User talk:力

• Instead of posting that barn-star or cat picture: maybe you should go to my user page, pick a page listed under "Articles that need improvement", and make an improvement.
• I will generally reply inline to comments posted here, and without using reply-to.

Clarification

That section came from Presidency of Donald Trump, and was stated by someone else. I just expanded based on the Wikipedia consensus, although I don't consider Trump one.

PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You've just come back from being banned for 2 weeks. Making such a change without discussing it on the talk page first is inappropriate. If you don't stop acting disruptively now, I suspect you will be banned indefinitely by ANI. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

BRD

As you know, this means the pre-edit-warring status should be restored. Please undo your revert. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. This was added as the result of a disputed extended-confirmed-edit request today. The pre-edit-warring status is the one from yesterday, without this event on it. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Babington's tea room

FYI I removed the PROD. It's a famous tearoom. Established in 1893. It is also a very well-known tourist attraction in Rome, which is why I had no trouble adding six sources. 104.163.153.14 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

6 and 15

Please do tell me why you think my edits are disruptive. I have checked what your contributions were to those articles, and they are to delete some very useful information in the mathematics section. Tell me why you think that information is "irrelevant", because in my mathematics department, checking the mathematical properties of a number on Wikipedia is commonplace. Thank you. Johnny3887 (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There must be at least twenty facts of equal notability as "6 is one of only two positive integers that is simultaneously two more than a perfect square and two less than a perfect cube". It might be relevant on a page "List of solutions to Diophantine equations". Power~enwiki (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, a simple misunderstanding, then. In that case, in no way is my editing disruptive; I just added information that you think is better placed somewhere else. I think you are right, but I do not think that this constitutes 'disruptive editing' on my part. Please remove the warning from my talk page. Thanks. Johnny3887 (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to do whatever you want on your talk page, including removing the warning. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Omero

Thanks for your suggestions on the Afd page. Any ideas how to recreate the Omero article to reflect the base in knowledge she brings to Sunday morning TV? I would be happy to research, cite, and write about that. MaynardClark (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to have time to do any work on this until July 11. I see no rush to re-create the article before then. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The Dreme

"no independent claim of notability"? You don't think a whole section of The Cambridge History of English and American Literature is indepndent enough? (See the Further Reading). PamD 22:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I misread that reference as being to another copy of the poem. Looking again, I agree with you. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 力. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (2nd nomination).
Message added 03:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A user posted a comment for you there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

360 days

Hi - Talk:2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis - please open a chat if you want to change the archive time for stale discussions to one year, such a change is imho ridiculous, as you have tried to do that and been reverted, please seek a consensus on the talkpage for your changes, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I added the 21d archiving yesterday for a one-off batch archive; some value between 21d and 360d will likely be appropriate going forward. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

diff - 360 days is a joke, take it to talk and get a consensus, actually 21 days of stale chat is fine for archiving, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Power~enwiki. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 00:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Power. I saw you got this and that you were interested in the push this weekend. If you haven't already, I would recommend reading the tutorial at WP:NPP! Thanks for your interest in new pages! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Is there a page that says what the icons mean when I click through to a page? I don't see it on WP:NPP Power~enwiki (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Also I'd love a WP:BLP filter, but I suspect that doesn't exist. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Help at page curation can be found at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help. WT:NPR serves as the NPP project noticeboard and is useful for both asking questions, reporting issues, and bringing up other things of general interest to people who work in new content. You can suggest new features at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements. They won't get acted upon unless they are placed in Phabricator, but that is a good place to make a note of suggestions to get feedback. BLP would be tough to sort by because not every BLP will be categorized as such at creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 力, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

AE

Kindly show me where it says I'm only allowed to post in my own section, and if I don't, you're allowed to remove my edit. If you can't do both of those things restore my edit to where it was. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Responding_to_requests "If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section." Power~enwiki (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you read to the end of the paragraph? Are you a clerk or arbiter? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you want me to ask ARBCOM if my actions were appropriate? Power~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure ARBCOM has better things to do, and that we both know your action was inappropriate. You're not a clerk and have no right to edit other people's posts. Read WP:TPNO if you have any questions about this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: You are only allowed to post in your own section. It says so at the top of the page.

And Power-enwiki, maintaining decorum at arbitration enforcement is the responsibility of the administrators working there, not yours.

Both of you: Don't disrupt the AE board. Doing so can be a short trip to a long block. GoldenRing (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Scott Drury Page

Is entirely self-promotional (unsigned comment from IP 2602:306:3485:e0f0:c1c0:b5ad:c9fd:35d4 )

Regardless of any potential problems with the article, repeatedly reverting the article to your preferred version is not appropriate. As a specific issue with your edit, some mention of his campaign for governor should be included in the article. Also, details like "a GOFUNDME account was recently created in order to raise the$99 to purchase Scott Drury a clock" are not relevant. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

But first person quotes about obscure court cases from over ten years ago are ok?

If someone wants to clean up that page and restore even a nominal amount of objectivity I would happily step away. It is obvious that the page is being written by either Mr Drury himself or someone in his office in order to create a favorable impression of him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3485:E0F0:C1C0:B5AD:C9FD:35D4 (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Entertainment 'main article' templates

Hi, I noticed you added 'main article' templates to most subheadings of the article entertainment - (diff). I appreciate what you're trying to achieve with that contribution, but I feel that there is now quite a lot of repetition in the lead of each subheading. For example, this is what the "Games" subsection looks like:

=== Games ===
Main article: [[Game]]
[[Game|Games]] are played for entertainment...

In effect, we have the same word repeated thrice - and this is the case for most of the others (banquests, music, comedy, circus, parades etc. etc.) Perhaps the only one that is different is "children" where the main-article is "play (activity)", although that is also linked in the first sentence of that section.
What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure these new templates add information to the reader given that their linked article is the immediately following word (like Games) or in a couple of cases just a few words later (like, "Dance: The many forms of dance..."). At the very least if we keep these 'main article' templates we should remove the links in the first word of the prose for that paragraph, or perhaps remove the templates to return it to how it was when approved for Good Article? Your thoughts? Wittylama 09:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

After looking at a few similar articles such as Law and Food, I agree that there's a bit too much repetition. I'll do another editing pass later today. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You stated that asking for four admins is canvassing. If that's it, may I modify my post and then request just the third closer instead? If that's not it, why saying "canvassing"? --George Ho (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what the WMF is telling you, and if they're telling you that having "four closers" is more meaningful than "two closers" for this RfC, I'm happy to argue with them in person either at their SF offices or at Wikimania. Everyone can tell what the result of the RfC is; I still feel that adding bureaucratic process in the way you are trying to do is in bad faith. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't worked for and don't work for WMF, and that kind of assumption or accusation is something I cannot tolerate. Nevertheless, I'll be happy to amend my request to asking for one more editor if you would approve, or you want me to rescind asking for a third closer, right? I also made comments there. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume that you are discussing this matter with the WMF, if you are this concerned they are going to ignore the consensus? The difference between 3 and 4 closers is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I haven't discussed this with WMF very much, and WMF have not asked or instructed me to have more closers. I just listened to all sides of the matter. Off-topic, but I asked at "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 135#How to best close this discussion?" whether to have one or two closers. One said unnecessary; other said maybe. Therefore, I went to WP:AN and asked for two closers. Then... voila, a fully detailed summary of the discussion. Anyway, one question: what do you think should one or two closers do to the arguments favoring other options and/or opposing that option and/or concerning about that option? --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You did read User talk:Guy Macon#Third closer necessary for referrer info RfC? where I gave my reasons for requesting more closers, right? Could you please explain, in detail, any flaws that you see in my reasoning, and the exact section of WP:CANVASSING that you believe is being violated? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't read that specific page before, but I did read the previous "request for more closers" on WP:AN a few weeks ago, and have read the proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps canvassing isn't the right word. My point stands that it's ridiculous that you should need additional admins to close the RfC. If you are trying to do so because the WMF feels it will be helpful, I will gladly argue with them about it. If you feel on your own that it is helpful, I will gladly argue with you about it. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I can close this and move my comments to your talk page, if you prefer. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I will talk about it there. You may wish to repeat your NSPORTS argument on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note

I was leaving neutrally worded notices, specifically only using the {{Afd notice}} template, on WikiProject talk pages.

Zero user talk pages. Sagecandor (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You did so on TWENTY-FIVE pages! I feel that is clearly canvassing. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't mention my opinion whatsoever, but rather chose to instead use the {{Afd notice}} template, which is expressly for this exact purpose. Sagecandor (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

about the DevOps section in Information_technology_operations

I think if there's going to be a section on DevOps maybe go over the industry evolution of how typically IT Operations (ops) was considered separate from Engineering (devs) and now DevOps emphasizes the need for closer collaboration. Otherwise I think the wiki page stands on it's own without reference to DevOps. Or in other words, I'm thinking: "the structure of Wikipedia page don't have to mirror a particular view of how businesses should be structured". Anyway, just thoughts I'm not married to.

Sp00nfeeder —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You're somewhat right

You're somewhat right, in that talk page is different than main article space.

But about WP:No original research, I think, unfortunately, you are confused about that policy on Wikipedia.

It means we can't do our own research.

It means we can't make up our own assumptions and then put that in Wikipedia article mainspace.

Hope the above is helpful to you. Sagecandor (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not an assumption that over 100 sources on the article are from after 2008, and none are from before 2008. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, you're right about that. Thanks for acknowledging the huge amount of effort I put into the research on the page, Power, I really appreciate that ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Accidental Click

Hello User:Power~enwiki, I apologize for the revert here. I was scrolling through my watchlist and accidentally clicked 'rollback'! Cheers, Anupam^Talk 06:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop following me

Power,

Can you please stop following me to pages unrelated to previous areas of interaction, as you did, at DIFF ?

Thank you for respecting this request,

Sagecandor (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to repeat once more that your ownership issues regarding Donald Trump-related issues are, IMO, in extreme violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and in a Discretionary Sanctions area. If you don't act in a more collaborative way with other editors I intend to start an ARBCOM case against you in the very near future. I will obviously look at your edit history in filing such a case, if it becomes necessary. Apart from that, I will refrain from following you, and am already refraining from editing article pages you are contributing to. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)