User talk:LJF2019

This is LJF2019's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 10 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|LJF2019}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archival

The page has been archived. Continue leaving messages below. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello CatcherStorm: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Seasons Greetings

Seasons Greetings

Christmas! Christmas, everywhere,
on every talk page, I do dispair
Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told,
but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD!
So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern
Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.

Keep up the great work, and I hope you have some further mentoring for you soon :) -- samtar ^whisper 16:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Jeremy Chan, CatcherStorm.

Unfortunately Blasher has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I don't think this meets notability guidelines.

To reply, leave a comment on Blasher's talk page. —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sangdun Choi

Hello CatcherStorm. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3), or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Sangdun Choi. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I personally believe this person doesn't meet notability guidelines and the sources clearly indicate a lack of significance. The sources consist of the professor's personal webpage, a link to the university's staff directory, and then the rest are links to the university's school online newspaper, who's subject happens to be the professor. Also, note that all the sources are exactly the same, and are repeated multiple times over and over again. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your response shows a clear lack of understanding of the speedy deletion process. "Doesn't meet notability guidelines" is not a reason for speedy deletion. A credible claim of signficance is a much lower standard than notability. In general, being a professor at a notable university is a sufficient claim to defeat A7. I also note you've apparently made no effort to assess the article subject's Google Scholar presence, an absolutely essential step in assessing the notability of an academic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Apologies for the misunderstanding, I've tagged the article for AfD seeing as its deletion would be controversial CatcherStorm ^talk 05:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David A. Karnofsky

Good evening, CatcherStorm. I would like to ask you for a renewed overview and an approval of the Draft:David A. Karnofsky. In fact, this draft has been recently improved, especially by User:Sarahj2107 (I suppose a lady), who added two reliable references. Thank you. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zbrnajsem: Have you resubmitted the draft? CatcherStorm ^talk 04:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CatcherStorm: I am sorry, not yet, because I am not sure how to do it. I have read your instructions, but am not sure if I then do it properly. Will try it, however. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CatcherStorm: Really sorry, I have done something, but it has possibly not functioned. What to do now? It would be pitty not to have this page on Wikipedia. My wife is a doctor, and she used the Karnofsky scale frequently. So it is of importance. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CatcherStorm: It may be that the draft has now been resubmitted. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Honorable

Extended content

Please do not continue to edit against consensus by adding honorifics to Wikipedia articles. Please also read and understand WP:BRD. If you are interested in forming a larger community consensus on this issue, then feel free to start a centralized RFC over at Talk:The Honourable or some other policy or guideline talk page. However, if you continue to edit war, you will be reported. A formal warning will follow this comment. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: My edits were reverted with no explanation. I know what BRD is and after my edits were reverted, I changed a few of them back before remembering this policy. After they were reverted, I left a question on the talk page of the person who reverted my edits. Please note that I reverted edits once on the given US president page, and not 3 or more times on one page. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. On Wikipedia, the burden is on the editor adding content; this means it is up to you to provide an explanation. Per BRD, if you are reverted, you need to discuss your addition. In this particular case, you additions are controversial and need to be discussed at higher levels, which is why I pointed you elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I honestly don't think my edits were controversial at the time I added the honorific, and I want to note that BRD isn't a policy that's required to be followed. I still don't believe I needed a uw-ewsoft as 1. I didn't revert all of my edits back, and 2. I reverted it once. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your reply. On Wikipeida, some of our most important rules aren't required or policies. I realize that might sound odd, but in practice, good ideas are rarely made into "laws" you must follow. There is no law mandating that you brush your teeth or get enough sleep, but those are good ideas. If you don't follow them, the dentist will either be forced to work on your teeth or they will fall out, and your physiology will decline with less sleep. In the same way, there is no requirement that you discuss after having a bold edit reverted, but if you don't, the policy on edit warring will kick in. I think you'll find, therefore, that good essays and guidelines supplement good policies, so there is no need to require people to follow them. In fact, good essays and guidelines merely expand upon the policies, so I think your approach is entirely wrong. Your edits were most certainly controversial, not just because you were introducing a novel honorific to one page, but they were controversial because many of these articles were of high quality and had been reviewed by the community for accuracy. Finally, your edits were controversial because they could apply to the entire class of articles without previous discussion. Your best step forward is to file an RFC and get wider community input. Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I understand what you mean. I admit my view might've been extremely narrow, as when I edited Barack Obama to add the honorific, my edits were left alone. About 3 editors had made other changes to the article with the honorific still up, so I assumed that there was no community consensus specifically against the addition of an honorific to the POTUS' page. If there was a discussion specifically regarding this, could you direct me to it? CatcherStorm ^talk 07:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed edits on high traffic pages does not mean they are acceptable by default. It can easily mean that nobody saw them, particularly as we go into winter break when most editors are on holiday. I catch previously undetected vandalism all of the time; it doesn't mean other editors accepted it. Again, you are reversing the burden by asking me to prove why it isn't acceptable, but the burden is on you to show that it is. You've now appropriately posted a request for discussion, but you haven't filed the appropriate RFC to advertise the discussion. You've claimed that this honorific is a "formal" manner of address for American presidents, but I have seen zero evidence this is true. And given our article on Mr. President (title) and the history of opposition to such formal honorifics, it appears extremely unlikely. What I think you are really getting at is etiquette, which is entirely separate and distinct from a formal honorific. That's where your confusion lies. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Alright. I see what you mean. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good job adding the RFC tag, but don't add it to the top of the page. It needs to be added just above your original question at the bottom in the same original section. After you do that, simply delete my comment. I would do it for you, but the request will add my sig instead of yours. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Have I done it correctly? CatcherStorm ^talk 07:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have stray characters that need to be deleted. Please remove "07:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)" from the top. And consider neutrally advertising your RFC on the relevant WikiProjects and naming convention talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the bot listing and it was completely blank because you left stray timestamp characters. The bot won't add any text after characters like this. Please read the instructions and try again. You almost got it right. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Ok, how about now? CatcherStorm ^talk 08:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, but the bot has to cycle through first, so we won't know until it adds it. I don't understand why you changed the original question with your new edit. Now there isn't anything for an editor to respond to in the RFC. You changed it from a specific question, which is what the RFC is for, to a request for discussion, which is not oriented to an RFC. There's a big difference. Nobody is going to respond to a request for discussion; they are going to respond to a specific question. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the honorific is not sourced and does not help readers. In practice it is rarely used. It is NEVER used for dead people so all the dead presidents involve a misuse. Source: " The courtesy title the Honorable is used when addressing or listing the name of a living person. When the name of a deceased person is listed it's just (Full Name) + Office Held that is pertinent to the story being told for which the photo is included.....it would never be The Honorable John F. Kennedy. Robert Hickey Rjensen (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but the user needs to discover this for themselves. CatcherStorm, the bot successfully listed your RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. However, since you removed the original question, there's nothing for anyone to respond to here. Asking "can we generate consensus" is the purpose of the RFC, but you have to have a specific question to generate consensus about. I recommend going back and adding specific questions people should address or answer. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Do I edit Talk:The Honourable or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law? CatcherStorm ^talk 10:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The former. Currently, RFC listing pages are updated only by bots. Look at the page history to get an idea. It's up to you at this point. You could go back and add questions or options for people to discuss, as I think that would help a great deal. Also, look at other RFC questions on the listing page to get an idea of how to do it. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I need help regarding the RfC issue above ^^^ and I'm also wondering why I haven't received any requests for comment from Legobot, even though I signed up for the FRS. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the issue regarding RfC has been resolved? I get relatively few messages from Legobot, normally around two a month so give it a while -- samtar ^whisper 09:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:36:39, 24 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Prabhat 9

Prabhat 9 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jubin Nautiyal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, This is in reference to the article "Jubin Nautiyal",which was declined. This was declined earlier citing reasons of inadequate sources.So,I now have furnished enough references(22 already) so that the information is verifiable.But,the article has not been accepted.He indeed is one of the young notable contemporary singers of India.Please guide me through this. Thanking you...!! Prabhat 9 (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat 9 (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prabhat 9: Have you heard the term "quality over quantity"? This applies here. Though you might have added a large amount of new references, that does not necessarily imply these sources are reliable. See this Wikipedia content guideline for help regarding this. Once reliable sources have been added to your draft, which effectively demonstrate that the subject is notable, I'll be more than happy to accept your draft. CatcherStorm ^talk 11:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]