User talk:Majora/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Presidential Election

presidential candidate layout

Hello Stabila711, here is something close to option#E ,[1] which is a (compact && user-sortable) horizontally-oriented table of textual factoids, with a (compact but not quite hover-overlay-compact) gallery below. I will work on upgrading it to option#F (gallery to the right), and then to option#G (staggered gallery to the right with easy correlation between names and pics without the need for captions). Also, ping User:Spartan7W and User:William S. Saturn in case they want to peek at this alternative layout as well. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the gallery would look better if it was left-aligned rather than centered.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:75.108.94.227 The main problem with Option E is that the information is up above and the pictures are all down below. So your eyes constantly have to move up and down as you are reading the chart. People naturally want to view the candidates faces as they read about them and by doing this you have to constantly readjust where you are reading. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like this at all. State shouldn't include their birth state. This really diminishes the purpose which a full table (of which there are plenty in wikipedia) provides, including the fact it dismantles the unique nature of each canddiate's basic background and offices. Spartan7W § 23:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn, and User:Spartan7W, whilst I appreciate your criticisms of my rough draft-option#E, which in fact I'M NOT EVEN SUPPORTING, but would simply like to be listed in a nice clean bangvote section eventually... I would also be appreciative if you two (with help from Stabila711 should they be willing) would go over and clean up that bangvote section, so it is no longer a nightmare of N-deep bicker-threads, please?  :-)     Move all that stuff into the discussion-section, so people can see what the bangvotes are, see what the rationales are, and not get scared away by the huge back-n-forth. p.s. I know that option#E sucks. But it needs to be offered, so that we can achieve consensus that it in fact sucks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll try   Spartan7W §   00:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, gracias. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Voila, option#F,[2] which is pretty close to what I actually think we should do (roughly). Note that table-sorting is totally borked by using the gallery-tag inside the wiki-table. This can be corrected via some alternative layout tricks, but for the moment I've just disabled click-to-sort. Now I will see if I can manage to get option#G up and running, and then circle back for criticism. Note that I do not actually support option#E personally, any more than I support the layout of Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016#Candidates_featured_in_major_polls. But these are viable options, and should be mentioned, if we really want consensus. Otherwise we'll just be back here in a month, or more likely, in a couple days. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying your options and placing them here for comparison purposes 75.108.94.227. I hope you don't mind. As to Option F, since the names and pictures are not numbered, it is hard to determine who each picture belongs to. For example, if I didn't know what John Kasich looked like I end up having to count to find his picture. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You dare copy my CCBYSA3 material?!? Oh, right. Nevermind. You need to delete the collapse-tags I'm using, before you add outside-collapse-tags, though; they cannot nest. And personally, I find comparison a lot easier by opening each version in a browser-tab, and ctrl+tab and ctrl+shift+tab to see the differnces in overall screen-usage. Whatever works for you is fine by me though. p.s. Kasich is hover-enabled, just put your mouse over him and you see his name, no counting is required... theoretically... though I personally believe that hover-to-see-names is a very non-discoverable GUI feature. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple variants of this layout-style, which I guess can be called option#G_double_barrel,[3] and my original idea which is option#G_all_on_the_right.[4] The main advantage of option#G, either flavor, is compactness. You don't need captions on the photos, although hover-click would be a nice bonus; I didn't try to implement that though. You also don't need a separate gallery, which saves space. And, although the textual-info is relatively compact, and the pics are lined up with the textual-info, you don't need to have vertical column orientation (like option#C) and you don't need to have excess whitespace (like option#D and like the dem-list or the potus-list). I'm not sure I actually *like* option#G, either variant, but it is a viable option methinks, and may satisfy some folks who desire easy-to-correlate pics but are against excess whitespace. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

75.108.94.227 I added the "double barrel" option to the new subpage. I don't know if you want the other one there since you said it was "out of wack." Let me know. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I leave the choice up to you, since I'm not sure which subpage you are talking about. I will note, that they are *all* out of whack, at least in some ways. One of the downsides to option#G (either variantion) is that *all* the imagefiles need to be cropped to have the same aspect-ratio, otherwise they will not look right. I didn't bother with that tweak. Also, my knowledge of layout-syntax is not as good as Spartan7w's (and probably not as good as William's either), so I don't actually know how to forcibly left-align the gallery, and other such tweaks. My main goal was just to put forward the ideas, in rough draft form, so that people would think about the other options, and (perhaps) notice the downsides to existing options. Maybe the downsides are not serious enough to change their minds, but at least they have considered all the options, rather than just opt#B versus opt#C, which is only a small subset of the options.

    Now, although I've used square-pics for all my work on opt#E and opt#F and opt#Gdb and opt#Gaotr, obviously circle-pics would work too. Better than square, even, for opt#G variants, since circles *inherently* have the same aspect ratio, no further cropping required. I'm still against circle-pics, because I think they are too hard to swap out, and will discourage other editors (beginners especially) from attempting to do so. But the same WP:BITE argument can be made about tables: the wiki-table-syntax *will* inherently deter more editors, than the wiki-list-syntax. I do think that horizontal-wiki-tables like opt#E/F/G1/G2 are easier to edit (as well as easier to read) than vertical-wiki-tables like in opt#C. And now that we have some examples of horizontal-wiki-table, in opt#E and opt#F and opt#G-variations, people can see for themselves how much harder/easier it is, and make an informed bangvote. Anyways, go ahead and add/copy/etc as you see fit. If you can modify the options I roughed up, to make them better, then go for it. Just don't put in circle-pics, please.  ;-)     That decision can wait for another RfC, which is unrelated to the big-question layout-choice decision. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

presidential candidate bangvotes

Hello Stabila711, can you please move your new bangvote downwards? Also ping User:Writegeist, same request. Here is what we have now:

about-to-get-confusing and already non-internally-self-consistent bangvote section we have right now

Vote: Option C   Spartan7W §   00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C --Stabila711 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Change Vote: Option F --Stabila711 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C.--Ariostos (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C--NextUSprez (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C CloudKade11 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C Nations United (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C David O. Johnson (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C --Rollins83 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option B (Original) Tarc (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option B (Original) --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option B (Original) Writegeist (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Or F (second choice) Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Something with rectangular photos Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC) The above votes were submitted prior to the inclusion of options D, E, F, G Please make a *brief* bangvote, under the layout-options, and the overall-preferences. You may bangvote in as few or as many as you wish. Please bangvote (Strong/Weak) Support, Neutral, and (Strong/Weak) Oppose. You may also vote Support with changes if for instance you like option X (hypothetical) but would only support option X with circle-pics, when the rough draft uses square-pics. Please keep rationales BRIEF, if you need more space, add a subsection and link to that subsection from your summarized rationale here in this bangvote section. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prefer layout-option A == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, gallery underneath, circle-pics, one-word hover-captions, refs in own row. prefer layout-option B == list, candidates in horizontal sentences, textual info left-bulleted, gallery underneath, square-pics, full captions, refs at end of sentences. (Status quo, used in most articles now.) prefer layout-option C == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, circle-pics, no dedicated captions, refs in own row. prefer layout-option D == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery underneath, square-pics (or circle), one-word captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined). prefer layout-option E == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery to the right, square-pics (or circle), one-word hover-captions, refs in own column (or inlined). prefer layout-option F == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, square-pics, no dedicated captions, refs inlined. prefer layout-option G == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, staggered double-barreled gallery, square-pics (or circle), no dedicated captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined). overall preference, regardless of other decisions: circle pics, square pics, either circle-or-square, no pics whatsoever? overall preference, regardless of other decisions: list-style bulleted-sentences, vertical-style candidate-in-a-table-column, horizontal-style candidate-in-a-table-row, two of the above, three of the above? overall preference, regardless of other decisions: full captions, one-word captions, hover-captions, prefer no dedicated captions? overall preference, regardless of other decisions: refs should be inlined aka closely attached to info they back up, refs should be in own row/column/region aka visually out of the way? overall preference, regardless of other decisions: should err on the side of mobile compatibility / accessibility / ease of editing , or should err on the side of maximizing visual aesthetics while retaining 99.4% compat/access/ease?

Here is what I think will give us a proper assessment of what people support and oppose: (I've move your bangvote and Writegeist's bangvote below the HR, and added my own tentative multi-vote as an example of what I mean.)

new votes below the HR-tag, and feel free to multi-vote, this is not a POTUS election

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. UNLESS YOU NEED TO MODIFY IT.  :-)     These bangvotes were submitted prior to the inclusion of options D, E, F, etc. Unless striking your own bangvote to re-vote below the line, or similar, leave these as-is. Vote: Option C   Spartan7W §   00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C --Stabila711 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) (( see new bangvote(s) below the thin line, please. )) Vote: Option C.--Ariostos (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C--NextUSprez (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C CloudKade11 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C Nations United (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C David O. Johnson (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C --Rollins83 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option C ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option B (Original) Tarc (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Option B (Original) --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Vote: Something with rectangular photos Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (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. The above bangvotes were submitted prior to the inclusion of options D, E, F, etc. Please add new bangvotes, made on or after August 14th, below the line. Please make a *brief* bangvote, under the layout-options, and the overall-preferences. You may bangvote in as few or as many as you wish. Please bangvote (Strong/Weak) Support, Neutral, and (Strong/Weak) Oppose. You may also vote Support with changes if for instance you like option X (hypothetical) but would only support option X with circle-pics, when the rough draft uses square-pics. Please keep rationales BRIEF, if you need more space, add a subsection and link to that subsection from your summarized rationale here in this bangvote section. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prefer layout-option A == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, gallery underneath, circle-pics, one-word hover-captions, refs in own row. Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision, and difficult to upgrade circle-pics (an NPOV issue -- we need to make it easy to swap bad pics). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prefer layout-option B == list, candidates in horizontal sentences, textual info left-bulleted, gallery underneath, square-pics, full captions, refs at end of sentences. (Status quo, used in most articles now.) Support, original layout. one-liner rationale for why, please? Writegeist (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Weak Support as reasonably-readable, very-easily-editable, traditional layout. Excess whitespace in pics portion; would help if the gallery-section were changed to use one-word-captions, not repetitive ten-word-captions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prefer layout-option C == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, circle-pics, no dedicated captions, refs in own row. Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision, and difficult to upgrade circle-pics (an NPOV issue -- we need to make it easy to swap bad pics). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prefer layout-option D == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery underneath, square-pics (or circle), one-word captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined). Support as reasonably-readable, reasonably-editable, reasonably-compact layout. Excess whitespace in pics portion fixed. Change from list-style to horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prefer layout-option E == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, gallery to the right, square-pics (or circle), one-word hover-captions, refs in own column (or inlined). Weak Support as reasonably-readable, somewhat-reasonably-editable, extremely-compact layout. Change from list-style to horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?), although the rough-draft wiki-text here does not actually implement such sorting right now (it is possible and not especially difficult to implement however). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prefer layout-option F == table, candidates in vertical columns, textual info cell-centered, row of one-per-cell pics, square-pics, no dedicated captions, refs inlined. Support (Change Vote from Option C), one-liner rationale for why, please? --Stabila711 (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC) comment, is this your first support-choice? Or is is now the *only* choice for you, and you oppose option#C with extreme vehemence? Or maybe, you have strong support for option#F, and have changed to weak support for option#C? Also, what are your positions on circle-vs-square (see stuff below). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Support, (second choice after option C). one-liner rationale for why, please? Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose due to non-sortable candidates-in-a-vertical-column layout, excess whitespace due to pic-in-a-single-cell decision. Square-pics are an improvement over circle-pics in option#C. Need <br /> before refs, since cell-centered text is being used. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) prefer layout-option G == table, candidates in horizontal rows, textual info left-justified, staggered double-barreled gallery, square-pics (or circle), no dedicated captions (or hover), refs in own column (or inlined). Support as very-readable, kinda-reasonably-editable, very-compact layout. Direct visual link correlates textual info to corresponding photo, like opt#C and opt#F, but in significantly less screen-space. Also unlike opt#F and opt#C, horizontal-table-style means factiods can be sorted (e.g. how many guvs?), although the rough-draft wiki-text here does not actually implement such sorting right now (it is possible and not super-difficult to implement however). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) overall preference, regardless of other decisions: circle pics, square pics, either circle-or-square, no pics whatsoever? Strongly Support Square and Weakly Oppose Circle, square-pics are easier to edit short-term (often need to swap in a new photo for NPOV reasons), and as more likely to attract new editors long-term (hassle of circle-style is a "slight" barrier... but we cannot afford to erect more wiki-policy & wiki-consensus barriers). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) overall preference, regardless of other decisions: list-style bulleted-sentences, vertical-style candidate-in-a-table-column, horizontal-style candidate-in-a-table-row, two of the above, three of the above? Strongly Support horizontal-table and Weakly Support bulleted-list and Oppose vertical-table, horizontal-table has built-in support for click-to-sort (vertical-table does not), bulleted-list is simplest to edit for beginners (almost no wiki-syntax), and "minor" but worth mentioning, vertical-table usually means cell-centered text which is recurringly-annoying e.g. adding inline refs "messes up" the aesthetics. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) overall preference, regardless of other decisions: full captions, one-word captions, hover-captions, prefer no dedicated captions? Depends on layout-choice, but full captions are generally bad as repetitively verbose, and hover-captions are generally not-so-good as undiscoverable by non-tech-savvy readership. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) overall preference, regardless of other decisions: refs should be inlined aka closely attached to info they back up, refs should be in own row/column/region aka visually out of the way? Strongly Support inlined refs per WP:V, and per the corollary, that unless we habitually inline refs directly on the factoid they back up, reliably-sourced material will be deleted as allegedly-'unsourced' ... merely because the source was an inch to the right or whatever. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) overall preference, regardless of other decisions: should err on the side of mobile compatibility / accessibility / ease of editing , or should err on the side of maximizing visual aesthetics while retaining 99.4% compat/access/ease? Strongly Support 100% compat/access/ease per "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" ... that said, support as much aesthetic beauty as we can manage, without ever infringing on five nines compat/access/ease goal. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My original plan, is that I was going to let User:spartan7W and yourself and User:William S. Saturn make the first sets of multi-bangvotes, since you folks were here working on this first, but it seems I misjudged how easy people would find the new multi-bangvote-friendly-layout.  :-)     Spartan7W was reluctant to have the "old" bangvotes in favor of option#C eliminated, which I can certainly understand, but I'd like the "old" bangvotes of B-vs-C to be separated from the post-August-13th bangvotes (and change-of-bangvotes). In particular, I really don't want to have people thinking they can only vote support for a single option. This is not a presidential primary first past the post Vote, this is more like WP:ARBCOM election BangVote, where you can mark "support" under as many or as few choices as you actually support. Does this make sense?

    If so, can you help me get the bangvote section organized, so that newcomers understand they can support multiple options, if they wish? In other words, if you agree with the direction I'm trying to go here, please add the discussion-top and discussion-bottom tags around the 'old' bangvotes, too late for that, request withdrawn, others still valid move your own 'new' bangvote to the multivote area, and if you like, add your additional commentary on the various options (whether you support/oppose/neutral/whatever). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, seems I should have acted rather than suggesting action.  ;-)     It is too late to discusion-close the solo-bangvote area now. But I have added my own multi-vote, and suggest that others should add their own multi-bangvotes. Clearly there are several viable options. It will be easier if we have a list of which people support which options, and how strongly they support each, and which people oppose which options (as opposed to being neutral or indifferent), and how strongly they oppose each option. I would also like to get information about whether people are strongly in favor of, or opposed to, circle-vs-square... and the solo-bangvote section gives us almost no info about that, Smallbones to the contrary of course. Stabila711, would you consider changing from solo-bangvote, to multi-bangvote, so that I can better see what you are aiming for? I cannot tell what your thoughts are on option#G for instance, and since it was made partially at your suggestion, I'm curious whether it satisfied your objection, and if not, why not. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

sortability

Kinda-kludge-driven, but sortable, with last-in-office-date.[5]

About the same amount of screen-real-estate as the rough-draft-with-sorting-disabled-at-the-moment.[6]

Both of these, obviously, need way less screen-real-estate than option#F or other v-table designs with row-of-pics (one pic per cell). There is an option, to disassociate the pics from the one-per-cell style, and build option#J or something, which is a v-table for the text-info, with a gallery-to-the-right (or option#K with a staggered-double-row-barreled-gallery). I've not built such a thing, because I don't want an unsortable v-table, but I can help you build one or both if you think they might be valuable/viable options.

p.s. Option#G 'seems' to use more screen-real-estate than option#E, but really does not; I just haven't figured out how to make the option#G imagesizes smaller!  ;-)      

p.p.s. I don't know what that WP:Co-op thing is, must be new, but I know that JethroBT is a human (not a bot despite the username), and worth your time hanging out with, if you wish. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Libertarian party , 2016 ballot access

Honestly, I know what I'm talking about if you look for ballot access for the Libertarian party you will see they are the only third party with all fifty states and DC. The reference link that I got was from the official Libertarian website,so I think my source is valid enough. By the way in addition to taking out my edits my took out another at least another 35 electoral votes from your same edit, what I am wondering is why would you do that take away from an article that's already wrong in the first place. ---- Prussian Empire 1914

Prussian Empire 1914, according to ballot-access.org which is the citation that was used for determining ballot access, the libertarian party does not have complete ballot access in the 2016 election. On the chart, "2016 Petitioning for President" it clearly shows states where either the libertarian party has not obtained the proper number of signatures, or the laws of the state bar them from officially being on the ballot. They are working on it. They even have some cases working their way through the courts such as in Ohio. All this information is listed on the chart. If you can provide a citation that says the libertarian party has complete access for the 2016 election then fine but the citation you used (ballot-access.org) did not verify that. I changed the number of electoral votes because that is the real number. The number that was there was incorrect. If you add up the electoral votes that the libertarian party has ballot access on it comes out to 325 votes out of 538 not the 366 that was originally listed. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't care what ONE website says about ballot access I take information only from official websites (GOP),(DNC),&(LNC). Most other websites don't agree with your reasoning & citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussian Empire 1914 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Prussian Empire 1914, you MUST support your claims by citing a reference on the page. If you want to change the information that is fine. But you must then cite a reference that follows the information found at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You have only changed the data without citing a source (the same source is still listed). You must cite a source that says what you claim. Repeatedly changing data without citing a source that proves that data is against Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please cite your sources. The citation you have used previously (https://www.lp.org/2012-ballot-access) is for the 2012 election not the 2016. Please cite a source that says they have complete ballot access for the 2016 election. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A few points, about wiki-policy-stuff, and about third-party-ballot-access. Here is an official LP.org press release, from May 2014, about ballot-access in Ohio.[7] Now, although this is from the libertarian party itself, that means it is likely to be truthful... because they have their neck on the line if they lie... but it also means that the info they provide could be biased. Such primary sources must be used only with extreme care, see WP:ABOUTSELF. For instance, if the Libertarian party says they will appeal the judgement, that is a statement about themselves and can be taken at face value (unless there are WP:RS to the contrary in which case wikipedia should describe the conflict neven *decide* the conflict). On the other hand, if the libertarian party official website says the judge made the WRONG decision, that is definitely not WP:ABOUTSELF, because they are saying something about the judge, or the courts, or whatever. So, somewhat counterintuitively, we don't trust www.LP.org , to be wiki-reliable (a very different concept from real-world-reliable). We prefer to get third-party independent editorially-controlled WP:SOURCES like newspaper&magazine journalists, teevee newscasters, and such. This is for two reasons: #1, they are inherently less biased about ballot-access that the writers at www.LP.org (and at www.GOP.com and so on) are ever going to be. Not without bias, just with less temptation to be naturally biased. #2. Notice by independent outside folks is proof of WP:NOTEWORTHY subject-matter.

    So in May'14 the LP lost their courtcase, we learn from WP:ABOUTSELF source.[8] They were working with ACLU lawyers apparently,[9][10] who give more details, but once again this is *not* truly an independent source, since the ACLU has picked a side in the lawsuit.

    Now luckily, we don't need to worry about whether to use primary-sources and non-independent-sources, because we have plenty of WP:SOURCES that cover LP ballot-access in Ohio for the 2016 cycle. For instance, in Nov'14, we learn from this fully-independent-WP:RS source that the LP candidates were NOT on the 2014 ballot, and thus, LP needs 30k signatures for 2016 ballot access.[11] And we have a source that reports on the late-2013 situation,[12] the 2013/2014 borderline situation,[13] the early-2014 situation,[14][15] and the as-of-mid-2015 ongoing aftermath.[16][17][18][19] Covering the whole period, we have a whole *slew* of refs from NPR affiliate WCBE in Ohio.

some good fully-independent editorially-controlled WP:RS refs, covering the whole backstory

Sep'12, Gary Johnson on OH ballot. Oct'13, ACLU joins LP protest. Jan'14, Judge delays implementation of new ballot-access-law. Mar'14, despite sig-count, two remaining LP candidates may be off ballot. Mar'14, head of OH elections removes final two LP names. Mar'14, federal judge ok with LP removals. May'14, LP appeals to SCOTUS. May'14, legal wrangling ongoing. May'14, SCOTUS denies appeal-hearing. Jun'14, Ironically, LP natl convention about to be held in OH. Jun'14, ironically, LP natl convention in OH this year. Aug'14, LP watching dem Fitzgerald. Sep'14, Connections to R campaign alleged. Sep'14, LP complaint will get expedited federal hearing. Sep'14, Federal district judge holds hearings, denied insta-reinstatement onto ballot. Sep'14, Petition was own idea, not from Kasich campaign, say operative. Oct'14, federal judge says two LP candidates off OH ballot. Oct'14, gubernatorial LP candidate. Mar'15, ballot-law ruled constitutional. May'15, complaint vs Kasich dismissed. References

    Now, we can also find the raw court-docs.[20] But generally speaking, wikipedians should not be quoting directly from primary sources, when third-party sources are available (and for contentious controversial material preferably be more conservative and cautious rather than less). We've got NYT, WCBE, TheBlaze, Reason.com, Reuters, Dispatch.com, ToledoBlade -- so not only do we not need the raw court docs, we also do not need the LP.org stuff, nor the stuff from their ACLU allies. Older backstory exists, too, such as in 2008.[21] Outside the confines of Ohio, similar stuff is going on all the time: AR'16,[22] WV'12,[23] and so on.

    Finally, it is worth pointing out, that this early in the cycle, it is premature to be listing "how many electoral college votes the LP can attain", see WP:CRYSTAL ... we simply don't know that answer, until all the legal wrangling in the disputed states is worked out. Some states force the LP to requalify, others auto-requalify them, and in still others the legislature changes the rules mid-stream (e.g. Ohio in the 2014 cycle). We won't have a firm idea of how many states the LP will have ballot-access within... exactly and precisely ... until many more months. Until then, wikipedia should be careful to say that the predictions are up in the air still, and then give the predictions that have been made by the WP:RS (some of which are listed above), and per WP:ABOUTSELF give the 'official' position of LP.org concerning their own internal counts/expectations/similar (but we need to qualify their own predictions *as* being theirs whereas the WP:RS refs need not be qualified). p.s. Richard Winger of www.ballot-access.org , is a WP:BLOGS website that passes the recognized-expert-in-his-field test; he knows what he is talking about, when it comes to ballot-access counts, that I have seen. Usually, though, blogs aren't used as wiki-reliable in this fashion; Winger is a special exception, not necessarily recognized everywhere on the 'pedia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I am very sorry for acting so rudely about all that, I just tend to fell that much of our information is controlled it happens on Wikipedia too, that's why I am usually so touchy with kinds of things. They information you gave me is very helpful for citing sources & just for watching ballot access, thank you & sorry again.

P.S. Do you have any other sites similar to the ones you reported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussian Empire 1914 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again User:Prussian Empire 1914 -- I've replied over on your talkpage, with another small book.  ;-)     Appreciate your apologizing to Stabila711, that was WP:NICE, thanks. Anyways, don't be touchy please, and when the sources disagree with each other, just describe what they say, don't try and pick winner-sources and loser-sources, that will make everyone touchy, right? "As of 2012, the libertarian party had ballot access to all 50 states plus DC.[24] As of 2015, ongoing efforts to qualify for that same level of ballot access during the 2016 election-cycle have been successful so far in 31 states.[25]" Methinks that is probably close to what wikipedia's prose should say, but of course, use deeplinks and double-check my '31 states' guesstimate. As far as the total potential-ecVote achieved so far, WP:CALC permits wikipedians to add up the numbers, but if the total number *is* misreported in some WP:SOURCES, it is best to leave a footnote about the difference aka source-typo, so that future good-faith editors won't be tempted to "correct" the WP:CALC total back to the sourced-but-incorrect value. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Angela Hamblin

Hi Stabila711,

Thank you for your concern. However, According to Wikipedia:Notability (sports): athletes are presumed notable if they have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league. WNBA.com is for sure a reliable source and is listed as an external link, which some editors may consider it as a reference. You are correct that a source should be added and it was.Robert4565 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Robert4565 I removed the nomination. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a friendly note

Just a note to remind you that when multiple edits are made to a page, only the summary from the most recent one shows up in the watchlist for those who are watching an article. You recently undid an IP user's changes to United States presidential election, 2016 and the second reversion was listed as being for the "same reason as last undo". So when the change showed up in my watch list, all I saw was that it was being reverted for the same reason, but that reason wasn't in my watch list. No harm done here, but it could be annoying for those who are watching for vandalism on these sensitive political pages and cannot see that the edit was correcting vandalism. As a side note, you should try Twinkle. With it, you can revert multiple successive changes by simply clicking on "restore this version" and you only need to enter the explanation one time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Etamni, my bad. I wasn't thinking. I will keep that in mind next time and I will look at Twinkle. Thanks! --Stabila711 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

friendly note #2

Realized a few days ago, but have only just caught up with my open tabs... when you asked about copying from one wikipedia page to another, I forgot to mention this bit. You can be 100% at liberty to copy all wikipedia material, from wikipedia-page to wikipedia-page, and even from wikipedia-page to off-wikipedia websites. However, you have to follow the CC-BY-SA license when you do so, which specifically says that #1) you cannot change the license to something other than CCBYSA3 and also #2) that you have to provide credit aka attribution in the form of a backlink URL or similar (CCBYSA3).

  In practice, that just means that when you copy from wikipedia-page to wikipedia-page, you should leave an edit-summary like "this content is copied from http://URL_GOES_HERE" , or similar. I've added appropriate edit-summaries to the following pages,[26][27][28] so we are now all square -- or circular maybe depending on your aesthetic preferences -- with the WP:COPYVIO police. ;-)       Thanks, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for this (Eduardo Franco noticeboard), i thought, they had to remove the redirect, but apparently I can do. thanks --The Silver (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem! If you have any questions about editing please feel free to ask. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks --The Silver (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

HD archiving

Bot running now, but thanks for volunteering! —Steve Summit (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help Srbernadette (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Thanks

Curly Turkey/Cebr1979 closure

Hi!

Not going to appeal or do anything about it (too much on my plate at the moment) but this was not an especially good close, IMO. A number of users other than Curly Turkey had been talking about an indefinite block for Cebr1979 for disruptive behaviour unrelated to Curly Turkey's talk page, and CT's stating once a mere eleven minutes before your close that he would be content with an informal promise to stay off his talk page didn't negate all the other issues. I don't need another needless fight in a topic area I'm not even interested in at the moment, so I'm just going to pretend I was never involved in this whole affair, but please try to be a bit more careful when closing long and complicated discussions in the future.

And sorry if this seems aggressive. I don't mean it to be. It's just friendly advice.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: I don't consider your post aggressive. You are stating your opinions. The original purpose of that entire thread was a dispute between Curly Turkey and Cebr1979. There was never going to be a consensus either way on what to "do" with them and other editor's feelings towards the two of them was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If they want to open their own ANI thread and complain about either Turkey or Cebr they are more than welcome to do so. In addition, an indef block for either editor would be way over the line as simply punitive and the idea that enough editors would get behind that to form a consensus is farfetched at best. As an uninvolved editor, I have been keeping up with that discussion and there was never going to be a consensus to apply any type of block or ban either way. After a week of back-and-forth that was obvious. Just like it is obvious that the massive cluster that your ANI thread has turned into will lead absolutely nowhere. Prolonging the back-and-forth when the two original parties have reconciled and agreed to terms would be irresponsible and pointless. An admin is more than welcome to undo my close if they feel like the discussion needs to be dragged out further but I highly doubt that is going to happen. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

...on my recent unblock request. I promise I won't make you end up looking foolish. See you around the project. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You Change The CBC website Harrysmith21 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Real names

Thanks Stabila. That is good advice for my students. I have made a conscious decision to use my real name, maybe because I'm an academic. However, students should consider this. I am passing along your advice. J.R. Council (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging IPs

Hey Stabila711. I just dropped by after seeing your ping to an IP at the help desk. It might very well have been just force of habit, but if you're not aware, the echo notification system does not work for IP addresses. Since I'm here, I also noticed you've been marking posts as resolved. You'll notice that is rarely done at the help desk, and there has been past discussion and a consensus not to do so there, or generally to use other graphic indicators like {{not done}} and the like. Doesn't it suck when someone's reason to talk to you is in some sense a complaint? For that I apologize, and also wanted to say that I think you've been doing a good job in giving advice there, especially for a new user. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Fuhghettaboutit: I was not aware that ping does not work for IP addresses. Thank you for letting me know. It is a force of habit but I will remember that in the future. As to the marks, I was also not aware of the past consensus on those and I will refrain from using them. I don't see this as a complaint at all. No need to apologize. Thank you for letting me know things I can do to make my posts better. I do appreciate that. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. Keep up the good work!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Lessig

Hi Stabila, seeing Lessig has a wikipedia for his campaign and is very well known, i see no reason why he cannot be up in the picture candidates, as opposed to someone like Jeff Boss who is barely known. IF there was a section for in-betweeners, he should be there but for now I believe he should be included in the picture candidates, being a possible debater and all. If he shouldn't be, Jim GIlmore for the Republicans shouldn't be either.

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHawk2015 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• @KittyHawk2015: Yes but Jim Gilmore has been mentioned in multiple national polls. Lessig has not and per previous consensus only those that have been featured in five or more polls are included in that section. If you want you can post a new comment on the talk page for the election and see if consensus has changed but as of right now, he hasn't qualified to be included there. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Hey Stabila! I've added new images of Bernie Sanders on the 2016 elections talk page. I was wondering what are your thoughts on them. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

GREAT NEWS!

I emailed the Lincoln Chafee 2016 website if I could use an image that is displayed on the home page and they granted permission to use! Your thoughts on the talk page? This is great! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Even more great news. Thanks to a WikiCommons user, we got a new image of Sanders smiling facing forward. Your thoughts! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders image found!

I think I found THE Bernie Sanders image! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Webpages

If i made changes i will be show in all the webpages or in only my pc...??

Shubham sanware (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Shubham sanware: Any changes made to an article will show to everyone, not just you. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Lessig

I fixed the DNC candidates page for you, although I don't think it classifies as an edit war because he is clearly in the wrong, and it is disruptive editing.   Spartan7W §   20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Spartan7W: Thank you. I really wasn't sure after I looked back at the edit history and realized that that was my fourth revert edit in 24 hours and I didn't want to cause any issues. I left him a disruptive editing warning and a plea to discuss this on the article talk page. Hopefully he actually discusses the matter instead of putting back the same information again. In the meantime, I am going to stay out of that page for a day just to make sure. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'll pick up any slack in case he returns this behavior, I have two revisions left on that page, I believe. Lessig was included in and polled at 1% in the PPP poll, and has raised 3x as much as Chafee, so I think he may show up in the coming months, but we can't do things based off assumption.   Spartan7W §   20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

adding a subheader outside the greenbox: 3RR is not 007

• Spartan7W is correct about WP:CRYSTAL, and per NPOV we have to be patient and wait until Lessig has met the wiki-standards for moving up a section. However, I will point out that I think WP:EDITWAR is more subtle here than you two are treating it. In particular, do NOT read the WP:3RR as "you can revert all day long". And especially don't read it as, "if they started it and I'm right and they're wrong it will not count as edit-warring". The *only* REAL exception to the no-edit-warring rule is for blatant vandalism, like page-blanking or insertion of four-letter-words or overwriting sheer nonsense onto paragraphs, by which I mean oadjalkjeoh igaoieh asdlj goeih type nonsense, not something that merely happens to be inaccurate or poorly phrased. "When in doubt, do not revert."

   There are a lot of politics-related pages where edit-warring, *even* when you revert fewer than three times in 24 hours, will get you into wiki-trouble. And I mean, dragged off before the wiki-SCOTUS type trouble. If you edit pages about Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, White Supremacy, Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Assassination of JFK, be very dern careful that you are doing things according to the letter of the wiki-guidelines. Even on 'regular' pages like the 2016 candidates and the senate elections and such, there are very severe penalties (usually implemented as 'topic bans' aka you-may-not-edit-any-politics-topics-for-the-next-12-months type stuff). Anyways, you two are doing things just fine, I'm not here to criticize your actions, nor your motives. But do please avoid edit-warring, and that means, don't treat 3RR as a license to revert, instead remember that there is WP:NORUSH for wikipedia mainspace to be 100% accurate and 100% perfect.

   Speak softly when somebody comes along that isn't familiar with the wiki-rules, and tries to make bold changes that violate some long-standing consensus ... which they have almost certainly never heard of!  :-)     There will be a LOT of new editors like that in the coming months. If you post to their usertalk a couple of times (preferably before reverting or simultaneously with reverting or even *instead* of reverting), and revert a couple times at most, plus post to the article-talkpage, and get nowheres, then best practice is just to stop yourself. Better to post a note about the difficulty, to the wikiproject that Spartan7W and William S. Saturn and Golbez are members of, rather than to informally organize via personal usertalk pages. Not that you did that in this case, I understand this usertalk conversation is a retroactive assessment of a troublesome series of edits. I'm just, again, pointing out some nuances of the wiki-laws, so when the editing gets increasingly more frenetic in the coming months, you two have a good handle on how to keep your noses squeaky-clean. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

• Gallery: Being Welsh

• Featured content: Killed by flying debris

• Op-ed: DYK, or proudly displaying incorrect information on the Main Page with alarming regularity

• News and notes: The Swedish Wikipedia's controversial two-millionth article

• Traffic report: Mass media production traffic

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• In the media: Calling all scientists!; More Wikipedia editors in the Netherlands than all of Africa combined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

2016 candidates images

Since no one is looking at the candidate images section, can I just include the best looking ones? Look at the Simple English page. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• @TDKR Chicago 101: Sure. Be bold. If someone doesn't like it they will revert you and then it will be back to the discussions anyways. I would say anyone that has an official government photo to keep those. Any other ones I say go for it. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Ok. I'm gonna try to change the Democratic candidate images with 2014-2015 ones, like more recent ones. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to make time to look at the images-section, but so far have failed.  :-)     Agree with Stabila711, be WP:BOLD but not reckless. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lee Tae-yong for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lee Tae-yong 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/Lee Tae-yong 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. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ranked choice voting

Hey, the activity on the remodeling subpage has tapered off, but I'm not sure a clear consensus has been reached, slash can be ascertained. If you have a minute, can you please give your 'ranked choice' votes on the available options, here below? If you don't wish to mess with it, per WP:CHOICE, no problemo of course. Here are the choices, for convenience:

• A == Option A
• B == Option B (status quo; now has slightly different photos from a month ago[29])
• C == Option C
• C2== Option C_square_version
• D == Option D
• E == Option E
• F == Option F
• G == Option G
• H == Option H

If by coincidence you happen to prefer Option A the most, and Option H the least, you could just change the asterisks '*' over into hashmarks '#' which will number the choices in order. If you prefer them in some other order, you can cut-and-paste the lines into your preferred ordering, or just manually type the 1,2,3,etc numerals onto the appropriate lines by hand. You don't have to give numbers to all of them, if you don't wish, but please at least assign a number to "option B" which is the wiki-traditional way the page is ordered. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Denali

Please restore your REVERT at Denali. See Talk:Denali#Precise metric elevation. Yours aye,  Buaidh  03:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Buaidh: According to the Manual of Style, "the number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent)." Your addition of the tenths place on the metric conversion directly contradicts the guidelines in the MOS. There is no need to have the tenths place if the U.S. system is rounded to the nearest whole number. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The elevation measurements were made in metric units as indicated in the link. As indicated, 6190.5 meters equals 20,309.99875 US survey feet. I've been doing this for 49 years. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Buaidh: You're not really getting my point here. The manual of style for Wikipedia articles says you shouldn't have a different number of decimal places for values in the same sentence. That is the standard for all articles. Having extra decimal places in one and not the other is undue precision. If you want it to say 6190.5 then the U.S. measurement should read 23,310.0. This is the standard and can be seen in all other articles regarding mountain height. How long you have been doing this is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point. Besides the fact that Wikipedia certainly hasn't been around for 49 years so I don't know what you were going for there. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is some kind of template, which lets you store the exact measurement under the hood, and then display the 'proper' user-visible output with the correct number of MOS-compliant decimal places. If you aren't able to dig up what my memory says exists, preferably by finding said template used 'in the wild' one of the existing geography-and-mountaineering-articles, I'm happy to help dig a bit further (or the helpdesk people prolly know). And yes, wikipedia is a relative newcomer, but gazetteer material (of which wikipedia is an online massively multiplayer equivalent) is definitely at least 49 years old, and although the MOS rules like an iron fist generally, if there is a wikiproject specific style, or even an article-specific style per local consensus, it's okay.  :-)     I have no clue if such a thing exists, but be aware that metric-vs-traditional editwars have a long and sordid history on the 'pedia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote Template:Epi.

@Stabila711: Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Uncertainty and rounding. It states:

* The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent), unless different precisions are actually intended.

I have worked on GPS geodesy projects for the National Science Foundation. The accuracy of this elevation measurement is approximately ±100 millimeters or ±4 inches. It is appropriate to include tenths of a meter to avoid rounding errors, e.g.:

6190 meters = 20,308.358 US statute feet
6190.5 meters = 20,309.999 US statute feet
6191 meters = 20,311.639 US statute feet

Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S., I've been around for a century ±33 years.

@Buaidh: I have no problem with you putting it back. I have a problem with one number being a whole number and one displaying the tenths place. List of mountain peaks of North America does it right. Is there an issue with it displaying like that? 20,310.0 ft (6190.5 m) is the proper way to display it so it follows the MOS. The way you originally put it in was 20,310 ft (6190.5 m). That goes against the manual of style. That is why I reverted it. I have no problem displaying the .5 on the meters side as long as the feet side also displays the tenths place like in the list of mountain peaks of North America. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: The Manual of Style, as quoted above, addresses identical units of similar precision. We are not listing apples with apples. We are listing apples with 1200/3937*apples. Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Buaidh: So your answer to why it can't say 20,310.0 (6190.5 m) is because it can't? I don't really understand. That is completely unreasonable. It is a tiny change that would make everyone happy and keep the formatting consistent with every other article. Your insistence on this is puzzling to say the least as displaying it the way you want it is different from every other article currently on Wikipedia. If you want to put the value back be my guest. I am not going to go to war over this. However, your inability to compromise on something so insignificant is exceedingly troubling. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not a matter of compromise. It is a matter of properly reading the Manual of Style. I was the one who updated the List of mountain peaks of North America to include tenths for all Denali numbers. I must not be explaining myself very well. Over and out.  Buaidh  19:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to you making new registered accounts

I've been watching you for some time now as the Stabila711 account. And I wonder: When you make new registered accounts, do you ever hope that the latest one will be the last one? Or do you just think of these accounts as temporary because they will eventually be reported by me or by someone else? It's a bit of both, right? Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? How many accounts do you think I have? Also, how long have you been stalking me? Are you really that bent on trying to find nonexistent evidence? If you have evidence file a report. Else, leave me alone. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

• Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access

• News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?

• In the media: Is there life on Mars?

• Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?

• Traffic report: Another week

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for the Republican candidate name sorter. I did it with the Democratic candidates, now that I know how. The coffee can be decaf, if it's getting late. Tagus 03:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

• In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• Op-ed: Can we please stop bashing Wikipedia?

• Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library

• WikiProject report: Dancing to the beat of a... wikiproject?

• Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda.

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forensic anthropology

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forensic anthropology you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forensic anthropology

The article Forensic anthropology you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Forensic anthropology for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Way to figure out the endorsements solution on Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 September

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 Martin O'Malley presidential campaign, 2016 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forensic anthropology

The article Forensic anthropology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forensic anthropology for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by IP

I did not appreciate your castigation of my desire to clear the record on a website about my business I did not ask to be created. I have only asked that I be allowed to confront the person who keeps putting up untrue information. You say I 'claim' to be someone. Use the links you have in your own Wikipedia page and you will see clearly I am the owner and don't claim to be someone. My three children went through school with their teachers saying Wikipedia is worthless. I have fought against that and even contributed to it. But I learn that people hide in the shadows and post statements they know to be false. I have even see in your dialog castigating me that the Horse person still says she will go on doing what she wants. What do you want me to do.

You say its taken down and when you go to Google what do you see. The same bogus ownership information. And now you are saying my conduct is despicable?!

If you don't live in this world (like me), how do people go about getting fair treatment and if not, how do they get the page taken down altogether.

I would appreciate an answer to this question. Thank you.107.107.56.151 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh this is just precious... HalfShadow 05:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• You alone do not get to decide what information is displayed on Wikipedia. This is a communal website created and maintained by the community. Do we get some information wrong sometimes? Of course. That is why we are a work in progress. I used the word "claim" since it is impossible to know who you are. I could claim to be the Pope, that doesn't make it true. This is the Internet, claims are a dime a dozen. As to me saying your conduct was "despicable," please don't put words in my mouth. I never did that. Legal threats are taken very very seriously on this site. Your refusal to retract your threat even after repeated pleas to do so has not gone unnoticed. That is all. As for I dream of horses, she is an extremely well respected member of the community that spends her time removed countless pieces of vandalism that occur everyday here. She undid you post because you blanked a page without reason. You cannot do that. It doesn't matter if you were right or not. Blanking the page without reason is not acceptable. That is why we have edit summaries. Now that you have left a reason for the removal of that information it will not be reverted. Now that it is gone, you need to drop it. It is done. It is over with. No need to get all frustrated. We make mistakes, we are human. As for it working its way into Google, that is Google. We are Wikipedia. Two different entities that have no control over each other. When Google next updates their information it will change but you do not get to decide, or demand, that a page be removed without cause. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Marco Rubio presidential campaign, 2016 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraising report, Montreal to host 2017 Wikimania

• In the media: Irish legislative editing; coffee quarrel; more sports vandalism

• Op-ed: Wikipedia needs more administrators

• Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Wikipedia's search function inferior?

• Tech news: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Technical question on the Nova Science article

Dear User Stabila711

I left a note there at the Nova Talk page saying:

Is this now correct?

I enter here this answer sign, can I then edit the page?

|ans=Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hoping that I can proceed to edit the page. Is this ok?

• I have commented on the article's talk page. Please see my response there. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

• Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption

• Traffic report: Reality is for losers

• Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

• Gallery: Winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 in Pakistan

• Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• In the media: Jailed Saudi blogger wins award; PR editing and Wiki-embarassment; Pakistan's third-richest person?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions on help desk. I often see you there. You are very helpful. All the best Supdiop (T🔹C) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

• Op-ed: WikiConference USA 2015: built on good faith

• WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States

• Editorial: Why the news media needs a Wikipedian in residence

• News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate

• Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death

• Featured content: A fistful of dollars

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Third Wikimedia Spain conference takes place in Madrid

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Deactivating edit request

Oops. I should have done that. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar Thank you Wikipedia for being an open Ocean of knowledge to the world. Caribana10 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion Draft Oswaldo Oropeza El Compositor de Latin América

Good evening Stabila,

Yes, I would like to request the Undeletion of my father's Draft: Oswaldo Oropeza El Compositor de Latin América.

Please let me know if it is possible.

Thanks,

Nancy Carolina Oropeza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribana10 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Your draft was not deleted. See Draft:Oswaldo Oropeza. Also please sign your posts that you make on talk pages by putting ~~~~ after your post. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Drew Kopf entry

Hello Stabilia,

Please let me know why my entry was deleted (I'm new to Wikipedia and appreciate any detailed comments.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew Kopf (talk • contribs) 22:20, October 21, 2015 (UTC)

• @Drew Kopf: The article on the United States election is limited to notable people. We have to do this because there are over a thousand people that are "officially" running for president and to include them all would be madness. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have guidelines regarding who is notable and who isn't. To see those, please read WP:NPERSON. If the person is not notable by Wikipedia standards, they are not included on that page. People on that page already have their own Wikipedia article and meet the notability threshold set by the community. The addition of your name also implies a conflict of interest. You should not be adding your own name to the list. On any article where you have even the smallest personal tie to you should only be editing the article's talk page. For the article in question that can be found Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've left a longer explanation at Drew's talkpage, explaining the wiki-notable and realworld-notable are very distinct concepts, and mentioning the WP:NotJustYet idea of a draftspace-article. I found a couple of WP:NOTEWORTHY-mentions of "Drew Kopf" in a quick search, but I'm not sure those refs are actually about the same Drew Kopf as the independent presidential candidate. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For you unselfish way of lending a technical hand to other editors for the good of the 5M pic project. You are a true Wikipedian! w.carter-Talk 08:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forensic chemistry

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forensic chemistry you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forensic chemistry

The article Forensic chemistry you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Forensic chemistry for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

• Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• News and notes: Wikimedia lawsuit against NSA dismissed; Affiliates mailing list launched

• In the media: "Wikipedia's hostility to women"

• Special report: One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus

• Featured content: A more balanced week

• Op-ed: Wikipedia is significantly amplifying the impact of Open Access publications

• Arbitration report: Four ArbCom cases ongoing

• Traffic report: Hiding under the covers of the Internet

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Magic button

Hi Stabila, thank you for your help at Wikipedia talk:Donated artwork. I tried to put some order in the conversation there and messed with your post. Please feel free to change as appropriate. Also, I added a new section Wikipedia talk:Donated artwork#What should the button do? and only realized later that part of the message under your example should be included there, as well. Since your idea was earlier than mine, please don't hesitate to insert it at the beginning of that section. I just didn't want to chop up another message of yours. — Sebastian 18:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Testing

• Testing

My name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Detective Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work on forensics topics, including bring forensic anthropology and forensic chemistry to GA status. Feel free to drop me a note if you want help or a peer review on your next project. delldot ∇. 16:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forensic chemistry

The article Forensic chemistry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forensic chemistry for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		I know your logos didn't get picked, but you were instrumental in contributing to the logo discussion in the early stages. Without you, it's hard to imagine the discussion really taking off as far as it did. In the spirit of the milestone, thank you for your contributions, and keep doing what you do! Mz7 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

• From the editor: The Signpost's reorganization plan—we need your help

• News and notes: English Wikipedia reaches five million articles

• In the media: The world's Wikipedia gaps; Google and Wikipedia accused of tying Ben Carson to NAMBLA

• Op-ed: It’s time to stop the bullying

• Arbitration report: A second attempt at Arbitration enforcement

• Traffic report: Canada, the most popular nation on Earth

• Recent research: Student attitudes towards Wikipedia; Jesus, Napoleon and Obama top "Wikipedia social network"; featured article editing patterns in 12 languages

• Featured content: Birds, turtles, and other things

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Community letter: Five million articles

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

I just wanted to thank you for your contributions and submissions to the 5 million article logo vote. You were absolutely instrumental in getting the vote off the ground and I think it’s fair to say that the overwhelming majority of the ensuing logo submissions were inspired or influenced by your submissions. Thank you again for all of your help. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

• Op-ed: You are invited to participate in the Community Wishlist Survey

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation finances; Superprotect is gone

• In the media: Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: propaganda myth or history?

• Traffic report: Death, the Dead, and Spectres are abroad

• Featured content: Christianity, music, and cricket

• Gallery: Princess of Asturias Awards 2015 ceremony

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links

Stabila: Thank you 4 your response; but, I don't see that this is a "conflict of interest" Unlike some of the references already listed which are crassly commercial, my website http://www.spankingfit.com/ is strictly nonprofit& non-commercial. As I explain in my "About Us" section which you are welcome 2 read, I use interaction with my readers solely for purposes of enhancing my research.Thank you very much. I look forward 2 your reply. Dr. Garrett Doctor Garrett Fit (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Dear Stabila: Thank you 4 your response; but, I don't see that this is a "conflict of interest" Unlike some of the references already listed which are crassly commercial, my website http://www.spankingfit.com/ is strictly nonprofit& non-commercial. As I explain in my "About Us" section which you are welcome 2 read, I use interaction with my readers solely for purposes of enhancing my research.Thank you very much. I look forward 2 your reply. Dr. Garrett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Garrett Fit (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Doctor Garrett Fit: This is the exact definition of spam and adding a link to your website is the exact definition of a conflict of interest. Have you read our policy on external links that I placed on your talk page? It does not matter if your company is non-profit or not, adding these links to Wikipedia articles is considered promotion and spam. These will be removed and repeatedly adding them to articles can result in your editing privileges being revoked. You mention that other promotional links have been added to articles but give no actual proof to your claims. If these are there they should be removed as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Stabila: Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that wiki ref. pages reg. such major commercial outfits as "Women's Health" have been constructed by "volunteers" & not by persons affiliated with those cos.? Is that correct? Thank you for your assistance.GarrettDoctor Garrett Fit (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Doctor Garrett Fit: That is correct. We are a community of volunteers. We do not edit pages that we have a conflict of interest in. That is one of our guidelines for editing. In addition, those references are used to verify a claim that is in the article. It is not designed to promote Woman's Health or any other magazine. Just placing a link in the page that is not used to verify any content but is instead used to advertise a website or service is spam and is not acceptable. Please see WP:NOTSPAM for more information. On another note, please don't place comments on the top of the page. Click on the edit button next to this section's header. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this better? Wikipedia is the one making the claim that they are presenting a "list of health & fitness magazines". "Spanking FIT!" is such an online mag with scientifically superior content to any of those included and belongs on any serious list. Their articles are rarely written by scientific experts such as myself, and in most cases, are tawdry & commercialistic. Moreover, by including such pubs as "Women's Health", and not mine, I am feeling discriminated against. By the way, I forgot 2 ask what your role with Wikipedia is? GarrettDoctor Garrett Fit (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Doctor Garrett Fit: Have you read a single link I have posted to you? WP:External Links, WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Promotion. Those are all important guidelines and policies that all editors must follow. You have a conflict of interest with this website. You should never add this website to any article. Period. If you want you can use the article's talk page to request that the link be put in but you should never go ahead and do it yourself. You are not being discriminated against, you being forced to follow our policies and our guidelines that every other editor has to follow. And since you asked, I am an editor, just like everyone else. I have to follow the same rules everyone else does. I have to follow the same rules you do. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is your supervisor? I wish to communicate with her. Garrett Doctor Garrett Fit (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Doctor Garrett Fit: You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it runs. This is not a business. There are no employees. There are no supervisors for you to try to go over my head to. This is a community of volunteer, unpaid, editors and multiple editors have already told you that what you are trying to add is spam. That is the end of it. There are no additional people for you to complain to. I have tried my best to explain to you our policies and guidelines that the community has set and you have refused to listen. You can finally choose to listen for you can not. It does not matter to me. However, if you continue to try to add spam links to the articles your editing privileges can be revoked and the website could potentially be added to our blacklist. It is completely your choice. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Stabila for your detailed reply and $4 explaining wikipedia 2 me. I will forward the info to my readers & students. By the way, where is your donors list? I did not C it in your donate link. Thx. Garrett Doctor Garrett Fit (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Forensic chemistry

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

• Op-ed: As one thousand of us requested, Superprotect has been removed

• Arbitration report: Elections, redirections, and a resignation from the Committee

• Discussion report: Compromise of two administrator accounts prompts security review

• Featured content: Texas, film, and cycling

• In the media: Sanger on Wikipedia; Silver on Vox; lawyers on monkeys

• Traffic report: Doodles of popularity

• Gallery: Paris

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Black Lives. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Black Lives Matter. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with you mistemplating me as long as you actually discuss the issue on the talk page instead of continuing to revert. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

• Special report: ArbCom election—candidates’ opinions analysed

• In the media: Icelandic milestone; apolitical editing

• Discussion report: BASC disbanded; other developments in the discussion world

• Arbitration report: Ban Appeals Subcommittee goes up in smoke; 21 candidates running

• Featured content: Fantasia on a Theme by Jimbo Wales

• Traffic report: Darkness and light

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism (page protection level)

How to remove page semi-protection against vandalism on pages Vrutci and Lake Vrutci. Do you make it for me. Parkirovskieng (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Parkirovskieng: You can request that the protection be removed by posting to WP:RFPP. However, it was put in place for a very good reason and instead you should place an edit semi-protected request on the talk page of the article. You can do this by going to the article, either Vrutci or Lake Vrutci, clicking on view source at the top, and then clicking on "submit an edit request". Please note that all requests must be specific, they must be formatted in a "please change X to Y" format and they must have reliable sources that back up any claims. If these two things are not there the request will be rejected. I see that you have started a request on Talk:Lake Vrutci but you did not actually request anything. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My edit request

See Template talk:Religion topics

VirgoRetti (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)VirgoRetti

Phillips Collection

Stabila711, I apologize for the minor edit changes. I now understand that I need to "propose changes" and submit "verification" as research,forensics and articles are published. Thank you for your help.OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

• Op-ed: Wikidata: the new Rosetta Stone

• News and notes: Fundraising update; FDC recommendations

• In the media: Erasmus Prize awarded to Wikipedia; trouble on the Russian Wikipedia

• Recent research: Do Wikipedia citations mirror scholarly impact?; co-star networks in silent films

• Featured content: Caves and stuff

• Traffic report: J'en ai ras le bol

• Arbitration report: Third Palestine-Israel case closes; Voting begins

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland urge Reiss Engelhorn Museum to reconsider suit over public domain works of art

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Majora. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 06:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Majora. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your help with my archiving thing. Looks like you like caffeine, so here's a cup of joe. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Kindly check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knanaya

I have edited 59.88.210.249 claim for clarity, if it seems valid with general apprehensions mentioned before by Knanaya community members and respects User:Cuchullain requirement of Swiderski theory, kindly do take required procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.42.219 (talk) 06:14, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea why you came to me since I don't remember ever editing that page nor do I have anything to do with that page. But I have undid your edit. Never edit another person's post. Period. If you want to add to it make a new line and sign you posts with ~~~~. See WP:TPO for more information. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  I have no clear idea how wikipedia articles are reviewed or a talk page claims are addressed, is it redirected to a certain no. of registered members or happenstance. I saw your name answering a certain question on Knanaya talk page and looking through your page I saw Detective Barnstar- In my wildest guess it seemed to be something related to investigation and such sorts. From the geo-location of this IP, you could also see the valid claims that's been pointed out and not some fluke needs. The thing is that I don't know where to address this issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.42.219 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  Oh. Claims on talk pages are verified by providing reliable sources that verify the claim being made. That is how Wikipedia works. All claims must be able to be verified from a source. The barnstar above was for a different matter involving articles I have improved. Please note that other Wikipedia articles cannot be used to verify a claim made in a separate article. You can use other articles as starting points but references must come from independent reliable sources. As to the people who respond to a talk page, usually registered editors have articles they like to edit on their watchlist. By doing this they will be notified whenever a new post is made. My edit in the past was because of an edit semi-protected request and I happen to watch that list. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you, is their an open-list where one can see the list of editors based on topics they manage. Is it a good practice to nominate topics to them for additional content and review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.42.219 (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  There isn't a list for each article. You can only see how many watchers each article has. For the one in question that information you would go here. You can also try at talk page of the various Wikiprojects listed at the top of the talk page. The members of those projects take a special interest in the articles that fall under their jurisdiction and can usually provide more insight than people just passing by (like me). --Stabila711 (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

• Op-ed: Whither Wikidata?

• News and notes: Online harassment consultation; High voter turnout at ArbCom elections

• In the media: Is Wikidata as transparent as it seems?; Wikimedia Fund-raising drive launches

• Traffic report: Jonesing for episodes

• Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Guidance barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For helping on IRC. Pine✉ 07:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

• News and notes: ArbCom election results announced

• Op-ed: Wikidata: Knowledge from different points of view

• In the media: Political editing in the context of the US presidential primaries

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 winners

• Traffic report: So do you laugh, or does it cry?

• Featured content: Sports, ships, arts... and some other things

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism edit request on 2015-12-13

Hi, just a note regarding Talk:Osama_bin_Laden#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_13_December_2015: looks like when templates get vandalized, the vandalized version may show up to visitors from cache, while logged-in users see the fixed version. So when there are complaints about "clear vandalism" that cannot be seen, it can be useful to check with private browsing mode. A Wikipedia:Purge fixes such cache issues easily. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Protection of the Christ's Sanctified Holy Church page

Hi Stabila711,

I'm a pretty new Wikipedia contributor, but am trying to come up to speed here out of necessity. The articles prior to my edits appear incomplete, and based solely on the bad press. Since those references were valid references, my edits endeavor to preserve those while providing a more complete accounting of the reference. I am associated with the organization and would like to ask your assistance in guiding me to getting some protection of this page so that it can be factually accurate and useful to the community. I would be most grateful Davcoz (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Davcoz: I have posted the proper place to ask for protection on the talk page of that article. It is WP:RFPP. However, protection is not for content disputes. It is for excessive vandalism. If you are in a content dispute with another editor please use the talk page of the article to talk about it. Refusal to do so, and refusal to work collaboratively can result in penalties. In addition, you have a clear conflict of interest and you should never edit the page again. Period. Do not edit that page directly. Please request all edits on the talk page and another editor can look into it. Also, if you are being paid, or expect any form of monetary gain from these edits you must disclose this on your user page per our Terms of Use. Failure to do so can result in your editing privileges being revoked. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Stabila711 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Stabila711: Thanks for your posting in the talk page. I've asked for protection of this page per your recommendation. Your response makes many assumptions and assertions based on those assumptions... There is no conflict of interest. The edits include all the previous references.... Would you be so kind as to take some detailed position on the edits/article? Davcoz (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Davcoz: I am leaving that to the people who edit that article. I was just a passerby since I monitor the edit semi-protected requests. And there is a conflict of interest. You admitted it in your previous post here. I am associated with the organization is a conflict of interest with that article. If you are associated with them you have a conflict of interest. In any case, your request will be evaluated by an administrator. In the meantime, I must insist that you do not edit that page directly. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Stabila711: So I'm neither paid, nor on staff, nor hold any office, nor expect any financial gain. I am associated in term of knowing something of the organization. How might a list of authorized editors be established for this article and who are they?

  @Davcoz: Hmm. I may have jumped the gun on the conflict of interest. And for that, I apologize. On Wikipedia, being "associated with the organization" means that you either work for them, or are a family member of someone that works for them, or in some way have a conflict of interest. Since people who have a COI have a very hard time being neutral we ask that those with one do not edit articles directly. If this is not true, I apologize. As to a list of "authorized editors" anyone without a COI can edit the article directly. However, if someone objects to your edit you should not just redo it without discussing it. See WP:BRD which stands for "Be bold, revert, discuss." If you are reverted you should discuss it with the person that reverted it, either on the talk page or on the user's talk page. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Stabila711: Thank you very much for your help and guidance. I'll await the results of the protection increase request and any farther edits of the page to choose next steps. I don't really know how one has a substantive discussion when meaningful contributions are made and they are simply reverted with meaningless rebuttal. I think I pursue protection and then negotiate content as possible/appropriate. Thank you again for your answers.

Protected pages and the lock icon

So, at least in theory, the MediaWiki engine could be made to automatically display the appropriate icon on all protected pages, but how much work that would entail, and whether it's worth doing it, is another matter? Guy Harris (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Harris: It is probably doable from a coding standpoint. WP:AN and WP:ANI automatically show or hide the lock icon when the page is protected. This is the first line in the edit window:

<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>

The only problem is that protection happens for various reasons and the locks have different display notices for each one. {{pp-sock}} has a different message than {{pp-blp}} and so on. So while the displaying of a lock is probably possible code wise the determination of what is the right lock to display is a little bit more complicated. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

• In focus: Drone photography: New possibilities and new challenges

• In the media: Wales in China; #Edit2015

• Arbitration report: GMO case decided

• Featured content: An unusually slow week

• WikiProject report: Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations

• Traffic report: A feast of Spam

• Gallery: WikiConference USA 2015: images, slide decks, and videos

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For your helpful participation on IRC. Pine✉ 21:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

• News and notes: WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee

• Arbitration report: Second Arbitration Enforcement case concludes as another case is suspended

• Featured content: The post-Christmas edition

• Traffic report: The Force we expected

• Year in review: The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015

• In the media: Wikipedia plagued by a "Basket of Deception"

• Gallery: It's that time of year again

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Page move to userspace

@Majora: yes that was indeed what I wanted to do, thank you for your changes.. Xray~Vision158 22:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:Notice

I apologize that I didn't respond until now. There is no excuse for that. I also realize that whatever I say here will likely not change whatever will happen to me, but I still feel it necessary to write this, just so that I may try to make you understand my actions. It does honestly frustrate me to be told that I should hold off on new page patrol until I've made 500 mainspace edits. I think I made that much clear through my actions, although I did make a deliberate effort to follow these instructions yesterday by making more than 120 mainspace edits, but eventually stopped out of a personal sense of futility. I fail to see how a number like that could ever make a difference between understanding the rules and guidelines of the new pages section and not doing so. Furthermore, it frustrated me when you, a user who only has roughly two months more experience than I do, took authority over me when it seemed to me that you were in no position to do so(again, I am trying to explain the motivations for my actions). Most importantly, I did not trust that only ONE actual citation of my misconduct in the new pages section was really enough evidence that I was more a boon than an aid, and not the other way around, as I believe. I realize that my proceeding against your wishes and admonishment is your reason for taking such harsh action, but I beg you to consider; you gave no warning of the consequences if I did not stop; you only waited till I had ignored one message instead of taking the time to post two. I can give you my word(which is something which I never gave to Kolbasz)that I will avoid the new pages section for whatever term you see fit, if you can explain to me, without any vagaries, why I should avoid it. I believe now that it is possible to avoid administrator intervention, and if I ever break my promise you clearly have every right to proverbially sic the dogs on me. I await your response and thank you for your consideration. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

3RR

Touche, you're right on that one. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 11:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Freehold Secondary and Reviewed Pages

I'm a little tentative to ask you about this, as I feel I might be overreacting a bit, but I decided that it would be best to ask anyway. Can users see if their pages have been reviewed? I ask because an hour ago, I posted the page Freehold Secondary and haven't received any notifications since. I realize that I shouldn't be worried about this, but I couldn't help but wonder, and would very much appreciate my page being reviewed. Thanks. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -(Aeneid, Book I, Line 203) User:Thalassaxeno 01:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thalassaxeno. Yep, you will get a notification when the page is reviewed. It will show up in the notification tab. You should receive it now. --Majora (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I just did. Thank you very much, and please feel free to tell me if requests like this are ever a bother. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -(Aeneid, Book I, Line 203) User:Thalassaxeno 01:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thalassaxeno, You can never be a bother by asking questions. --Majora (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Prevention editing on "List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2016"

Your recently undo my edit at this page according to the WP:ARBPIA3. I understand the wish to keep those articels reliable and neutral but in this case I'm almost the only one who updates them consistently and give sources to any edit (for example at the article of 2015 almost a half of the text written by me...). I hope for some flexibility that allow me to keep update this article even though the rule. Thank you, Gunrpks (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gunrpks: I'm sorry. I don't have any jurisdiction over this. This decision was handed down by the Arbitration Committee. I understand that you are the only one that keeps those articles updated and I get that you are probably frustrated but there is really nothing that can be done. Try editing some other articles outside of this topic for a while. You can keep a list on your computer with the edits that have to be made. Or you can use the talk pages of the articles to request that an edit be done. If you go this route please use the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that this doesn't deter you from continuing to improve articles. Just not those articles (until you meet the requirements). If you have an further questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast response. The probelm is not with the protection, I autoconfirmed user, and request any time at the talk page is not realistic option unfortunately. There is no situation that I get exception for this specific article, as his creator or from the reasons above, at all, even with request from administrator or something like that? Gunrpks (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gunrpks: Even admins cannot overrule ArbCom. You can try to make an amendment request by going to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment but the possibility of that actually being approved is pretty close to zero. You will probably be told to just go edit somewhere else until you meet the requirements. You being the creator of the article was problematic to begin with. There was a quick discussion among other editors on what to do with it. Since the restrictions doesn't explicitly say they can't be created the article wasn't marked for deletion but since all edits afterwards explicitly do fall under the restriction there is not much anyone can do. I said use the {{edit semi protected}} template since, on these specific articles, autoconfirmed means nothing. So in essence it is like you don't have that. Eventually that will be your only option. There is an edit filter that automatically screens out all edits made by editors that do not meet the requirements. The articles that fall under this restriction will be added to that filter leaving the talk page as your only option. Again, I am sorry that it has come to this. This restriction was put in place after years of disruption and there is really nothing that can be done about it. --Majora (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI

The primary campaign has already started. Almost half the states have already finalized who's on the ballot. Rocky de la Fuente is on the ballot in ten states and will probably be in at least 20. It would be nice to get some help.66.108.159.118 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sweeping changes like what you did on highly visited pages are strongly discouraged without at least some sort of a discussion before hand. There is absolutely no rush to have anything up or anything done on any article. Your insistence on changing the entire structure of multiple articles without a word or any input from any other editor is against the very collaborative nature of this project. So no, I won't help you. And please don't be surprised if another editor reverts you again. Start a discussion on the talk page if you want to restructure the page, don't just go ahead and do it and don't continue to do it after someone reverted you. See WP:BRD. --Majora (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

They weren't actually sweeping changes, consensus has been achieved on he GOP primary/candidate pages. If you go there, it's been like that for months, now. 66.108.159.118 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

the democratic primaries

That wasn't a mistake I made. The links are to make creation of primary pages quick and easy. If you look at the 2012 pages that's how they're done.65.88.88.71 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Responded to on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 --Majora (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Whoops. That's what comes from working in the wee small hours ! Thanks Dr Sludge (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you :)

Uamaol has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

This is for helping find what I need. Happy New Year :) Uamaol (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

• News and notes: The WMF's age of discontent

• In the media: Impenetrable science; Jimmy Wales back in the UAE

• Arbitration report: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case been decided

• Featured content: Featured menagerie

• Recent research: Teaching Wikipedia, Does advertising the gender gap help or hurt Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Try-ing to become informed - WikiProject Rugby League

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Majora. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Sn1per ^(t)(c) 03:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Majora. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick Deletion

I would like the page to be deleted immediately i did the wrong thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obinnaonye (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Obinnaonye: They have all been marked for deletion. When an admin takes a look at it they will be deleted. If you have any questions about Wikipedia please feel free to ask. --Majora (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Obinna Onyemaobi (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

• In the media: War and peace; WMF board changes; Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias

• Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF

• Editorial: We need a culture of verification

• In focus: The Crisis at New Montgomery Street

• Op-ed: Transparency

• Traffic report: Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report

• Special report: Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016

• News and notes: Community objections to new Board trustee

• Blog: Inside the game of sports vandalism on Wikipedia

• Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

• Arbitration report: Interview: outgoing and incumbent arbitrators 2016

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

email

Hello, Majora. 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.

--Marvel Hero (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You dope!

	You dope, I sent a POTSTICKER!
	Thank you so much for your help with my first article, your input was invaluable. Potguru (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Linkrot

Hi Majora. I recently posted another page on a New Jersey railroad line, which was promptly tagged for linkrot. While, after reading up on it a little, I'm fairly sure that I understand what this term means, and that the patroller who tagged my page was justified in doing so, I think I need help learning how to fit Wikipedia's guidelines regarding this particular issue. I'd really appreciate advice. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -(Aeneid, Book I, Line 203) User:Thalassaxeno 02:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thalassaxeno: Linkrot is when a link to a reference is no longer valid, meaning that the material in the article can not longer be verified with that reference. It is a particular problem for "bare URLs" or references that have no other information in them besides the URL as it is difficult to salvage a dead link with only the URL. Are you aware of our citation templates? Particularly {{cite web}}? Take your first reference on the page I am assuming you are talking about Hightstown Industrial Track. Instead of

<ref>http://www.prrths.com/newprr_files/Hagley/PRR1832.pdf</ref>

you could do

<ref>{{cite web | title=A General Chronology of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company Its Predecessors and Successors and Its Historical Context. | last=Baer | first=Christopher | date=June 2015 | accessdate=January 21, 2016 | url=http://www.prrths.com/newprr_files/Hagley/PRR1832.pdf}}</ref>

That way, if the link ever "rots" and becomes unusable the name of the document, the author, and the date it was written is still there which could allow someone to salvage it. --Majora (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you very much. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -(Aeneid, Book I, Line 203) User:Thalassaxeno 04:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD of Possible Interest

Based on your participation in an AfD for United States presidential election, 2020, you may be interested in this AfD. (This neutrally worded notification is being provided to every editor who registered a !vote in the aforementioned RfC, regardless of direction of their vote, and is therefore done in compliance with WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING.) LavaBaron (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

• News and notes: Vote of no confidence; WMF trustee speaks out

• Op-ed: Not a pretty picture: Thoughts on the "monkey selfie" debacle

• In the media: 15th anniversary news round-up

• Traffic report: Danse Macabre

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Blog: Fifteen years ago, Wikipedia was a very different place

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

St. Camillus Centre

Can you please take a look at St. Camillus Centre (the center apparently founded by Juliana Manele/Sister Juliana Manele)? It seems that most of St. Camillus Centre article should be deleted (and only a stub left) since it's just not written in the way Wikipedia articles should be written, and is written like an advertisement. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

• Op-ed: Lila Tretikov: the WMF needs your input in developing our strategy

• News and notes: Geshuri steps down from the Board

• In the media: Media coverage of the Arnnon Geshuri no-confidence vote

• Recent research: Bursty edits; how politics beat religion but then lost to sports; notability as a glass ceiling

• Traffic report: Death and taxes

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies 2016

I meant to press preview and I hit save instead. Thanks for catching it. --Giant Bernard (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

• From the editors: Help wanted

• Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost

• In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board

• Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?

• News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge engine background

• Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration

• Traffic report: Bowled

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

• Special report: New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine

• In focus: An in-depth look at the special report's newly revealed documents

• News and notes: Another WMF departure

• In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A river of revilement

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

• Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov

• Op-ed: Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Super Bowling

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Antonin Scalia and the editor tracking his legacy

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't mean to vandalize the 2016 Election page, I was trying to make one edit and I tried to undo it and it just became worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.75.119 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It is all undone now. In the future, please use the Show preview button to check if what you are doing looks right before hitting save. That way you can escape out of it if you do something wrong. If you need any help with Wikipedia please let me know and I can see if I can point you in the right direction. --Majora (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Majora. You have new messages at Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016's talk page.
Message added 23:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Musdan77 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

• Special report: WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears

• Op-ed: Backward the Foundation

• Traffic report: Of Dead Pools and Dead Judges

• Blog: Wiki Loves Africa brings the continent’s fashion to the world

• Arbitration report: Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of immage

The image in question is the official imagery used by the UNO Athletics department. The original imagery of Lafitte the Alligator was removed due to retirement of the mascot and it is no longer the official mascot of New Orleans Privateer Athletics. The image was replaced with the official imagery of New Orleans Privateer Athletics. Furthermore, the image was used in the UNO Athletics section on the UNO Wikipedia page that subsequently contains a link to the New Orleans Privateers Athletics page which also contains the image. Since the image is the official image of the New Orleans Privateers Athletics Department, a department subsequently associated with the University of New Orleans, and by being placed in the Athletics section of the University of New Orleans Wikipedia page that contains a hyperlink to the New Orleans Privateer Athletics page which contains similar imagery the image is being used in a fashion and manner previously approved the idea this is a copyright infringement rests on weak foundation.

Please retract you objection and/or comment about the images usage and restore the image to the University of New Orleans Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaltz112 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Swaltz112: First of all, I didn't delete it. It was deleted by an administrator over at Commons. I just tagged it for deletion. Commons only accepted free use images. Logos are copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Commons. It does not matter one bit that it is the "official" logo. In fact, that makes it worse since the copyright is clear. The previous image on that page was one of a person dressed up in the mascot suit, taken by a person, that then released to us for our use. You ripped the exact logo directly from the official website. That is copyright infringement. Do you see the difference between a photograph of a person in a suit and the actual physical logo of the organization taken directly from their website? So no, I won't be retracting my objection and restoring the image. Partly because I can't since I am not an admin and cannot perform an undeletion and partly because it was a blatant copyright violation and you were in the wrong. If you have any further questions regarding what images are and aren't acceptable to use on Wikipedia please let me know and I can try to sort that out for you. --Majora (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the lesson in copyright law. What is you affiliation with Wikipedia, University of New Orleans, and New Orleans Privateer Athletics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaltz112 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Swaltz112: I have no affiliation with either the University of New Orleans or the New Orleans Privateer Athletics. If I did, that would be a conflict of interest and per our guidelines I wouldn't be editing any page that has to do with them. If you have an affiliation with either or these you should not be editing those pages. As for Wikipedia, I am a volunteer editor. Just like every other editor here. The only "affiliation" that editors here have is that we are all volunteers working together. As for the logo, you are welcome to request undeletion of it on Commons. Here is the link: c:Commons:Undeletion requests. But as I mentioned to you before, the logo is copyrighted so that would probably be a waste of your time. --Majora (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood. In this instance the only thing I am guilty of is editing a page while begin affiliated with the organization. I am not employed with New Orleans Privateer Athletics. However, I do volunteer with them in various aspects and this alone my be the "conflict of interest" you speak of. If it is my sincerest apologies, as I am new to all this I was unaware of such a policy. I will be mindful of it in the future. I will request for the image to be restored. I thank you for the link to do so. Previously you mentioned "Commons only accepted 'free' use images. Logos are 'copyrighted' and 'cannot' be uploaded to Commons". I have to be in disagreement with you on this issue largely because the exact logo of issue in this correspondence is has been successfully uploaded to Wikipedia. I noted this in my original request to you. This is of no concern however as I will include a consent of use letter when I make the request to restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaltz112 (talk • contribs) 20:46, February 25, 2016 (UTC)

@Swaltz112: The logo that is currently on that page is uploaded only to the English Wikipedia and is uploaded under our fair use policy. This policy is very restrictive as to what can be uploaded and what cannot. There are also restrictions as to how many fair use images can be displayed on a page. For all of the requirements for fair use see WP:NFCC. Fair use requires a lot more "paperwork" to be filled out and fair use images cannot be uploaded to Commons and must be uploaded directly to this Wikipedia only. If you want to go this route please see files for upload and request it there. --Majora (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally, a fair use image would only be allowed on the specific page the image is about. So your addition of that logo to the main school page would not be allowed under fair use. It would however be allowed on the New Orleans Privateers article. And from what I can see (and remember) it looks like the logo has already been updated there. You can see the logo that has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia along with all the required documentation here: File:NewOrleansPrivateers.PNG. If you have any questions about fair use images please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

• News and notes: Tretikov resigns, WMF in transition

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Brawling

• Recent research: Wikipedia and paid labour; Swedish gender gap; how verifiable is "verifiable"?

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation details requests to alter or remove content in new transparency report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Varmus's photo

Hi

This proust1129. I am lab manager in Dr. Varmus lab in Weill Cornell Medicine. Dr. Varmus authorized me to edit his wiki page. The photo you tagged for speedy deletion is actually a free license photo. It was taken by Matthew Septimus in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. I did not have the information until now. I will upload with copyright information and add it to Dr. Varmus's page.

Thank you, Proust1129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proust1129 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

• News and notes: Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted

• In the media: Wikipedian is break-out star of International Women's Day; dinosaur art; Wikipedia's new iOS app and its fight for market share

• Op-ed: A modest proposal for Wikimedia’s future

• Featured content: Five articles, four lists, a topic, and five images were promoted this week.

• Technology report: Wikimedia wikis will temporarily go into read-only mode on several occasions in the coming weeks

• WikiCup report: First round of the WikiCup finishes

• Blog: The new alchemy: turning online harassment into Wikipedia articles on women scientists

• Systemic bias: Revenge of "I can’t believe we didn’t have an article on ..."

• Traffic report: All business like show business

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

• In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing

• Op-ed: Hard work needed to address Wikimedia’s leadership challenges

• Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!

• Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov

• Blog: It “revolutionized the way German-speaking people inform themselves about the world”: Fifteen years of the German Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Karla Rothstein, 2014.jpg

Hi Majora,

I'm not all to familiar with all the procedures on enwiki, however the file File:Karla Rothstein, 2014.jpg which had a fair use rationale, and which you nominated for deletion as you believed the rationale was incorrect/did not apply has now been released under cc-by-sa-4.0 via OTRS. Seeing that I wanted to ask you whether you wanted to remove the tag?

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Basvb: Already done and since it is now licensed under a CC 4.0 license it is eligible to be moved to Commons and has been marked as such. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Basvb (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

With regard to Karla's photo, I have been granted permission by the photographer and the subject to upload this image. The Permissions department at the Wikimedia Foundation is aware of the exchange (via email) and has sanctioned this upload. There is no free equivalent of her portrait. She is a very prominent architect and I simply cannot take her photo myself as an untrained photographer. Mlynch345 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlynch345 (talk • contribs)

Rahul Nath photo

Hi there

I seem to be confused on why the image for Rahul Nath is not being allowed The photo is a headshot of the individual and we want this on his page. Are we using the wrong explanation? Please let us know what we need to put on the description so that the photo can be retained and not deleted Thanks in advance Blakeksm (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Blakeksm: Fair use does not apply for living persons as being alive fails WP:NFCCP #1. What this means is that it is reasonable that a free use equivalent either exists or can be created. Now that last part is what is important for living people. Since they are alive it is reasonable that one can be created, so fair use does not apply. Since fair use does not apply we would need a free use photo. Now what that means is that we need a photo that has been released to us for anyone to use or modify at any time. If you can find an image where the photographer agrees to release it for our use please see WP:DONATEIMAGE and follow the relevant instructions. If you cannot find an image where the photographer agrees to release it there is not much we can do. There are a lot of articles that do not have an image simply because we can't find one that can be used. If you can't find one that can be released (or is already under a free license) the article will have to remain without an image. If you have any further questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Lotti Golden- Riverside Park, NYC, 1981.jpg

Hi Majora, I received a message from you regarding deleting the above referenced file due to a copyright issue. I want to let you know that a letter was sent to Wikipedia from the copyright holder granting permission for this file to be used according to Wikipedia standards, and licensing. There is a reference number for this subject matter in the letter the copyright holder received from Wikipedia. In addition, the letter stated it may take some time to process because a small amount of volunteers work in this department. I don't think it's prudent to publish the reference number publicly, but if you think it's OK, or require further information, let me know. Please do not take the image down while this is pending in the Wikipedia/media permissions department. Thank you. Magdalamar (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Magdalamar (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Magdalamar: I am assuming you mean File:Lotti Golden- Riverside Park, NYC, 1981.jpg. If you are please follow the instructions on your talk page. Edit the image page and place {{OTRS pending}} on the page. If you need help with this please let me know (after confirming that this is the image you are talking about). Thanks. --Majora (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Majora, Yes, I am referencing the photo, File:Lotti Golden- Riverside Park, NYC, 1981.jpg. Do I put {{OTRS pending}} on the image page: File:Lotti Golden- Riverside Park, NYC, 1981.jpg or somewhere else? I assume it's the image page, and I will attempt to edit the page. Thank you for your help offer, that is very kind. If I run into trouble, I will let you know! Magdalamar (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Magdalamar: Yep. Go to the image page and edit the page. Place {{OTRS pending}} on the page either in the summary or the licensing section (either or will work). I'll check on it tomorrow just to make sure it was done right so it won't be deleted before the permission email has been processed. --Majora (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Majora, should I include the ticket number? Magdalamar (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Magdalamar: You do not have to. According to the template documentation the date you sent in the email should also be included when you place the template. The full line you should put in is {{OTRS pending|year=2016|month=03|day=XX}} (replacing XX with the day you sent the email in). The date is so the pending permissions notification gets categorized in the correct category for tracking and maintenance purposes. --Majora (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: Thank you so much for your patience and assistance! Magdalamar (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

• Interview: Exclusive: interview with interim ED Katherine Maher

• News and notes: Lila Tretikov a Young Global Leader; Wikipediocracy blog post sparks indefinite blocks

• In the media: Angolan file sharers cause trouble for Wikipedia Zero; the 3D printer edit war; a culture based on change and turmoil

• Traffic report: Be weary on the Ides of March

• Editorial: "God damn it, you've got to be kind."

• Featured content: Watch out! A slave trader, a live mascot and a crested serpent awaits!

• Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #120: Status of Wikimania 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Image of Snazz D

Hi, I have full permission from the owner of the photograph to use it on Wikipedia. I thought I had expressed that in the context. Please explain what you would like me to do now. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

@Subzzee: "Use on Wikipedia" is not a valid license release nor is fair use appropriate for living people. If you look on the image page I did go into detail a little bit but I can repeat it here. Images that have permission must have specific permission. Since fair use does not apply the image must be released under a free license. What that means is that the image must be able to be used and modified by any one at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). Now, free use images should not be uploaded here, but to Commons. Please take a look at COM:ET for instructions on exactly what is needed to prove that the image is released under a free license. On that page is also the form that must be filled out by the copyright owner. Once filled out the form can be emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Further information can be found on the instruction page linked to above or you can ask me and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: Hi, I have permission to upload the photograph on Wikipedia. I asked for permission to use the photo and the copy write holder said it was okay. But I do not have permission to upload it under a free license. If there is no compromise available, then I guess you will have to remove it. It's a shame, because I went through the trouble of getting permission in the first place. But I cannot upload the photograph for free use, I am sorry. If that is the only alternative then it should be removed. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)) Happy Easter! :)

Deletion of Michelle de Bruin Wolf image

Deletion of Michelle de Bruin Wolf Image. I took the photograph - how to I associate it with me as author then? Blellum (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Blellum: Since the image was found online, on a site that had a copyright notice, we could not take your word for it. This is to protect the author's copyright. If you took the photo, proof must be shown. In addition, images that are released under a free license, which was the original license attributed to that image, should be uploaded to Commons. Not here. The instructions on how to show proof can be found here. On that page is also the form that must be filled out and emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have the image in my Lightroom library, and am adding metadata to it there. I'll have a go uploading it the way you point out. If I get stuck I'll shout. Thanks Blellum (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, uploaded to Commons, re-added to page, and email sent. Fingers crossed :) Blellum (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Blellum: I added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the image on Commons. You should be all set. --Majora (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

• News and notes: Trump/Wales 2016

• In the media: Saskatoon police delete Wikipedia content about police brutality

• WikiProject report: Why should the Devil have all the good music? An interview with WikiProject Christian music

• Traffic report: Donald v Daredevil

• Featured content: A slow, slow week

• Technology report: Browse Wikipedia in safety? Use Telnet!

• Recent research: "Employing Wikipedia for good not evil" in education; using eyetracking to find out how readers read articles

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #121: How April Fools went down

• Blog: Growing hashtags: Expanding outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Eijaz Khan's picture removal

Hi there, i received a message from yourself stating that you removed the picture Eijaz Khan. I was authorized by Eijaz to update the picture on his profile on Wikipedia. I am Admin of his Facebook Group and Page and have been giving approval by the man himself to do this. I have to completely change everything on it as requested by him. What is the point of having Wikipedia profiles if people who actually work for the celeb in question are not allowed to update it. Somebody keeps adding a spouse and that is always allowed to stay but when the actual truth gets added, it always gets removed. I request that this problem gets sorted out and that the only two people allowed to update his profile is me and him.

Yours Sincerely

Sana Khan (Personal Assistant to Eijaz Khan ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetsana157 (talk • contribs) 10:42, April 4, 2016

@Sweetsana157: Alright, there are a few things that you need to know about Wikipedia. First of all, please read our conflict of interest guideline and our Terms of Use (specifically section 4. Refraining from Certain Activities). As Khan's personal assistant you have a financial conflict of interest and you must disclose this on your user page by placing {{paid|employer=Eijaz Khan}} on it. This is non-negotiable and must be done for you to be in compliance with our Terms of Use.

Second, since you have a conflict of interest you should not be editing that page directly at all. Please use the article's talk page located here: Talk:Eijaz Khan. If you need something changed on the page you can submit an edit request by using the {{edit request}} template. Third, all material on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to reliable, third-party, independent sources. That is how Wikipedia works. For more information on what a reliable source is please see WP:RS.

Next, if you actually read the notice that was posted on your talk page you would see that all we need is proof that the image is licensed under something that we can use. All free use images, which is what the picture was licensed under, need to be able to be used and modified by any one at any time for any purpose including commercial use. This is all explained in the notice I left on your talk page. The person that owns the copyright, which is the photographer, needs to fill out the form located here and email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please include a link to the image in the email. Once you do, you need to place {{OTRS pending}} on the image to let people know the proof has been sent. You have until the 8th to do that after which the photo is subject to deletion.

Finally, your last request is simply not going to happen. You are on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You, nor Eijaz, own anything on that page. Nor do you have any extra right to stop other people from editing it. For our policy on this matter please see WP:Ownership of content. This is a collaborative project and pages here are open to be edited by anyone.

If you have further questions about this or any of the above, including what is needed on the image, please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Majoran justinleestansfieldjpg

Why is that picture flagged for copyright violation. The picture is public available and therefore public. The artist provided the picture in question after me requesting such. Based on what did you flagged the picture for deletion. This seems a random choice and is not fact based. Please remove the flag immediately. Thank you Borismatt (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Borismatt: Public availability does not equate to a license we can use and you tagged it with a {{self}} license which means you took the photo. Judging by your request that is clearly not true. Images on Wikipedia that are under a free license, which that image is, must be able to be used and modified by any one at any time for any purpose including commercial use. If the photographer of that image has given it to you and agrees to publish it under this license please see this page for a form that must be filled out by the copyright owner and instructions on what you have to do to get the image placed under the proper license. In addition, free use images should be uploaded to Commons, not here. As of right now, the image is a copyright violation since there is absolutely no proof that the author of that image agreed to license it under the license you gave it. If you have further questions or are confused on what you have to do please let me know and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The picture is handedoing over by the owner. No problem. I will ask the artist owner to provide proof. The picture is public available on g+ for everyone to use. In this case your assumption is wrong because I can use and place the picture where ever I want. Nevertheless I don't get it how you come to such a conclusion but I use the form to comply... Borismatt (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4