Grammy Award lists and noticed a redlinked award winner. Curious, I looked into them and found their story interesting enough to start the article. Online sources are scarce, though. I did a pretty extensive search of what's freely available on the web (i.e. not behind paywalls or tucked away in a library), and what's in the article is about all I came up with. Someone on the WFMU blog took enough interest to reach out to ask questions directly, but still didn't seem to get a great deal of backstory/information (or at least didn't publish it). Very strange. Actually, not that strange. They may have had a good reputation in the industry at the time and their output may have been ubiquitous in American culture, but like ghostwriters and anyone else who produces content for someone else (i.e. advertising firms, companies' marketing departments), they wouldn't get the kind of recognition one would expect for that level of visibility... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I was guessing that you'd have included this information if you had it, but I figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks for the detailed explanation! Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

PS, what are the numbers following the names of the albums, e.g. "CS-8805" following Hey, Look us Over! Am I correct in guessing it to be some sort of identification number (it appears other places, e.g. [3])? Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Catalog numbers. Labels give a [more or less] unique one to each release. Not necessarily something I'd think to include in most Wikipedia articles, but they can come in handy when, say, there are are multiple ways an album's title has been written, multiple releases, international variations, different album art, weird sales figures, etc. In this case I can't remember precisely what I got from it but it was useful for searching/finding information on the more obscure releases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was guessing, but someone tagged them as uncited, so I wanted to be sure before removing the facttag and saying "that is the citation". Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hook Windmill

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Old Hook Mill in East Hampton 1.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 00:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atomic chess capture

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Atomic capture.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 21:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rhododendrites!

Happy New Year!

Rhododendrites,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 4 January 2017

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with… 147 American handball (talk) Add sources 15 Pawtuxet Village (talk) Add sources 20 Job (computing) (talk) Add sources 99 San Francisco Sound (talk) Add sources 797 Static web page (talk) Add sources 67 Website architecture (talk) Add sources 8 Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (talk) Cleanup 238 James Beard Foundation Award (talk) Cleanup 6 Rhode Island Route 117 (talk) Cleanup 45 Freefall (ride) (talk) Expand 130 Input method (talk) Expand 696 Akbaruddin Owaisi (talk) Expand 42 Web usability (talk) Unencyclopaedic 162 Web template system (talk) Unencyclopaedic 149 Personal web page (talk) Unencyclopaedic 245 E-government (talk) Merge 862 Marketing communications (talk) Merge 40 Czech literature (talk) Merge 74 Charles Blondin (talk) Wikify 3 Spring Lake, Rhode Island (talk) Wikify 5 Summit, Rhode Island (talk) Wikify 3 Smith Red Valencia (talk) Orphan 4 Noémie Goudal (talk) Orphan 12 Billy Simmonds (talk) Orphan 8 Apponaug, Rhode Island (talk) Stub 16 Zanthoxylum fagara (talk) Stub 2 Polyploca ridens (talk) Stub 11 Random indexing (talk) Stub 7 Greene Island (Rhode Island) (talk) Stub 114 Cordaro Stewart (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup

Hi! Am not sure if you have notice it or not, but the annual editing competition Wikipedia:WikiCup has started and the signup is open till 5 February 2017. The cup encourages content improvement and tries to make editing on Wikipedia more fun; and it did that for me last year. I have hence decided to drop this friendly note hoping that you would take part. Although the signup ends on 5th Feb, the earlier you sign in the earlier you start scoring. Happy New Year and Happy Editing! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sunday January 15: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference

Sunday January 15: Wikipedia Day NYC 2017

You are invited to join us at Ace Hotel for Wikipedia Day NYC 2017, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of the project's global 16th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions. With special guests Katherine Maher of the Wikimedia Foundation and Tim Wu of Columbia Law School speaking on our Post-truth panel! Also featuring an International/Multilingual panel, a Documenting Activism panel, a Multimedia/Tech Panel, a Science panel, an Art panel, and more. And there will be cake. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. Sunday January 15 Wikipedia Day NYC 2017 (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 10:00am - 7:00 pm at Ace Hotel, 20 West 29th Street in Manhattan We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2016

This Month in GLAM – Volume VI, Issue XII, December 2016 Headlines Argentina report: Contest - New Glam Web - Edit-a-thon Australia and New Zealand report: Noongarpedia Brazil report: Preparing the future GLAM generation; Decreasing the gender gap on the web Côte d'Ivoire report: Heading for #1Lib1Ref 2017 Germany report: Exhibition photography; WikiLibrary Barcamp Italy report: Libraries of 1602 and 2016, science museum new home for wikimedians Netherlands report: Image donation Specilla circularia; Glass negatives by photographer Jan Goedeljee; Pattypan training for GLAMs; 1500 historical images from the Peace Palace Library Spain report: Pinazo Year Edit-a-thon Sweden report: Connected Open Heritage images UK report: Gender Equality, Visiting Scholars and Image uploads USA report: USA edit-a-thons Open Access report: Russian PhD Comics video; WMF grant to cover APC; Fluorescent fish Wikidata report: Last report for 2016 WMF GLAM report: Structured Data on Commons Funded! #1lib1ref and a holiday break Calendar: January's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 11:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Pink Guy

FYI: Filthy Frank/George Miller is back as Pink Guy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). While charting meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2, MUSICBIO only indicates that the subject may be notable. Since you've reviewed the subject before, do you think WP:GNG is satisfied? — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Charting on iTunes doesn't meet C2 (see WP:BADCHARTS -- specific retailers don't qualify, because they may have special advertising/promotion agreements with artists, etc. that may cause one's position to be inflated, etc.). That said, it's a decent indicator of notability. From what I recall, the main issue was that most of the coverage was related to the Harlem Shake (one event, and one which we already have an article for). Adding this, while I don't know what would happen at AfD, I'm inclined to think he would have a decent shot. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to Billboard 200, not iTunes. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks for clarifying. I didn't notice the Billboard figure. That typically brings a pretty strong case for notability. I'll take a closer look if it's nominated but I'm inclined to think he's notable. No response needed -- I know I'm late with my reply. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 18 January 2017

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with… 1,169 Cusco (talk) Add sources 7 Guild hosting service (talk) Add sources 190 Academic conference (talk) Add sources 13 Iperú (talk) Add sources 3 Belmond Hotel Rio Sagrado (talk) Add sources 83 Digital protective relay (talk) Add sources 26 Traditional leaders in Zimbabwe (talk) Cleanup 425 Rediff.com (talk) Cleanup 17 Incan engineers (talk) Cleanup 2,104 Sanctuary city (talk) Expand 408 Hacktivism (talk) Expand 59 Salcantay (talk) Expand 11 Kindercore Records (talk) Unencyclopaedic 237 Open access journal (talk) Unencyclopaedic 1,324 Battle of Leyte Gulf (talk) Unencyclopaedic 651 Emerson College (talk) Merge 17 The Chilean Inca Trail (talk) Merge 3 Chepiwanoxet Point (talk) Merge 240 Ludo Lefebvre (talk) Wikify 396 Scientific journal (talk) Wikify 16 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association (talk) Wikify 4 Awamaki (talk) Orphan 6 Lorenzo Sousa Debarbieri (talk) Orphan 5 The Grammy Museum Mississippi (talk) Orphan 227 Peeple (mobile application) (talk) Stub 71 Yacare caiman (talk) Stub 22 Wiñay Wayna (talk) Stub 226 Review article (talk) Stub 38 Inca Bridge (talk) Stub 8 Wanakawri (Cusco) (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thx

It was very kind of you to leave that barnstar on my talkpage! Tony (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

re plurals

IMO this sort of thing is archaic now. In 1950 it was usual to write "Charles's pajamas", as Strunk & White suggested. By now this has passed by and people generally write "Charles' pajamas". It might be mirroring a a change in speech, dunno. Herostratus (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I don't think it's archaic. I know the AP decided to omit the s in many cases, but that most recommend it (Oxford Dictionaries, Chicago Manual of Style, Purdue OWL, etc.). (Yes, "most" needs a cn tag). Our MOS just points to Apostrophe, which has this section that looks to make the case that 's is more or less the "traditional" way while various organizations have devised various exceptions/rules or, like the AP, mostly done away with it. If the foremost goal is clarity rather than saving an extra character, then as I see it, including the s is not going to make a sentence less clear, while omitting it might (albeit not often). Also, given how badly people abuse/misuse the apostrophe in cases of plurals and possessives, my preference is to err on the side of simple, predictable rules (singular possessive='s). But granted, it's not a grammatical absolute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, these are fair points. I looked for an internal style guide on this and didn't find one; guess we don't have one. The Apostrophe article doesn't bind us, but it's a data point. Here's my take: on the merits, I can see the point of "Charles's" being clearer than "Charles'", but on the hand people tend to say "Charles" rather than "Charleses" nowadays, and it seems to me that this being reflected more and more in the typography nowadays -- I think (not sure).

But merits aside, since we don't seem to have WP:MOS guidance on this, and since common usage seems to be split, I would tend not to favor changing existing instances. It's different if one is putting in new material that one wrote oneself, but changing existing instances is just roiling the text to change one person's opinion for another. My guess is that if a person were to go on a general crusade of changing sibilant-ending-singular possessives from apostrophe to apostrophe-s, there would be a discussion and the result would probably be "don't do that, leave them be". That's my guess. Since a general crusade would fail, it seems that doing it occasionally also is not called for. It's not a big deal either way. Herostratus (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Ultimately this was a revert of a user whose only change was to remove the s from one of several instances on the page. Realistically, I would've reverted if they changed all of them, too, because, well, at very least it's not an improvement (a la ENGVAR/CITEVAR). Perhaps I worded my edit summary too unequivocally. I wouldn't be/haven't been inclined to change it where it's the established style/editorial decision by someone writing the article, as much as it may cause my eye to twitch a little. I'd be curious about how apostrophe use affects people whose first language is not English, and if one way makes more sense to them than another. Again, my preference is to simplify the rules of punctuation, but meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, OK, well that's different, nevermind. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your concern for my wiki future.[4] It is my intention to clean up a disrupted area while not causing a larger one. I do not issue the bans you are correct. Aspersions without evidence are indeed a bad thing. My warning to him will stand. Your edit here [5] is a violation off her topic ban. I assume WP:goodfaith on your part so I will leave your revert. I assure you I am here to build an encyclopedia. again thank you for effort because I can not build one by myself. I work pretty slowly. There are others I will talk to in the next few days (no one on either side is completely innocent) but I hope that we can come together and end the disruption. J8079s (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)