User talk:Herostratus

Reversion of Removal of Questionable Citation For The Onion

Regarding your reversion of the edit noted here, please look at the “citation”; it is simply a click-bait blog that discusses “25 Years of The Onion Making Fun of Dentist Conventions.” You’ve got to be kidding me that should stand as a citation when the history—and founding—of The Onion is far from secretive and is very clearly discussed in detail in the publication’s history section itself. There are many publications that are not The New York Times used as citations. No need to add some desperate click-bait blog’s rehashing of information they most likely culled from this Wikipedia article itself. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, fine, if you feel that strongly about it. But I mean, really:

• You're not maintaining that the reference isn't true. If you were doubting the veracity of the ref that'd be one thing. But you're not.
• And in every likelihood it is true: they are a business and they have no incentive to lie about this fact or to not care if they get their facts wrong. It's not just some random person's blog but a page of a websiste that appears to be a thriving business that has a professionaly-staffed website. They may very well have another set of eyes (or more) going over these pages, besides the writer.

So you just don't like the source. But fine, maybe you're right so I'm not going to argue about this. I'll tag it for {{citation needed}} and probably we can get a better ref that way. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Utterly unbelievable logic here. I “don’t feel strongly” past two solid facts: The site used as a citation is very clearly a click-bait site that just compiled a list of “dentist convention” articles from The Onion and that’s it. Within the article itself there is utterly no citation whatsoever of where that odd “Aug. 29, 1988” date came from and all “sources” are just cited arbitrarily from other sites. But your claim of “…but a page of a websiste that appears to be a thriving business that has a professionaly-staffed website.” is past belief. It’s not. It takes two seconds for anyone in the world to launch a blog, add tons of affiliate ad accounts and suddenly become a website. That does not mean they can be considered a source of valid information. Especially when the core of their articles is just a list of items designed to be clickbait. Simple as that. And again, you want solid citations from legitimate sources, guess what? Scroll down in the article itself which is filled with citations. Simple as that. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to argue the point when I'm not even fighting you? You repeat "click-bait" as some kine of mantra as if it has some kind of meaning. It doesn't, it's just a random pejorative that doesn't tell anything about the reliability of the ref. I agreed with with you to allow removal of the ref and tagging it as uncited instead. As to the rest, let's just agree to disagree and move on, colleague. Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I’m “arguing” with you since utterly anyone with any basic sense of how citations work in the world—on Wikipedia and elsewhere—can logically deduce that a website that has a zillion ads pop up, provides no sources and just provides an on “25 of something” list is not a reliable source. The idea that someone who claims to have been editing on Wikipedia since 2005 yet somehow defends a horrible citation like that really baffles me. So I need to personally state your POV on this matter is not only entirely wrong, that I am fairly confident if your POV were to be brought up with other Wikipedia editors who have deeper experience than the both of us, you will still be proven solidly wrong. You might want to step back and realize what citations are, what proper sources are and why they are valuable to Wikipedia. Encouraging the use of crappy sources results in crappy content. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. "Smartmeetings" seems to be a legit business. It doesn't look like its run out of somebody's basement, although you never know. I'm not sure what your point is about them being unreliable. Yes they're a commercial site, but their commercial interest doesn't extent to the content in question. In other words, they have not commercial interest in lying about when the Onion was founded. There's no benefit to them, AFAIK, in making the Onion to appear to have been founded earlier or later than it actually was.

Right? Can we agree on that? Hopefully we can agree on that.

OK, moving on, how carefully are their facts checked? Probably not very carefully is my guess. although it's hard to know for sure. They probably don't have a separate editor going over the material checking every fact. They might. This does not appear to be a one-person operation. It might be a ten-person operation though, I don't know. In any case, let's assume there's not a rigorous fact-checking operation, so we're thrown back on the writer. Well the writer is the organization ("Smart Meetings"). So we've granted that they don't have an incentive to lie on purpose. But do they have an incentive to not care whether or their facts are right or not, or do they lack the competence to know how to determine if their facts are right or not?

I don't know. I doubt that they'd just pull "Aug. 29, 1988" completely out of their hat, as that sort of approach to facts, if pursued generally, would probably not be a good business practice, overall, and they would eventually go out of business (if its an organizational approach) or be fired (if its an individual writers approach). This is true of newspapers and other sources we use.

So they probably got the info somewhere. They seem to be a functioning organization, staying in business, so they probably have some level of competence to tell shit from shinola, so to speak. So my guess is its not complete nonsense. It's better than nothing which was your preference, and sufficient to support the assertion subject to a cry for a {{better source}}. I see that you did add a citation, which is the desired outcome. Your citation is to an entity called Paste Magazine. If Paste is a print magazine, great, but if its just online -- which anybody can make an online website in 15 minutes, right? -- I don't know if it's better ref than the previous one. Probably is. These things are hard to know for sure.

BTW a lot of this drawn from Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist, which I wrote and which you might want to read through before coming to people's talk pages and slinging unfounded insults. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick question

Hope you don't mind that I'm posting this here, but I've noticed a few of your responses at WP:HD and figured you might be able to help with this. In a WikiProject, I started an informal RfC to get feedback from other WikiProject members. Is there an alert bot or some other method I can use to send a notification of the talk page discussion to all of the WikiProject members? The number of users we're talking about here is relatively small (less than a 100), and so I could do this by hand, but it would be nice if there was an automated way in place already. I know when a Newsletter is created, for example, notifications to all members are sent out. I was hoping to replicate this for a particular talk page discussion. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind. No there's no automated bot that I know of. We're probably kind of leery of having bots under individual control that send automated messages to talk pages -- it could be seen as a form of spamming. Presumably active project members are watching the project talk page. Herostratus (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I completely understand the point about "spamming". After digging through my talk page history, I found that one of the project members used EdwardsBot (diff) to send out the Newsletter. Guess I could look into that if needed, or not since it's no longer active! Thanks again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Iraq national team in 2014 removal request

Hi,

I wanted to delete all the national team pages because I merged it into one page to keep it simpler to manage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_national_football_team_records_and_statistics

If you would like to help me deleting the other pages, I would be grateful.

I responded on your talk page, to the effect that you can just make the existing pages be redirects rather than deleting them. Herostratus (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks bro! You too Steel Dogg (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Taki's Imperial Japanese Army Page

I saw you had a query as to this website when you used it as a source recently. It is considered RS given armor historian Steven Zaloga used it as a source for his 2007 book Japanese Tanks 1939–45 and mentions it on page 43, that the website is good for its "extensive coverage of Japanese tanks and tank history". Also, "Taki" is Akira Takizawa, co-author of the 2008 book: World War II Japanese Tank Tactics, Osprey Publishing. Kierzek (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh OK. Did not know this, so its probably OK to remove the "better source needed" tag. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe so based on the expert opinion of Zaloga and the fact the gentleman is a published author on the subject by a known publishing house. Kierzek (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pull quotes

Regarding Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation, I never quite understood why the MOS is so adamant on this issue, it even uses strong word like "especially avoid". Surely something important was at stake. I think it would be worth to find out what exactly. In the meantime, it's interesting to note that the mobile version of Wikipedia renders {{quote}} with decorative quote marks! (black instead of the blueish of {{Pull quote}} but otherwise almost identical) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

About the mobile version: huh, but then why not. It's a typical and functional way to show that it's a quote, after all. Well I hope you will Support the change over at the RfC. And no, as far as I know the reason for the proscription against using quotation marks is just that someone way back in the beginning decided we needed them just for pull quotes. It's just habit and tradition at this point. Herostratus (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably stay neutral. I've always followed the MOS and template documentations, whatever they say. If those change, I'll change. And thank you for incorporating the MOS bit into the RFC, as well as that observation on mobile Wikipedia above. I think it's valid evidence for those who wish to form an opinion on this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well but what? Always following the MOS and documentation is not a reason for not taking a position on a change to the MOS. Right? If you're a stickler for following the MOS, you should note that there in September 2011 there were 17,000+ uses of {{cquote}} (probably more now, I don't know how to get the figures), and all of them (or 99%) were in violation of the MOS. Don't you want the MOS to reflect actual usage? Either way, since you've take the time to look into the question, why not take a stand. We need a supermajority to bring the MOS into line with practice, and there will doubtless be Oppose votes. Herostratus (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason, aside from the substance of the proposal and the problems it presents and would worsen, my reaction again the RfC was so strong was because of it's venue and nature. The proper way to change a guideline is to go to the guideline page and make a case for why consensus can change, not to try an end-run around consensus by hosting an anti-guideline RfC at a talk page frequented by no one but huuuge fans of abusing the template in question for decorative purposes. This is basically no different from trying to change some other guideline via a back channel, e.g. trying to change WP:RS and its admonition against treating unpublished manuscripts as reliable sources by hosting an RfC to push for this change at Template talk:Cite arXiv, on the basis that this template has been [mis!-]used thousands of times to do so. In reality we have the template for a completely different and uncommon purpose, namely providing convenience links to archived ("arXiv'ed"?) pre-press copies of papers that have been published in reputable journals, but whose "official" copies are behind paywalls). Your case and that hypothetical case are actually rather closely parallel, in multiple ways. The fact that we've retained pull quote templates, specifically documented for use only as pull quote templates, does not mean that abuse of them for decorative and misleading purposes is magically permissible just because it's been hard to stop people from doing it. There are technical solutions to both problems, e.g. making {{Cite arXiv}} throw an error if it is not used in conjunction with another citation template, to the RS journal or book, inside the same <ref>...</ref>, and using a namespace test to permit the decorate quote templates on user and projectpages but not in articles, since there is increasing evidence of consensus that WP should not be using actual pull quotes in articles at all, a point I see below that you seem to agree with.

Anyway, my point was not to "get into it" with you on a personal level. I just have serious concerns about a) the desire for WP to look better being used as an excuse to just let anything that someone thinks "is attractive" be permitted regardless of the fallout (see again bottom of my talk page for detailed analysis of why these templates are often content-harmful, violate core content policies, and end up being "reader-hateful" instead of reader-friendly); b) the WP:PROCESS problem of trying to get around consensuses people don't like with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stuff (even if not intentional; I make no allegation that you're WP:GAMING at all); and c) the general emboldening effect such activities have toward the "let chaos reign" and "fuck the MoS" and "down with all rules" contingent (whose ranks have swollen as WP attracts a "third wave" of editors, almost all millennials who grew up on blogging and "reality" TV, the invasion of advertising and PR into every possible cranny, and shamelessly biased news, and who were not around for WP's formative years and the seriousness with which things like NPOV are taken, in very subtle ways missed by noobs). I share your frustration with the fact that trying to change a guideline at the guideline's own talk page is difficult and slow; I've been trying to fix a policy conflict at WP:MEDRS for about two years. Each time I bring it up, I get slightly more traction, and I expect that it will be resolved some time in 2017 or 2018, despite the fact that it should have been fixed in 2014 (or never arisen at all). In this quote templates case, there's not even a policy conflict to resolve, just an "I want WP to look different/more jazzy, and to have a more freewheeling layout" desire, which is a harder sell, especially if going that route may create policy conflicts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

OK! It's OK. I've been around the track, I'm not bothered by any of this. One point: I was not trying an end-run around WP:MOS! I didn't even know the MOS mentioned the issue, I had forgotten about PW:BLOCKQUOTE... and as soon as this was pointed out, I posted a prominent notice at the MOS talk page pointing to the RfC. Ideally the discussion would have been at the MOS talk page, I agree. However, since 1) I already started it at the template talk page, and 2) after all most of the proposed changes are to the template, and 3) a pointer to the RfC was quickly posted at the MOS talk page, I think it would just have caused confusion to try to move it, and it's OK where it is, with the pointer in place? Hope you agree.

As to the merits, a lot of it does come down to opinion. I look forward to looking at your points in detail (soon, not right now) and engaging in no-holds-barred debate on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Coolio, and yes, I retract "trying"; that does seem to imply intent when I say I'm not trying to imply intent. Just sloppy wording. Despite the length, I wrote that on my way out the door to work (I type really, really fast).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not quite pull quotes

Rather than clog up your RfC, I thought I'd just mention to you here an example of pull quotes being used at Philippe I, Duke of Orléans #Homosexuality. Except that it doesn't use the {{pull quote}} template; it uses a custom 1986 box. Still a pull quote, though. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Right. Huh. Well, as I said, I'm not here to preclude or prevent the possibility of a rare occasional pull quote, if another editor in his wisdom deems it suitable, and by "never used for actual pull quotes" I mean "never, within a rounding error (that is, less than 0.5% if instances)". I myself would question whether using the quote twice in the article like this is helpful, but I haven't studied the matter.

Heh, it's amusing that the one use (so far) that we've seen of pull quotes doesn't use {{tl}pull quote}}... Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Semantometrics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to JISC

Watertown Red & Black (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pop Warner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gasthaus Gutenberger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stein

Malaya Sadovaya Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander II

Systempunkt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Robb

Wayne Wilder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bass

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah

Hello! Your submission of Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah 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! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 21:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC about quotation boxes.

Hello Herostatus. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, OK. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amadee Wohlschlaeger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Louis County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

In all that, did you see my link?

• User:Lingzhi/sandbox.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't. To the extent that it's a complete rewrite of the existing article (I haven't done a text comparision but it look it: the section are all different for instance) this makes it very hard to review. Generally, we work with change-a-paragraph-here and add-or-delete-a-couple-sentences-there. One reason being that a complete rewrite discards the previous work (which doesn't appear called for in this case). I like to build on existing work. There are other reasons... it's much easier for a crowdsourced article to ensure that there's no original research I think...

Anyway I don't have to refs to really check your material. I'll take a look at some if I can... Herostratus (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have almost all of the sources.... The mainspace article is crap. It's not just kinda crappy; it's top-to-bottom crap. Starting all over again is the only feasible way. Having said that, the topic at hand is HUGE, as I indicated earlier. That famine was a head-on collision of a number of different forces that had been building for at least several decades. And to make matters worse, no one really even knows the real reason, because no one was carefully recording events. Was it FAD or FEE? No one knows! No one knows how much damage the brown spot disease did to the crops. That sort of damage is not readily visible to the casual observer; the disease doesn't make rice plants melt into dust. It makes them far less productive (but they are still standing there). So if anyone just kinda drives by in a car or glances from a roadside a few yards away, they'll think, hey, the crop wasn't hurt. And on and on and on. There are MANY facets to this problem... I have only discussed one here...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well... OK. I mean I don't have the expertise or sources or really the acuity gainsay you... we'll have to see how it plays out...

I'm skeptical. The article doesn't look like crap. I'm also skeptical of " No one knows! (but I do)". If truly "No one knows!" then just leave it out.

The whole thing makes me nervous that you're approaching this as a historian or professor would. That means original research. I'd rather see a good roundup of the current mainstream beliefs about the matter. Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) I didn't say "No one knows (but I do)." I said, "No one knows, including me... but I am not currently aware of any Wikipedians who seem to have a clue about the very large scope of this issue (though of course all or at east most scholars in the field do). As for WP:OR, geez, I've been around for 10 calendar years (active seven), have six FAs, have very often participated in FAC, etc. That doesn't mean my poop doesn't smell, but hopefully it should mean that I do know what WP:OR is. I am trying to round up current beliefs... The article is crap because it elides many important issues, and spends a lot of time gurgling on about moderately important ones... and because over its history various editors have muddled it up with their emphases on at least three different hobbyhorses... etc. If you actually wanna engage this topic, I'm happy to email you any source that I currently have. I expect this article to be in my sandbox (not mainspace) at least a couple more months. Seriously.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

OK fine, right, I believe you. Herostratus (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you wanna work on this, drop me a line. Always welcome. Do you want me to try to answer your questions on the article's talk? I can try, but the main problem withe the text is not any one detail.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not in my wheelhouse to work on stuff like this -- I have a short attention span and have trouble digging deep into a subject. I also don't have the refs of course. I'll help where I can. If you have a specific thing I can do, I'll do if able.

No you don't need to answer the questions. Don't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited F. M. Howarth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pattern maker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

failed verification in Antoine (musician)

Hello Herostratus. I can't find support for "He was graduated from the Lycée Champollion in Grenoble, excelling in advanced mathematics." in the self-sourced bio referenced. I don't know much French so perhaps you can help me out here. I'm not finding any mention of mathematics. Thanks Gab4gab (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. I breezed past "I was a brilliant student, earning a full scholarship" without noting that it didn't mention math specifically. I did have another source indicating that, but I can't find it anymore... don't know why I didn't use it. But OK you are right. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Herostratus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich

Hi I'm surprised you would undo @Jytdog:'s removal. This seems to violate the ARBAP2 ruling. Please consider a self-revert and continuing discussion on talk. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with ARBAP2. What is it? The edit summary was "this is NYC's tabloid. Not the kind of source we want in a controversial article". But the New York Daily News is a reasonably respectable paper AFAIK. It's just a regular newspaper I believe. It's printed in a tabloid format, but so? It's not tabloid journalism and I've never heard anyone say it is before this. If it was a recent addition and reverted perWP:BRD, that's different. But that's not what the summary says, If ARBAP2 says "Jytdog can delete any sources he wants to and can't be gainsaid" that's different. Does it? Herostratus (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's recent. The whole article is recent. I'll post the ARBAP2 details here FYI. They are for your information and should not be taken as an accusation. I think you should reverse your undo of Jytdog. You seem to be saying that it's OK since you're right and he's wrong, but of course that's the stuff of edit wars, not resolution. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm right (neither does he) but I think I probably am. I mean, I recently thought the Daily Telegraph was a poor source, I took it Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and I learned that it wasn't a poor source, and fine.

Similarly, Jytdog can open a discussion about whether the the New York Daily News is a good source. Either on the article talk page, or I would recommend at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I think he'll be told it's an OK source -- it is after a mainstream major newspaper in a very large city and a large circulation with AFAIK decent fact-checking and reputation for veracity -- but maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to find out.

What I mean by "new" is, if you think the material was inserted recently enough that it's subject to WP:BRD than fine, revert it. However, WP:BRD is only useful for reverting to a previously existing stable version, and if there isn't one... I dunno. Read the rule.

OK thanks for the pointer to the ArbCom thing. I guess you can bring me up on charges if you want to. I'm perfectly willing to take the New York Daily News to the RS Noticeboard, but I just did one of those and I don't think I should have to all the heavy lifting. You do it. Herostratus (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Sanctions Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unified Deep Water System of European Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Herostratus. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia e-mail.
Message added 16:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library - Newspapers.com

Hello Herostratus Just thought I'd let you know that your account is now active for Newspapers.com. Happy Editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I tested it. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

MOS rfc closed

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_184

Dropping you a note as you started the rfc.

Obviously the close does not preclude followup RfCs on style, nor the current rfc on pull quotes.

Hope this helps. - jc37 00:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jc37:Well OK, fine. This is fine and I have no objection. But a couple things:

First thing -- what do do about pull quotes.. Close the new RfC as "Accepted"?

I originally conceived the RfC as prompt for general discussion, not necessarily set up for an up-or-down vote on any proposal. (This was mainly at the request of another editor who wanted to go slow). (There's absolutely nothing wrong with teasing forward our of such an RfC, though, as you did. These things develop an organic momentum of their own.)

But anyway, because of this, and because the RfC had been archived without being closed, I assumed it wouldn't be closed. Therefore I went ahead with another RfC, which was a specific yea-or-nay proposal with exact specific edits proposed. It is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes. As you can see it also has been quickly sent to archive without being closed.

Nevertheless, I feel confident that, between your close of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_184 and the obvious trend at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes, there is support for the changes proposed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Specifics, and examples.

Normally, I would feel OK with closing this myself, but I fear being accused of bad faith by one particular editor. Would you do the honors of closing this, or re-adding to the active talk page, or requesting another person to close it, or whatever you think best? Thanks! (The precise edits to be made are layed out; I, being familiar with these various template, would be glad to make them following another editor adjudicating that the proposal is accepted.)

Second thing -- boxes around quotes, specifically. Close the old internal sub-RfC?

Although I originally conceived the RfC as just a prompt for general discussion, another editor did create a yea-or-nay subthread for a specific proposal within the RfC. A little unusual, but fine. That subthread is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes. It is specifically to overtly allow {{Quote box}} to be used and recommended (in addition to {{Quote}} for quotes. It draws a line around the quote.

My take on this is that the proposal was accepted. There was 20 support against 9 oppose, 29 editors being a reasonable quorum IMO. And not only that but some of the oppose argument were a bit weak in my trying-to-be-evenhanded opinion, although someone else might disagree. (It's all discussed in the "Summary to date, and thinking about next steps" subsection at the bottom.)

Being cautious, I was thinking of running another RfC to avoid accusations of bad faith (as you see if you read that thread, there were some). However, TBH I think you or anyone could and probably should close that sub-RfC as either Accepted or Not Accepted. Not Accepted would be surprising IMO, but its out of my hands.

Are you willing to do this, or hand it to someone who will? If I get an adjudication I can do the edits in the appropriate places. Let me know, and sorry for the length of this. Herostratus (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

<humour> I see how it is, I help out on Wikipedia, and then someone finds more work for me to do? - will this inbox ever get clear? </humour>

: )

Kidding aside, sure. I'll be honest and say I may or may not read over all that today (though I seem to remember reading some of this already), but sure, I guess I'll go see what I see. - jc37 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OK great! Herostratus (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Herostratus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Louis DaPron page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

"weaned on a pickle". Never before have I laughed aloud at a Wikipedia comment. Thank you. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Not original with me. It was someone's (Dorothy Parker?) characterization of Calvin Coolidge, I believe. Herostratus (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

For future reference

I've had in the back of my mind to memorialize diffs of two things you've said recently on the subject of giving content creators the dignity of deciding certain minor stylistic decisions. But for the life of me I can't locate either of them.

• One was a discussion somewhere in which you made a long post, which I immediately complimented as "one of the most beautiful" (or maybe "one of the best") posts on the subject of drive-by editing/worthless wikignoming/something like that ever; then I said maybe you and I should write an essay together. This was maybe 2 to 6 weeks ago. [Later...] I recall now that you enumerated five reasons for your position, and then said you could probably give more.
• The other was in the last few days -- you used the term stare decisis.

Can you find those for me, pretty please? Here's a list of our "interactions" [1] -- maybe something will ring a bell. EEng 01:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty please? EEng 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, of course, sorry. I was about to get to it. The wheels grind slowly at Casa Herostratus. For the first item, my full post was

This is certainly something that should be left up to the individual editor, for various good reasons. One good reason is that (as we can see above) there is no one clear correct or better way. A second good reason is that adding another needless rule bogs down the MOS with more detail and makes it harder to learn and harder to use. A third good reason is that creating a rule means enforcement, it puts interactions about the matter into an enforcement mode where editors are playing rules cop with other editors and this is not as functional as peer-to-peer interactions. A fourth good reason is that there's zero evidence that it matters to the reader.

A fifth good reason is that micromanaging editors to this level is demoralizing and not how you attract and nurture a staff of volunteer editors (for instance we have a stupid micromanaging rule that I have to write "in June 1940" and not "in June of 1940" which is how I naturally write, and every stupid micromanaging rule like this is just another reason to just say screw it. As the Bible says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" (1 Timothy 5:18, paraphrased from Deuteronomy 25:4) which updated means "Let the editor who did the actual work of looking up the refs and writing the friggen thing -- you know, the actual work of the project -- be at least allowed the satisfaction of presenting it as she thinks best, within reasonable constraints".

That's five and that ought to be enough although I'm sure I can come up with more if pressed.

If you run into a situation where (as the OP noted) "In this edit, Mitch Ames removed the italics from "right" that I had just added" then play it as it lays, guided by WP:BRD. Anything that you add is subject to redaction and then discussion per WP:BRD. In this case, Mitch Ames would have been well within his rights. WP:BRD in these cases just means "I liked it better before, prove your edit is objectively an improvement". Your options are to let it go (recommended!) or open a thread on the talk page and maybe you can convince Mitch Ames and the other editors that, after all, the italics are an improvement in this particular case (if that's how you want to spend your energy).

Conversely, if the italics had been there for a while (sufficient to be part of the stable version of the article) then the removal of the italics would be subject to rollback per WP:BRD and you would be within your rights to roll back the change.

This means different articles will do it differently. This annoys a certain type of editor. Oh well.

The refs to the biblical passage (which I surmise is the heart of what you found excellent -- all props to the bible-writing dudes) were added by someone else, perhaps you. The original thread can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 188#How_to_indicate_which_person_is_which_in_a_caption.

It'd be great if you added that to a essay we could call, something along the lines of "don't micromanage, and don't overly worry about minor stuff".

The stare decisis thing, I don't remember. Sorry. I just can't recall using it recently, or at all actually. I can imagine myself using it along these lines: "If you come across a passage that you might have written differently, leave it alone on the principal of stare decisis (does not apply if the material is truly dreadful)". Or something like that.

Always glad to see you around in these discussions BTW. You strike me as generally cogent and usually right-minded. Herostratus (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Great! And I found stare d.; it's here. I've enshrined your words in The Museums. EEng 03:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Though not the "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" essay I hope perhaps you and I will write some day, you may perhaps be interested in an essay I've started on a somewhat related topic, WP:Lies Miss Snodgrass Told You. EEng 04:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, will do. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• My latest effort: WP:Principle of Some Astonishment. EEng 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthony Marais

The article Anthony Marais has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable writer. Article contains zero independent sources, language is mostly promotional in nature.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 06:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 184.145.42.19 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Album cover james ramey.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Album cover james ramey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Accident?

Is there a reason you can think of that someone would change your username display? —ATS 🖖 talk 02:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit. Did not see that. I can't think of a reason, I suppose it's just a slip of the keyboard. Herostratus (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, biscuit. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of James McCown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James McCown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McCown until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Place names

Thanks for your comment, just a sidenote: Why do you think the Gdansk vote is "not bearing", it explicitly says: "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)." This is exactly what we are talking about.

And I did not just revert Rocky's edits, I carefully restored the version before the IP edits, it's just much easier to use the "undo" button and edit the preview (we're talking about several dozens of articles, it's a lot of work) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. After looking at the Gdansk vote, I misspoke. (At the same time, it was a long time ago, and we it was centered on Gdansk; a case could be made that it's peripheral to any current general discussion.) It might be that we should have a WP:RFC.

I think that restoring the version before the IP's edits is part of what Rocky is unhappy about. It's a little confusing, but I think that what Rocky did was undo the IP's and also make some changes of his own, at the same time; just rolling all that back deleted all his personal additions, which he felt were OK edits. Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

But he made no personal additions, he only deleted content and replaced a normal sentence structure by a See also section. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that's what I meant; those deletions and replacing the normal sentence structure with a See also section are his additions. FWIW I agree with replacing "for X, see [article]" with a See also entry. That's how we generally do it. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that's the proper approach. Although I do question: is it normal to have a "See Also:(history article)" for thousands of villages in any given region? For example, you don't see a See Also:History of New England on every single page for all the towns in New England, do we? Why are towns in Pomerania any different? It's a leftover from the highly suspicious IP-hopping anonymous user that made these POV edits to formerly-German towns in the first place. Shouldn't it just be removed altogether? Rockypedia (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I question it also. It could be seen as excessive. On the other hand, providing more information and more links to quickly get to more information is good, provided the info is germane to the subject and doesn't overwhelm the reader. The question always is "what best serves the reader?" and sometimes that's hard to figure or a matter of opinion. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Hey Herostratus. Thanks for your direct approach on the Richard Rios page. I wonder if you might take a look at this subject: Bob Milne? I put it up for deletion a while back and I thought it would go through; but a quirky admin wouldn't weigh the 2-1 in favor of delete votes toward consensus. I still believe it isn't strong enough for a BLP inclusion on WP as the only claims to notability are a concert at the Library of Congress (which is no special accomplishment -- anybody can even rent Carnegie Hall nowadays); and a not-so out of the ordinary skill of being able to hear different pieces in one's head -- which I believe most expert musician's can do: conductors, composers, etc. I just can't find anything more that would warrant his inclusion; (and nothing of substantial content has been added since the 1st AfD tag was removed) but I've never put an article up for a 2nd AfD. Would you mind weighing in? or do you have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Enh, thanks but no thanks. I'm an inclusionist now and the Bob Milne article isn't hurting anyone, whereas the Richard Rios article was becoming an actual annoyance. And even though you're right that Milne most probably doesn't meet our notability requirements, at least he's an actual serious artist and not a character in a kid's cartoon show whatever, like a lot of our articles. Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus You make me laugh. Thanks anyway. Happy editing! Maineartists (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Simon Magus

Hello, and good day to you and yours, I, yesterday made the entry Eddie Nawgu , to the simon magus article and you reverted it. I'm sorry I made the error, I just figured I'd include known Sorcerers to the 'see also', list. since they are alike. I would make sure to first consult from you before making changes to sensitive pages.

Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's OK. Relax. Your edit was not an "error". I just didn't agree with it. I understand your reasoning, but I just don't agree that Simon Magus should link to Eddie Nawgu, just because Eddie Nawgu was a sorceror -- it says "Whilst alive he could easily have been likened to Simon Magus" but there's no reference for that an so forth. We want to keep our "See also" sections trim and lean.

You didn't make a mistake. And you certainly don't need to consult me before making such edits, now or in the future. It's a free project and you are allowed to make edits like that and I am allowed to disagree with them, and we can talk about it. Maybe I'm wrong. The proper place for this is the article talk page (Talk:Simon Magus). Right now I see Eddie Nawgu is nominated for deletion, so let's how that goes first, but if it survives, by all means make a new thread on the talk page and make a case that "See also" should include a link to Eddie Nawgu, and maybe people will be convinced. Herostratus (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

DYKs

Nice job on R. H. White. How come no DYK for it? 2600:1002:B119:82BF:55BE:4B8B:9B9E:43B3 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I have done about a dozen DYKs, but the thing is, it's work: you have to vet another DYK to nominate your. And I don't particularly enjoy that task, or really much care if my articles get DYKs. I do do DYKs sometimes when there's something particularly interesting in the article. Herostratus (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Garnet

Well said, [2]. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Heh, thanks.

Now what we really need to do is revive the saying "all Sir Garnet". If we're going to bring back the 19th century, it's as good a place to start as any. I'm doing my part! The downside, of course, it that one comes off as a complete toff. Herostratus (talk)

Hahahah, a toff. But an Oxford educated one, not a toff like a Hooray Henry. I read Sir Garnet's article, btw. He's still relevant and I enjoyed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

=) Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

=). SW3 5DL (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:Ring of Fire (song)

Since when is it "trollery" to be answering a serious question related to the article, and even do so with sources? This is even more ridiculous since Ring of Fire (song) already contains sourced references to the fact that Cash and/or his co-writers used to consistently associate the song with hemmorhoids, and the Fox News source already used in the article for years also states that the existing association to a sore anus is also why the family has licensed the song for a TV ad for spicy foods in the past, even if a more open association such as with Preparation H would be too indiscreet for them. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)