User talk:Girth Summit

IP Editing

Dear Girth, I recently received a message regarding an edit associated with an IP address from O2/Telefonica. First, I am a Registered User (AOR) but I was shocked to realise that Wikipedia allows edits from complete "randoms" with no accountability. Second, given that this system is so easy to abuse, I would like to know how Wikipedia decided that this was ever a good idea or how it prevents innocent users from being affected. All I see recently is a very large drop in quality and less reliable information. Please use your influence to rid us of these idiots. I realise that we would like to keep Wikipedia "open" but "wide open to abuse" will just lose everyone's "trust". 82.132.218.227 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Jimmy.Plus (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jimmy.Plus: Hi, thanks for reaching out. I think I can explain what's happened here:

• I'm not an expert on IP addresses, but my understanding is that ones like yours can be shared by multiple users - not simultaneously, but when you log in to your network, O2/Telefonica will assign you an address - they might commonly assign you the same one, but it might be used by someone else when you're not using it.
• The reason you saw the message is because you were not logged into your Wikipedia account - if you log into your account, you will only see messages intended for yourself, not for anonymous users of your IP address.
• Wikipedia has always allowed people to edit anonymously. As a recent change patroller, I frequently see good edits from IP users; on the other hand, I also see a lot of vandalism. We have a range of tools to help us identify and fight the vandalism however, such as protecting pages from IP edits, and blocking specific IP addresses from editing. Don't worry though - even if your IP address ended up getting blocked because someone else was using it for vandalism, you would be OK because you have already created your account. So long as you log in, you would still be able to edit.
• As for my influence to change anything, I'm afraid that's pretty minimal! I do what I can to fight vandalism and protect the quality of content on Wikipedia, that's really all we can do. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Further Girth Summit's points, I'd like to add that it is entirely possible for editors to sign up for multiple accounts with or without IP addresses, and this would be no more or less accountable, as far as I am aware. A user with an account would still have to be blocked by IP in any case. All I can see is that users who edit by account are allowed additional privilages, such as editing semi-protected articles and becoming admins. As such I'm not entirely clear on what you might mean, but if there's something I've overlooked I'm of course very open to dialogue. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For making a sincere effort to welcome someone to Wikipedia and engage constructively. Very impressed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

May I have help?

Hi, Girth Summit! It's me 24escheuanimal. May I have your help? I want to create a signature but I don't know how. Can you help me? Thanks, This is 24escheuanimal by the way. Thank you for always helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24escheuanimal (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 24escheuanimal, sorry for the slow response - I've not been logging in regularly over the holiday season, and I'm now at a conference in the US so pretty busy. Briefly, you can edit your signature by going into 'Preferences' (at the top of the page, near the link to your talk page), and scrolling down to the 'Signature' section. You then code the style you want to use. You can find guidance on how to code it, as well as a few notes on what is and is not allowed, at WP:SIGTUT. Another idea is to look at the coding for other people's signatures you like the look of, simply by going into edit mode on a talk page they have commented on, and seeing how they did it. Make sure to modify it sufficiently so that you make it your own however - you don't want a signature that looks just like somebody else's, it can be confusing for other editors. Hope that's helpful GirthSummit _(blether) 19:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Wikipedia needs more kind people. You answered that call. Thank you for helping 24escheuanimal. 24escheuanimal (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You have a Wikifriend!

	Being a buddy
	Thank you for being a good friend to 24escheuanimal 24escheuanimal (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleting

Why did you delete my editing in some wiki pages. My corrections were actually correct Xeno7 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Xeno7:, thanks for reaching out. I checked through your history, and found the edits I reverted. In both cases, the reason I gave in the edit summary was that your edits broke the formatting of the infobox - did you actually look at the articles after you hit the 'publish changes' button? Inserting text within an infobox without following the template will cause the whole box to display on screen as a bunch of unformatted text - which is exactly what happened in both of those instances.

Additionally, I'd note that you were adding information in the Greek language with Greek characters. This is English Wikipedia, you should use the English language, or explain (in English) why you are inserting text in Greek (if for example it is a direct quote from a source, which you will then go on to translate).

Out of curiosity, I've just entered the text that inserted into Google Translate: 'MOUNTAIN VASES AND TAKE IT OUR OLD CUSTOMERS WILL BE YOU' inserted a the top of the infobox of a professional basketball player, and 'POWDER AND GINNAKOPOULE BURNS' added to that of a businessman. I had assumed that these were good-faith attempts to improve the article by a new user who didn't know how to format infoboxes, but now I'm not so sure - can you explain what you were doing here, or should I just go ahead and report you to admins for vandalism? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Tidewings

Since Tidewings' talk page ended up (by default) on my watchlist after posting warnings of edit warring there, I have been surreptitiously watching your interaction with him. I must applaud your patience in dealing with him. I have been editing articles on Macedonia (both ancient and modern) for a decade now and some of our practices (like not calling ancient Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" in the first sentence) are based on long-standing consensus and compromise among many editors, both Greek and non-Greek ("non-Greek" includes very few actual Macedonians, although new Greek editors think that we all live on the same avenue in Skopje). Whenever there are real-world events in the Greece/Macedonia copyright infringement dispute, new Greek editors arrive to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence of ancient Macedonia articles again (too often by edit warring). The pattern repeats itself so often that it's predictable and new editors like Tidewings simply look like every other previous one. I just wanted to thank you again for your efforts with Tidewings. Perhaps they will pay off. I see that he has at least expanded beyond editing just the one article and is editing on a second one. Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for reaching out. I kind of expected that you might be watching - I know that, if I'd been involved in a dispute with someone, I'd probably have half an eye on their talkpage for a while. I hope you don't take offence at anything I've said in the conversation - if I'm honest, I do think you were a bit bitey, and quick to assume nationalistic motivations. I also think, as I hope I've made clear, that their response to that was disproportionate.

As someone who edits in pseudoscience/medicine areas, I do understand the frustration of seeing new account after new account come along with the same tired old arguments; I know how it can become frustrating. I've been trying to help Tidewings because I genuinely believe in helping new editors get to grips with processes here. We clashed at the article on Feta - I was doing routine anti-vandal work and reverted him, and he reinstated his edit, but at least started a section on the talk page and engaged in discussion - I take that as a sign that they are able and willing to engage in good faith collaboration, if given the right encouragement. We were able to arrive at a compromise that I think actually benefited the article, so I hope that this is an editor who, once they learn how to go about doing things, may be a benefit to the project.

I actually teach on ancient Greece - to nine year olds! So, I have an interest in the area, but am no kind of expert. I appreciate that there is an established consensus position on how we refer to Macedonia on pages like this; I'm not personally seeking to change that, but others are entitled to do so if they have appropriate sources and arguments. I've so far seen neither from Tidewings, but so I have a better understanding of the current position, could you point me to the sources used to support the consensus? I haven't yet read up on the links you provided early in the conversation to discussions back in 2005 - 2010 - if it's all in there then I'll review them, but if there's anything more recent than that I'd be keen to read it.

If nothing else, I'm learning a lot during this discussion! Thanks again for dropping me a note. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I took no offense to anything you said. I do, indeed, bite the new guys and shouldn't. I don't have your patience. As to the matter of calling ancient Macedonia a "Greek" kingdom in the first sentence, if there were specific references used they are buried back in the discussions in the middle of the '00's. The problem is that there are reliable sources that call the ancient Macedonians "Greeks" without a second's hesitation and there are reliable sources that don't call the Macedonians "Greeks" ever or at least without a considerable amount of description of the complexities and differences. The truth is that the ancient Macedonians, at least before Alexander, are probably better described as "almost, but not quite Greeks" or "barely Greeks". There were ancient authors who unambiguously distinguished them from Greeks and there were ancient authors who included them as Greeks (so I always get a chuckle whenever a newbie claims that they have command of the ancient sources--that usually only means that they're a native speaker of Greek, not that they're an expert on the ancient sources). So the compromise that has been worked out amongst (almost) all the long-time editors of these articles, both Greek and non-Greek, is that the first sentence should not make a commitment to the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, but that the complexities should be clearly described in the article--both the similarities and differences, the ways they acted like Greeks and the ways they didn't, etc. If a reader gets through one of these articles they understand the closeness of the Macedonians to the Greeks and that eventually the Macedonians merged into the Greeks. The reader can make their own decision about when the Macedonians became Greek without being forced to adhere to the "Greek" POV from the very beginning. I hope that clarifies the situation. That compromise was probably reached on another of the half dozen articles directly associated with ancient Macedonia and not necessarily in the history of Talk:History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). But the interested editors have applied that compromise throughout the ancient Macedonian suite of articles (although there may be one or two that have slipped through the net). --Taivo (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Then there is the political reason why the compromise was reached: putting "Greek" prominently in the first sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with fairly describing ancient Macedonia and everything to do with planting a Greek flag right up front and poking (modern) Macedonia in the eye with the flagpole. --Taivo (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That does actually sound like a workable and sensible compromise to me - I agree that if it's contested, we should aim to present (and attribute) both sides without taking a view. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:198.97.67.51.

I have not edited Dark Matter and do not recall even reading the page. Hence I have no dispute regarding anything there. 198.97.67.50 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - if you look at your contributions, you'll see that Dark Matter was indeed the last article edited from your IP address before this talk page. It's possible that you share your IP address with other users - I'd recommend that you create an account in that case, to avoid getting messages intended for other people who share your IP address. (Also, if the IP address ends up blocked because of vandalism coming from it, you would be able to use your account despite the block). Hope that helps, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete the Acacia 85 Page

Enjoy your deletion power from Yorkshire, England.

The citation was one book, which posses other citations to multiple sources. We have photos that are entirely in our possession as they were taken by our lodge, paid for by our lodge and maintained and kept and preserved by our lodge. Who do we cite? The book is ours, written by a member of our lodge and owned by our lodge. We cited the book and you boo-hoo it.

Delete the page and finish the conversation and debate about it. The rules of Wikipedia are to assume good faith, but how can a person when someone from on the other side of the world assumes a book is inaccurate or that a photo is not theirs?

No wonder so much foolish or inaccurate information is on Wikipedia......it is too cumbersome, too burdened, too entrenched.....with its "quality assurance" rules. The very same that lead to accurate images and information to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch1640 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Finch1640, thanks for reaching out, and I'm sorry if the nomination has upset you - this is not personal, I have no doubt about your good faith, and I have made no criticism about the book (except to note that it is quite old). This is about WP:NOTABILITY, not the veracity of your source. If you read the guidelines at WP:GNG, you will see what is required to determine the notability of a subject - significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

I have zero deletion power - the notice is to tell you that I have started a conversation about deletion. If, and only if, that conversation establishes a consensus to delete, then an administrator will delete the page. You can join that conversation and add your thoughts. The surest way to avoid deletion will be to find some more sources which are reliable, independent of the organisation, and give it significant coverage - if you find those, I'll happily change my vote to keep.

Finally, my geographic location is utterly irrelevant. Notability is established by published sources only, not by local knowledge. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is an article that was written by our lodge by the Greenwich Free Press. And how do I cite sources for a photo that was taken 100 years ago and paid for by Acacia Lodge? There are in our possession.

https://greenwichfreepress.com/around-town/going-strong-after-200-years-acacia-lodge-lodge-keeps-masons-tradition-alive-in-greenwich-80834/

Here is our website:

https://lodge085.ctfreemasons.net/

Here is a picture of me being installed as Worshipful Master of the lodge, holding its charter from 1858.....if you want me to cite other sources I will literally have to cite the vital records at Town Hall to prove that these people existed. This is all so frustrating.

The lodge and Freemasonry in Greenwich has existed since 1763 in a number of historic buildings, which were referenced. Many of our members were notable people with distinguished histories.

You can purchase a facasimile printing of our history book here: https://www.amazon.com/History-Masonry-Greenwich-Connecticut-1763-1926/dp/1258186152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1548429501&sr=8-1&keywords=masonry+in+greenwich

Or an original, first edition here: https://www.amazon.com/Masonry-Greenwich-Connecticut-1763-1927/dp/B00R0PYO8C/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1548429536&sr=8-3&keywords=masonry+in+greenwich

Clearly there are numberless pages of information on literally any topic on Wikipedia, just Acacia Lodge and its brief, fascinating history is not appropriate.

Please just delete the page and and we'll on from this episode.

Hi ARM.Finch, thanks for reaching out. Are you the same person who posted earlier while logged in as Finch1640, or are you two different people?

As I explained above, I am not disputing the existence of this lodge - rather, I am questioning its notability. If you read the links I provided above, you will see how notability is established on Wikipedia. Websites, articles and books produced by an organisation are not considered when assessing that organisation's notability - we look for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All you have to do to establish notability is provide such independent sourcing.

Should I take your request to delete the page seriously? This question is important, as an author-requested deletion is sufficient grounds for what we call a 'speedy delete' here - in other words, the ongoing discussion at AfD would not be necessary, and an administrator could simply delete the page. If this is seriously what you want, I will make the necessary request. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how citing an independent source is not notable enough, but I understand. Since a Probate Judge of Greenwich, Frederick A. Hubbard wrote the book, who also wrote, "Other Days in Greenwich," was a member of our lodge the source is not independent. Also, the fact that it was written in 1926, seems to have raised questions as well (unfortunately that is the time in which he lived and therefore he could only have written the book during that time period). He wrote the book to commemorate the lodge history and the building of the new masonic temple on 28 Havemeyer Place which was built by distinguished New York and national architects such as Robert Huston and Frederick E. G. Smith. Our first Worshipful Master, Luke A. Lockwood, was a pioneer of his day and even was a friend of King Edward VII, and single-handed wrote the entire jurisprudence for the Grand Lodge of Connecticut which is still in effect for today.

Yes, please just go ahead and delete it. Never using Wikipedia again.

Hi User:Honeywell1640, are you the same person who previously posted here as ARM.Finch and as Finch1640? Sorry to ask again, but since you seem to be using different accounts it's hard to be sure. The article was written by Finch1640, and so the request to delete would need to come from that account.

We generally need significant coverage in two independent sources to establish notability. So far, I can't see any independent sources - you have provided the lodge's website, a book written by a member, a local newspaper article written by a member - but nothing independent of the subject of the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am Finch1640, please delete the page. Also, the newspaper article was written by Leslie Yaeger, she is not a member of our lodge. She is the owner and chief editor of the Greenwich Free Press. She is entirely independent and wrote her own story...I was using an old account (ARM.Finch). Pardon the confusion. Please delete the page and be done with this.

@Honeywell1640: Thanks for confirming. You should be aware that there are specific rules around operating multiple accounts at the same time, and there are steps that you have to take to avoid being accused of sockpuppetry that would likely see your account blocked. Please see WP:MULTIPLE for details.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding about the Greenwish Free Press article - above, you said Here is an article that was written by our lodge by the Greenwich Free Press - I guess you meant that it was written about your lodge rather than by them. If you want to make the case for notability, you could mention this source at the AfD discussion. It's a local paper that writes advertorials for payment, so it would not be given as much credence as history book or a national newspaper, but it might carry some weight.

If you are sure you want me to say that you have requested deletion, would you mind logging in as your Finch1640 account and confirming? I don't have WP:CU privileges, so I am not able to confirm that the two accounts are collocated. I believe you, but need to do due diligence before saying that the author of the article has requested deletion. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

HI

I am new to this. How do I go about updating an existing pages information and photo?

Hi Allmsmusic, thanks for reaching out. First, quick tip - when you leave a message on a talk page, please sign your name - that way I don't have to go into the page history to find out who left it! You can do that by typing four tildes (they look like this: ~ ), or by pressing the button at the bottom of the editing browser called Sign your talk page posts.

Right, how to go about updating information and photos... there's a lot to discuss. I think that the best thing I can do is to put a welcome template on your talk page, which will include a lot of useful links for you to read. I can see that you've been reverted a few times, I'll summarise what the problems were:

• I reverted you because you removed some content without explaining why; the content you remove actually included part of a reference to a cited source, so the content didn't make sense after your change.
• The next set of edits you made (which were reverted) removed some text that was sourced (that means that it had references to published information, so that readers can verify that it was true), and you replaced it with text that was unreferenced - you didn't provide any sources. You have to provide reliable sources for any information you add - you can't just add stuff you know, you have to show where the information comes from so that other people can check that you're right.
• I can't really work out what you were doing with the next set of edits - looks like you added a load of stuff, then you removed it, but you left a couple of random characters on the page, so someone reverted you again.

As for updating images, I'm not an expert on that. There's a load of information at WP:Images, but I can't really tell you too much about the process. One thing you have to be aware of is WP:COPYVIO - you must not upload images that you do not own the rights to, unless you can prove that they have been released for free use under an appropriate license, you can't just grab a picture from a website and put it on a page.

I'll put the welcome template on your talk page now. Long story short, there's quite a lot of ground to cover - I'd recommend starting slow, and building up your editing skills and familiarity with policies and guidelines as you go along. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear

Why did The Essential Adam Ant got deleted for it had a Allmusic review source. Ben2719941 (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ben2719941, thanks for reaching out. Did you read the link I left in the edit summary (NALBUM)? The criteria there call for multiple non-trivial published works. The AllMusic reference is one such review - another such review would be necessary to demonstrate notability. I had a look before redirecting, but I couldn't find any. I've reinstated the redirect for now - if you can find another suitable review, then we could undo the redirect, but please don't reinstate the content before that. Let me know if you'd like me to check any sources for you to discuss whether or not they are suitable. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay then so if I found a second album review for The Essential Adam Ant, the album will be able to go back on Wikipedia?

Ben2719941 _(talk) 13:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - yes, if you can find another significant review, I would be happy to reassess the notability. Note the requirements set out in the link I gave you though - it has to be non-trivial (a proper review, not just a summary or a brief description), it has to be independent (not published by the record company, not a press release reproduced in a magazine, not on a commercial site selling the album) and it has to be in a reliable source (not WP:UGC for example). I'll be happy to take a look at anything you find.

By the way, you shouldn't put my signature after your comments then modify it. You can sign your posts easily by either typing four tildes (~), or by clicking on the 'Sign your posts on talk pages' button at the bottom of the editing window. See also WP:THREAD for information about threading talk page posts. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Will Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars get this sent to him as well because he have been deleting other people sources from Wikipedia when people add The Essential Dragon. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} Here is his user page if you do talk to him. Thanks Ben

Yes can you please take a look what you found for The Essential Adam Ant, I saw someone add Amazon review on The Essential Mi-Sex is that allowed an Amazon review?

Thanks Ben User talk:Ben2719941

Ben2719941

Hi Girth. Unfortunately, Ben is one of those well-meaning but just-will-never-get-it editors. I have been fixing his poor editing since October 2016 when he had user name User:Ben271994. I've tried patience and instruction to get him to learn the ropes but it's been over two years now and his work is only minimally better. For some reason, his recent obsession is creating articles for any album in The Essential series. Typical "sources" he adds are primarily retail and database sites (iTunes, JBHiFi, Spotify, CDUniverse, Discogs). When I've added notability tags to his creations, he often just adds more of the same while removing the tag. I am concerned that he may fall under the WP:CIR umbrella because after all this time he still doesn't understand what notability means despite numerous attempts to explain it to him and his comments when communicating with other has been at times nonsensical, not to mention still not knowing how to thread or sign his posts on talk pages. By the way, I've redirected the Essential Mi-Sex article as well. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

Hello Girth Mr Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars didn’t know that The Essential Human Nature was still On Wikipedia without a review. He keep it there and he didn’t get rid of it until later. He has been telling people off on Wikipedia for no reason. If you seen his messages in my talk page. He has been telling me off for the last whole week. I’m just letting you know what’s been going on. Thanks Ben and I have been deleting bad comments from Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on my talk page because it have hurt my feelings.

Hi Girth Smith

Hello good sir Girth Summit my name is TheMusicMan1994, I'm brand new to Wikipedia, so what are the rules for edding? Please let me know Thanks (talk) 8:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs)