User talk:GRuban

Priscila Machado photo

Not is an image of her. Look for an image real image of her. Do not mislead people.

Gusthes (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator

Wikipedia needs you! Take the poll.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia.

If you would like to find out about your chances of a successful RfA, please visit:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What made you ask me? (I realize it's a form letter, but why me?) --GRuban (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. Sure, it's a form letter, but I wrote it. :) Why you? Well, you were vetted here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search/Poll candidates, and I think you ought to take the poll. You may be a terrific admin, and Wikipedia sure could use more. So, what do you think? Have you ever considered it? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Have. Mostly worried about my irregular participation. For example, just last month, March, I had under 20 edits. --GRuban (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that concerns you, the poll responders would tell you. Frankly, I think your count looks pretty darn good. Plus, you are strong in a lot of areas. There's no harm in taking the poll. It can really give you an idea of what to expect if you ran for adminship now, and what you might need to have improved likelihood. You may be pleasantly surprised. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction to the art title

Did you also correct it at its source? If not also there, I am not sure how "use" became substituted for "une". Merci, thank you again. And very nice to have met you, even if in my trajectory, it will prove to be belatedly. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

File:El Hadj M'Hamed El Anka plays the Oud.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:El Hadj M'Hamed El Anka plays the Oud.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Lyndsey Scott

On 15 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lyndsey Scott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that between modelling for Victoria's Secret, Calvin Klein, and Prada, Lyndsey Scott (pictured) develops mobile apps for iOS? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lyndsey Scott. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lyndsey Scott), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious

finding images

Thank you for quality articles on a variety of topics, such as "requested", "games" and "countering systemic bias", namely Melissa Bachman, Minjung art, The Chalk Circle and Yoruba literature, for great professional expertise in finding images, for more than ten years of service, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Awww, thanks. :-) --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Shirley Pitts

You are claiming that there the hook is not in the article (it is) and that it is unreferenced (it isn't). They post on DYK talk page, and said they were going to "main page errors." This will put the claim squarely as issue. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The hook is not in the article. It's a pretty straight forward claim. If you have to click things that are not in the article to get the hook, then the hook is not in the article. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

We will have to disagree. It is in the article and it is in the references. No error on the main page, IMHO. Salut. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The references aren't linked, so I can't check; did you? Do they use the words "Forty Elephants"? Your review seems to say they didn't. Are the words "Forty Elephants" in the article? I can't find them. You seem to be saying that they are in the Wikipedia. Then the hook is in the Wikipedia. But it is not in the article. Again, it's pretty straight forward. --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Should also be pretty easy to fix, just add the words to the article, cited appropriately. I can't, I can't access the sources that say that. --GRuban (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Added Forty Elephants, a/k/a the Forty Thieves 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Article photos

I left an answer on my talk page. Please let me know if you got a ping from that answer. MB 01:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

on blue dog democrats

Hi, look blue dog democrats aren’t center left, they are centrist to center right. The New Democrats are center left.it has nothing to do with my opinions it’s a fact. 21:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zman19964 (talk • contribs)

Nowadays there are apparently alternative facts... :-)... just asserting something doesn't suffice, we need WP:RS saying something before we say it. --GRuban (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rachael Blake

If you have some spare time could you start a discussion on Talk:Rachael Blake about using the current infobox photo, addressing the possible WP:BLP issue? I don't want to be reverting all the time to remove it, so a central discussion would be healthy in my opinion.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, but why didn't you just post this there? --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you do your photo magic?

The article Deborah Lipstadt needs a photograph. The only front-facing fair-use one on either Google or Flickr is very blurry: [1]. There are however two CC-licensed videos of her talking on YouTube:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvE0wQKbqf4
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBCATemwfdA

Could you do your screen-grab magic like you did with Lee Carroll? If so, thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, will. A pleasure to be asked. Probably Monday. --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Panel

Presentation

OK, here are what I think are the two best options, one from each video. Most of the other frames focusing on her had her mouth open (she is speaking after all), looking extremely unhappy (understandable, given the subject matter), or both; in these two she appears if not actually smiling at least reasonably at rest. Though of course they each have their own issues: one is fuzzier, while the other has a microphone in her ear. I think the clearer one is better despite the microphone; if you disagree use the first, or if you would like to go for a frame with her mouth open, I could get one or two of those. --GRuban (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think of those two the clearer one is definitely better. I wouldn't object to (at least considering) one with her mouth open, but if she looks grimmer or it would take too much time, the current one is fine, thanks very much! Softlavender (talk)

I made a couple of others, but I think the previous is the best. --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi GRuban; I have so many usertalk pages on my watchlist I missed this latest. Thanks very much for taking the time to do those two new ones. Yeah, although the new one on the right is pretty good, the one previously chosen is sharper and (arguably) more neutral. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Somehow by today your upload had already been used on the Lipstadt articles in 7 foreign wikis. I added it just now to German wiki (in my rusty German) and Hebrew wiki (extremely hard and took forever -- I finally just used the editing bar image tool -- even then it went in the wrong place and someone fixed it). :) Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

re: ANI

For what it's worth, (Personal attack removed). Anyway, don't let it get you down. Gimubrc (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! For how I (try to) look at things, see the quote at the top of my user page; when I saw it on Keilana's, I knew that I needed to grab it. --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick note

Believe Sagaciousphil is female, and also that the edit summary you're referring to as "hurt feelings" was in fact in reference to the Butler discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to remember the gender, though I must plead that the user page didn't say anything... (actually there is no user page! it's a redirect!). I recognized the reference, but her remember, remember rather strong edit comment did seem to indicate to me that she was made upset by my edit. Which wasn't my intention, I was trying to fix a typo. So I apologized. Hopefully it's better now. --GRuban (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You might find {{gender}} useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Impressed...

...with your work. You can stalk my TP all you want - I welcome content creators!! I even created a humorous template for users who have no reservations asking polite questions: ^{( Buttinsky)} - feel free to use it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

I find your comment here, Atsme, thoroughly inappropriate and almost mocking towards those who've felt worried by GRuban's behaviour here tonight. Why don't you keep your mouth shut? We've even had Iridescent issue a warning as he too has found it disturbing. CassiantoTalk 21:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC) @Cassianto: that's a pretty clear personal attack, and uncalled for. Please cut it out. She didn't write anything bad about you, just wanted to make me feel better. Hopefully making me feel better isn't a crime? --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Cassianto, feel free to use the ( Buttinsky) template, too. Didn't intend to exclude anyone. Atsme📞📧 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC) I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than read your "humorous" essay. Just cut out the mocking comments. CassiantoTalk 22:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Here's another fun template to use -  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough - and it won't affect your vision. Atsme📞📧 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Cassianto, she's allowed to write about her humorous essay on my talk page. --GRuban (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC) I wrote a humorous essay? Atsme📞📧 22:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Atsme, you know I like and appreciate you, but please don't make fun of others like this--one of the ones you're making fun of is a longtime friend and fellow-editor, and someone who has suffered from stalkers. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC) I don't know what you're talking about, Drmies. I hope jumping to conclusions isn't the only exercise you get. I thought I was on GRuban's TP, not Cassianto's. I came here uninvited, yes - but I've crossed paths with GRuban at AfD, and we also share a common interest at Commons. I was impressed by his photoshopped images above - but I didn't get a chance to tell him what I came here to say because Cassianto rudely interrupted. I didn't come here to make fun of anyone, especially not Cassianto. My mind was on Photoshop (PS) which is in my area of interest. Occasionally my (talk page stalker) ask me to do stuff in PS for them. I came here to network. The ( Buttinsky) template was something I originally made for MelanieN a while back. She used that word on my TP, I thought it was cute, so I made her a template. I customarily offer templates I create to other users so the template police don't delete them - they give new meaning to the term "use it or lose it". When Cassianto said he'd rather stick pins his eyes than read my "humorous essay" I was really confused so I offered up another fun template - one I occasionally use when I make a mistake or don't catch on to something. I'm happy you two are friends, but quite frankly, Cassianto has never been polite to me, so I try to steer clear of him. My initial interaction with him was on his TP back in 2015 where I commented ONCE in defense of myself because an editor (who is now a WP friend & project team member) had the wrong impression of me. Cassianto responsed in his usual rude manner, and I never went back to his TP. End of story as far as I'm concerned. Atsme📞📧 03:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC) So it was all one big coincidence? Oh I see...please excuse me, there seems to be a lot of that going on around here; firstly, GRuban "coincidentally" visited the same articles as Sagaciousphil, who he'd previously locked horns with on Carolina Nairne; and then there was SchroCat who'd commented on GRuben's knee-jerk RfC on the Nairne article only to have Ruben follow him to Josephine Butler where GRuben conducted this quite stunning fix, just to make sure people knew he was sniffing about. From there, he decided to rock up at the Cary Grant pantomime where he knew he'd garner a response by !voting in an RfC that had only just been flagged for archiving by a bot (which had been edit warred against by another editor who was desperate to keep the drama on that page going). When challenged about this, he then admitted to stalking whilst all the while, passive aggressively conducting himself on my talk page. And then, coincidence of coincidences, you then turn up here declaring that he could "stalk my TP all you want". I'm flattered you have my talk page on your watchlist, but I really wish you would just say so and not patronise everyone here by telling us it was a fluke. CassiantoTalk 08:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Cassianto, quite frankly I can't begin to imagine what makes you think I care about your interactions with other editors when quite the opposite is true. Your TP has never been on my watchlist and I intend to keep it that way. As difficult as it may be for you to accept, you clearly screwed-up by assuming I previously knew about your interactions with GRuban, and it appears that your behavior now reflects the very behavior for which you accused me. Jiminy Cricket, move along. Atsme📞📧 13:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC) ·Cassianto, please stop using the term stalking. You and Drmies both should be well aware of the history of using this term. And there ARE legitimate reasons to look at a user's edit history... It doesn't seem to me that GRuban veered so heavily into the obviously "wrong" category, even if you believe so. Looking through an editor's history for common ground seems like a pretty good use of it. And just use some damn common sense: GRuban isn't new here. If he was truly doing this to aggravate, and knew it, do you really think he would brag about it on your talk page? Perception is important, but it's not reality and his intent should be taken into consideration before you start a multi-page effort to smear him. It doesn't matter one red cent that someone else might have been a target elsewhere on this site, and has a justified weariness for other editors showing up, even though I'm pretty sure this one is just using a different method to collaborate. That person is entitled to see boogeymen in the shadows for a while, but you actually do them (and other people who have suffered harassment... which I know unfortunately includes both you and Drmies) a disservice when you amplify their prejudicial fear without cause. You and Drmies both effectively lump GRuban, a long time content creator who is incredibly valuable to this site, into the same boat as people who DO hound people to cause distress. Just, ugh. And before you hog off and just chalk my voice up to some faceless IP that can take the place of any villain you have concocted in your mind, let me tell you why I'm here: as an IP, my "watch list" is essentially my Wikipedia bookmarks folder (Drmies, you're in there too, but (and I mean this congenially) you're just not as interesting to me). At some point, I bookmarked Atsme's contribution history instead of her TP, even though that's where I spend most of my time. I don't always agree with Atsme (in fact, the last time we disagreed she lumped me in with a clear vandal that she was unfortunately on the receiving end of), but we have collaborated well before and she (and others) generally share my interests and Atsme in particular keeps interesting company. Is that hounding? Perhaps in an overly broad sense of the word, but certainly not in any sense that matters for a project that is conducted completely in the open, with logs/lists/analyzers a plenty. 172.56.20.26 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Folks, I'm going to collapse this part; it's not connected with Atsme's original post, which I appreciate, thanks. I could just delete all this, this being my talk page, but I'm going to just collapse it instead. I've been trying to contribute to the work of people I've had arguments with, in the hopes of proving that even though we disagree in some places, we could still work together other places. In a few places this worked - like the Softlavender post above, #Can you do your photo magic?, that Atsme refers to below: that started when Softlavender and I disagreed on one article, and got to where she was asking me to help on another. In other cases, it obviously didn't, it annoyed people more. So, since my goal was not to annoy them, I'm going to not do that. Hopefully that will suffice. If I start annoying people again, please tell me, but not until then, please? Meanwhile, there is no reason to excoriate Atsme here, she has done nothing wrong ... and it is certainly wrong to do it on my talk page. So again, closed, and no more on this topic on my talk page. Unless I happen to annoy people again, in which case open a different talk page section, please. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Zella", image from The Keepsake for 1830, a British literary annual, illustrating the story The Evil Eye by "The Author of Frankenstein" (Mary Shelley).

GRuban, before I forget the original reason I came here - re: the images above - are the photos on the left the original photos and the ones on the right the ones you photoshopped? If so, what tool did you use to change the shape of the mouth? Oh, and per my earlier invitation, you're welcome to stalk my user pages - I have a small gallery of images on my user page. If you see anything on my TP that you can contribute to - I occasionally get requests to expand, review, copyedit, etc. - feel free to be a ^{( Buttinsky)} or Just curious..., and comment away. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The section #Can you do your photo magic?: They're not photoshopped as such, they're cropped screenshots from the two Creative Commons Attribution licensed YouTube videos that User:Softlavender links to at the top of that section. I have some experience finding and uploading free licensed images for articles, so she asked for my help making one for an article she was working on. So the change in the shape of the mouth is just due to being taken from different points in the YouTube videos. The specific tool I used was mostly just maximizing the video, screenshotting at various times, then cropping the result. Takes trial and repetition, mostly. (Pausing isn't as effective, since then you get the video title at the top and video progress bar at the bottom, which occludes a sometimes useful part of the image. There is also a site called http://youtubescreenshot.com/ which makes a version without the title, and crops the progress bar space off the bottom, which I use sometimes, but usually don't, so not to lose that bottom part.) I know a bit about cropping images, but am not so good on more complex "Photoshop" work: lighting, coloring, other corrections. If you want some specific help, I'll be glad to try! I appreciate your posts. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I thought perhaps image manipulation was involved, such as the use of the "spot healing brush", "liquify" filter and a bit of the "content-aware move tool". *lol* While I'm here, can I tax your experience to find an image (will probably be a painting or sketch) that would work in an infobox for The Evil Eye (1830 short fiction) by Mary Shelley, or possibly one for The Keepsake, the literary annual where the story was pubished in 1830? Thanks in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure! 1830 publication is old enough to be public domain, so any images from The Keepsake will do. I see some beautiful scanned The Keepsakes on Google Books and the Internet Archive, including the one for 1830... several copies actually... And there's an image for Zella on p 164 which seems to be from that story. I tweaked some spelling in The Evil Eye (1830 short fiction), give me a bit to get the image there. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My response is the title of this section in larger, bolder text x 2. Many thanks!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way ... I read the story itself, and, umm ... the plot description in our article was off in a number of rather important points. I see you didn't write our article, just approved it for creation. I have to say, the person who wrote the plot description didn't read the story very carefully. I think I corrected it, but if you aren't sure I did it right, you can read the story in the Google Books links above and see. I also linked some of the wonderful words in the story: Klepht, Sciote, Moreot, Caloyer. That's more of a judgment call, if you prefer you can rephrase them to or explain them with our more modern equivalents. I kept them as the old style, because they are mostly ethnicities, and crucial to the story. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still gloating over being able to collaborate with yet another talented editor who doesn't mind rolling up their sleeves to reach deep into the pickle barrel. Knock yourself out with that article, GRuban. Whenever I come across a short fiction, it reminds me of a very talented IP editor I encountered last year. Our first encounter was at Merlin (poem) - it was a little bumpy at first but I soon realized the editor was overflowing with talent and energy, so rather than focus on hardline technicalities, I gave him/her plenty of breathing room to work on the article and, by golly, it paid off. (I'm not making any comparisons or anything, just reminiscing). I can't remember what followed after that - I think he/she is serving "time-out" - but I would not hesitate to collaborate with and/or mentor editors like him/her, as long as the behavioral issues are manageable, of course. I think in most cases, kindness and understanding goes a long way. Oh, and I have no clue why I even brought it up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Devdas Gandhi image

The image you have re-uploaded is *not* of Devdas Gandhi, but of another associate of Gandhi's from his South Africa days. A simple comparison of the image to every other publicly available image of Devdas Gandhi would make instantly clear that this is a different person. The fact that this image was on Wikipedia for some time does not make it him. You won't find a single published source that carries this as an image of Devdas Gandhi. I am sure you made the edit in good faith, but it needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caversham (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Caversham: I did a few image searches, and there are different photos, but it's not clear which are most authoritative. I'll remove the image from the article, but could you give some links to photos that you are sure are of Devdas Gandhi, so we can get this one established as not Devdas Gandhi? Otherwise someone else will be returning it eventually. --GRuban (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Evil Eye (1830 short fiction), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

✅ fixed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts....

Greek lesson #1:
Clothes were expensive.

Greek lesson #2:
Not all survived ANI

Hi, GRuban - I just reviewed Madre della Consolazione and Nikolaos Tzafouris, and it appears to me that maybe the icon article should be merged into the artist's biography. From what I understand after reviewing the artwork, there are several different depictions of the icon that are attributed to him so I'm not sure if we should include the available/most notable depictions as portrayed in various museum catalogues or merge the artwork into the biography. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I don't know as much about Greek Renaissance painters as it may at first glance seem. :-P --GRuban (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So I looked around a bit, and will give a wishy-washy answer. That's a variant of painting; generally considered to be inferior to either oil or tempera, but possibly related to watercolor. It looks as if there isn't much commentary on the Madre della Consolazione icon as such on the web, just descriptions of the painting, and of the Madre herself. So you certainly could merge it into the article on the painter; neither is very long. That said, though, I personally wouldn't do it unless one of the articles were in danger of deletion, mainly because it would be work that might have to be undone in case someone finds more words on the icon. I wouldn't be surprised if detailed commentary on the Renaissance painting might not be popularly accessible to web search engines, but might well exist in ink-on-paper form; especially if it might be in Greek or Latin. So: wishy washy answer. OK? --GRuban (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

that was for the Prosperina Brown comment, quite right! In ictu oculi (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the nom has proposed instead Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Brown

I withdrew the RM and am thinking of going with a multi-choice version, using a table. What do you think?

Draft: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table

Thanks! --В²C ☎ 23:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

re: czabita

Hello GRubin,

Thank you for your review of my recent work. I admit I was a little unsure of the exact wikipedia guidelines for submission hence my use of direct quotes.

I have made some changes to the work. Please let me know if all is ok and if so, i can continue expanding the page.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czabita (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ian Purkayastha Sure, but you haven't written much yet for me to check, keep going. Think back to your high school writing classes that must have taught something about using sources as references but without committing plagiarism, this is very similar. An exercise mine taught me was to read each source with a stack of index cards handy, take notes of just the facts from each, one fact per card, then reorder the cards in a logical sequence and write from that. So The New Yorker says ""Forgoing college, the teen-ager moved to a cramped walkup apartment in Weehawken, New Jersey, enduring crushing loneliness, spoiled inventory, and traffic jams on I-95—all for the sake of haunting the back doors of New York’s finest restaurants, hoping to win chefs over with the ultimate product." and The Wall Street Journal says "Instantly captivated, the 15-year-old pooled his savings to buy a kilo of summer black tubers from France, reasoning that whatever he didn’t cook himself he could sell to professional chefs at high-end restaurants." Your index cards could say "As teen, skipped college, moved to apartment in Weehawken, NJ, to personally market product: New Yorker" and "At 15, bought 1kg French black truffles, part to cook and part to sell: WSJ." The article could say something like: "At 15 years old, Purkayastha bought his first kilogram of French black truffles, meaning to cook some, and sell some to restaurant chefs. [ref: Wall Street Journal, John Smith, ...] By 18 (correct? double check reference!), instead of going to college, he had moved to an apartment in Weehawken, New Jersey, to market truffles to restauranteurs full time. [ref: The New Yorker, Jane Doe, ...]" --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

About Draft:Paul Trynka

Hi GRuban and thank you for your message.
It appears that we may have to agree to disagree about this biography of a living and rather music journalist.
From memory I started the draft in 2016 when I noticed "http://www.trynka.net/archive/Hermione.html" in the David Bowie article and wondered who this "trynka" person might be.
I appreciate your opinions and those of of @Sulfurboy: but do I think this article should be in article space.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may … I've just add some suggestions on Shirt58's talk page. It's not a question of whether Trynka merits an article (as far as I'm concerned, he most definitely does), but the article has to demonstrate that he merits one with sufficient details of his notability. Which I imagine, Shirt58, is what influenced GRuban and Sulfurboy in their decisions. JG66 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

JG66 is correct. I'm not evaluating Trynka's notability from my own detailed research, just the draft as currently written. It has one line about him, and two lines about books; that's just not an adequate biography of a living person. Since, as I wrote, the books are reviewed in big name sources, that clearly hints that he might be notable, but doesn't prove it. Good luck. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@JG66 and GRuban: I guess it's time for me to either put up or shut up. (Not "WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP". I was unaware of that essay until now.) Thanks for your message, JG66.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I started to make a couple of points, in response to something your wrote, at the AFD for Rahaf Zina, that I realized were very likely not of interest to anyone else there.

So, in the interests of brevity there, I cut them, and will place them here, where I hope you will find them worth reading.

One interpretation of your comment would be that, if I went and drafted an adequate list article that summarized the role of Daesh's leaders, and linked to those of them that currently have articles, include Al-Bagdadi, the emir, and Abdul Mohsin Al-Dhufairi, Zina's first husband, you'd consider changing your mind.

But I don't think that is what you actually meant.

If it were I'd point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Since there are lots of notable topics, that don't currently have articles, which anyone could start, at any time, the non-existence of List of Daesh office-holders implies nothing about the notability of Rahaf Zina or Hussein Al-Dhufairi. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you were able to make a well sourced list of articles for most of Daesh's leadership that would be good evidence that the rest of Daesh's leadership would be notable. It would be something like List of popes where some of the early list we know almost nothing about, but since most of the list are undisputably notable, we have articles for the rest as well, to complete the set. My statement was that I don't think you can; these are people who work hard at not having much reliable information about themselves made easily and widely available, since it's literally a matter of life and death to them.

It wouldn't, as you properly guess, though, be enough for Rahaf Zina since she's just a spouse. Hey, I can keep going with my simile! Consider Married popes - we don't have articles for their spouses. Or more practically, we have articles for all the United States House of Representatives, but not for their spouses. Heck, we don't even have an article for the wife of Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, either the second or third most powerful politician in the most powerful country, certainly in the top 10. WP:NOTINHERITED is not always observed, but it usually is. The combination of the two makes this a clear delete. --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time for a meaningful, thoughtful reply.

Well sourced additional coverage of Daesh leadership would be a good thing, without regard to whether it was in a list, adequate standalone articles, or in article on events. I'll give it some thought.

Rifa is a spouse, not someone to whom POLITICIAN confers any notability, and I didn't mean to imply it did. But I don't agree she is an instance of a BLP1E.

We may not yet have an article about Mrs Paul Ryan. That may be a lapse. Do you think she merits one? Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

My second point...

You write: "...do not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN ... Being an actual politician demands extensive publicity and press coverage to get people to vote for you."

Yeah, I think this is wrong, on several levels.

1. We have GNG, the General Notability Guide, and we have supplementary special purpose notability guidelines, like ACADEMIC, and POLITICIAN, which I would argue are best seen as superceding GNG. We want to cover all members of the US Congress, even any past or present members of Congress who would not measure up to the inclusion standards of GNG, because we want to be comprehensive. If there were holes, if we deleted articles about 19th Century US Senators, or 19th Century Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross winners, because they couldn't measure up to GNG, it would raise continual question of whether the wikipedia was being censored. It would also make us inferior to paper encyclopedias, which would cover these individuals, in their attempts to be comprehensive.
2. We almost always link to the subsection on officeholders as POLITICIAN, but it would be more accurate to refer to it as OFFICEHOLDER. A US President makes over 3,000 political appointments, starting with his or her Cabinet, but including ambassadors, heads of agencies, like the Army, the FDA, EPA, and so on. They too should be considered as POLITICIANs. Some states don't have elections, or don't choose its Cabinet members through free elections. The former Soviet Union is an example.
3. The wikipedia's rules are already too complicated. We could distinguish between POLITICIANs who hold office in countries with more than a million citizens, and officeholders in countries with less than a million citizens. But we don't. Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, have Elizabeth Windsor as their Head of State, but in her capacity as Duchess of Normandy. They each have their own little Parliaments. Each of the representative to Sark's National Assembly represents about three dozen individuals. But they would still qualify for POLITICIAN notability.

If POLITICIAN supercedes GNG, which I think is the best interpretation, we may keep articles on officeholders which would not measure up to GNG. If our supplementary special purpose notabiity guidelines don't supercede GNG, there isn't any point to having them.

You wrote: "Being a leader of a terrorist group demands extensive secrecy to get your much more powerful enemies not to drop bombs on you. That's what makes it pretty hard to write articles about leaders of terrorist groups..."

When a leader of a group some describe as terrorist, nevertheless is an officeholder of a state, I would argue that they measure up to POLITICIAN. I've started almost 3,000 articles. Some topics were a lot easier to cover than others. Surely our goal is not to merely have articles on topics that were easy to cover? Surely our goal is to have article on the topics that measure up to our inclusion standards, without regard to whether they were difficult or easy to cover?

In late September and early October 2005 Zoe weighed in at the first five AFD related to Guantanamo. She said something like we shouldn't have ANY coverage of topics related to Guantanamo, because the topics were "inherently biased", and the articles could only serve, solely, as a place for "America-bashing".

I was very new to the wikipedia, and I really gave her comments a lot of thought. I decided that topics themselves had no bias. Only the way we covered them could be biased. I decided that there were no topics that could not be covered from a neutral point of view, if those working on the topic put in enough effort.

We were a lot more relaxed about references and referencing, in 2005. Since then I would modify my conclusion, every topic can be covered from a neutral point of view, with enough work -- provided there are sufficient good references.

So, not covering topics, where there are references, because it is too much work? If that is what you meant, could you please think about that one?

The notability of Rahaf Zina and Hussein Al-Dhufairi would have to be established through GNG. I never meant to imply otherwise. I added some more explanation that I merely meant that Zina should not be given the courtesy privacy protection we extend to people who are relatively unknown or low-profile individual, that being the spouse of a POLITICIAN means one is not people who are relatively unknown or low-profile individual. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, still disagree. On both points; first still not clear that a Daesh leader is what we call WP:POLITICIAN, though I can see that being debatable. But even if they are, being the spouse of such is absolutely not enough to inherently be a high profile individual. We absolutely do not want individual articles on all the 500 or spouses of US representatives and senators, cabinet members, not to mention those of other countries. --GRuban (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kelly Robert Savage

Dear G Ruban,

Thank you for checking my draft article about my son Kelly Savgae. Believe me, I am indeed trying and hoping that lasting change can come from the response to his death. I will try to rewrite it as an article about the incident, once we have a clearer picture of how and whether the medieval Japanese psychiatric system is reformed. If you would like to contribute to helping to bring about that change, please sign the petition that we have on change.org. They won't let me put the link here, but you can find it by going to change.org and searching for "japanese psychiatric hospital"

In any case, I appreciate the time you've taken to review the article and to suggest a way forward.

Kind Regards,

Martha Savage Martha.Savage (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Brad Smith (American lawyer)

Hello! Your submission of Brad Smith (American lawyer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RickyCourtney (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Richie Greene

Thank you for editing my draft for the article on Richie Greene! You had mentioned that I needed more than a mention on the New York Times to be able to prove notability for the composer. I am wondering if it would be helpful rather for me to delete this reference instead as it seems that there are a lot of other notable references on the article? For example: his discography and his relation to the "Needle Drop Co."?

Yesterdaysfire (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)