User talk:Dmehus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • Please help keep discussions together.
  • If I left you a message on your talk page, please reply there (and ping me}.
  • If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will answer here.
  • If you have already started a conversation on this page, please reply there.
Click here to begin a new topic
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • View or search the archives for old messages.


Need Help?

Policies and Guidelines


No issues with that at all; thank you. Nate (chatter) 03:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nate. I'll update your reply on the talk page, for the public record of the move discussion. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing and Canadian Tire Financial Services RM[edit]

Hi Doug, I'd suggest reading the guideline at WP:CANVAS. Posting in unrelated RM discussions to say "please support my RM from X → Y" as you did here and here would be frowned on, both because it's not the right place, and because notifications should be neutral, rather than cajoling readers to vote a specific way. I would also be cautious about singling out specific users to invite to an RM - if there's any appearance that you're selectively notifying users that you think will be favourable to your hoped-for outcome, that can also present a problem. It's usually better to just let editors find the RM naturally. If you're really worried about low turnout, I recommend posting a (neutral) notice on a related wikiproject (such as WikiProject Canada in this case). Hope that helps. Colin M (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. I hadn't realized such canvassing was discouraged. I'd only aimed to establish a positive rapport with BarrelProof and Trillfendi by showing them that, despite past disagreements vis-a-vis support/opposition on RMs, AfDs, or Wikipedia policies, that I can still be neutral in supporting their own RM (as applicable). Hope that makes sense.

Several follow-up questions for you to "pick your brain"...

  1. How come the WikiProject Personal Finance and Investment wasn't notified of the RM for President's Choice Financial -> PC Financial like Canadian Tire Financial Services->Canadian Tire Bank was? Is there some sort of coding that needs to be added? I can't seem to manually add it to WikiProject Personal Finance and Investment like I did with WikiProject Canada.
  2. In the PC Financial case, in a case where 1 supports (perhaps strongly) and 1 is a weak oppose, is it possible consensus could be determined as in favour?
  3. When you make/propose page move/merge decisions, how do you personally decide whether to be be bold and just make the move or initiate a discussion? WP:BRD seems to encourage the former, but part of me thinks it's better to have a discussion. Any insight appreciated. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. You're talking about the listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Article alerts, right? Looks like the PC Financial RM has been posted there now. I think it didn't show up immediately because the page only updates once a day, not in real time.
  2. Sure, it depends on the individual closer and how they read the strength of the arguments. I'd say it's more likely in that case for the would-be closer to relist the discussion to get more input. If it were closed in that state, I think 'No consensus' would be the most typical outcome, but it very much depends on the specific circumstances.
  3. That's a great question. The calculus of WP:BRD is a little different in the case of page moves, because, unlike with normal edits, reverting a page move isn't as easy as just clicking a button (especially for those without the page mover flag). I would tend to err on the side of doing an RM. If it does turn out to be uncontroversial, then it's not going to take up a lot of people's time (especially if you make a good case for the move in the nom, and provide the relevant data - pageview stats, ngrams, etc. - so editors don't have to do too much research themselves). i.e. if people think it's clearly a good move, they might just write something terse like "Support, per nom". And similarly, it would be easy for the closer to assess consensus. Another thing you can do if you're on the fence about whether a move requires the RM process is post an informal notice to the talk page, saying you're thinking of renaming the article to X. If you don't get any response after a week or so (or all responses are supportive), that's a pretty good indication that the move is uncontroversial. Though that only really works if the article isn't too obscure, and has a decent number of editors watchlisting it. Colin M (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Primary Topic[edit]


very interested in this edit.

I strongly agree with the sentiment. But IMO the problem is not so much the naming of DABs. The problem is, it's just asking for trouble to have any article at an ambiguous name, Primary Topic or not. A related problem is, we don't have a good definition of Primary Topic anyway (in the sense we use the term, it's a Wikipedia neologism, although it does have an unrelated meaning in linguistics).

I've been putting a lot of research into this... I'll post a link here, but the latest update of Windows 10 has made my computer slower, file explorer difficult to use, and most relevantly, Google Chrome unstable, so I'd better publish this before I lose it. Watch this space but comments meantime welcome. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Motusbank have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


You might have read this essay I wrote - but if not, take a look, I think you'll like it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, Piotrus. Will try and read it on the weekend as it looks interesting. I used to think every company should have a Wikipedia article, but I don't think that's the case anymore. People treat Wikipedia articles as some sort of imperative because Google uses the data in their infoboxes in search results, but unless people want to take the time to write articles that are at least 1 page single-spaced, I tend to think you're right. I appreciate your supporting my Canadian-focused AfDs. Interesting no one proposed these deletions till now. I see you added a redirect WP:CORPSPAM to your essay...I didn't know that (a) we were allowed to do that (guess we just use the Wikipedia namespace?) and (b) write essays, but that's cool. Doug Mehus (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
We are allowed to do pretty much everything that's not forbidden. You can write Wikipedia:User essays, through the one I linked to is actually something I published in the Wikipedia 'newspaper' Wikipedia:Signpost, lots of interesting material in it. And we can create Wikipedia-namespace redirects just like normal ones. Worst case they end up in WP:RFD :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. How do you get published in the Signpost? Have a look at my Rogers Bank proposed deletion. Delete or merge? Also, I used the Wikipedia:PROD process to delete two some implausible redirects someone created (DirectCash Bank and General Bank of Canada). They literally just redirect to a Wikipedia template page. Did I cite the right reasons? Doug Mehus (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Also, for prods, I recommend making sure you have an edit summary with "article prodded because [reason]" or just prodded even. The point is, few months later you can use the tool you have at the bottom of your contributions page to check your edits for things with a particular edit summary and see what wasn't deleted (deleted entries want show in search). I have recently begun the project of reviewing 1000+ entries I prodded in my 10+ years here that survived, to see what needs to be AfDed. Sometime the creator will just deprod things and you wont realize it until you check. FYI to speed things up I have my own standardized copy and paste prod and AfD templates you can see here: User:Piotrus/Templates. You can create such pages as you want in your sandbox (userspace), also there are many gadgets and tools to make various technical things easier (check Preferences / Gadgets for example, and there's a ton of other stuff at Wikipedia:User scripts if you like 'customizing' your account'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, Ah, good idea, I've been copying and pasting into the address bar of a new web browser tab, but it's kind of cumbersome. Very useful. I just realized that I added a WP:Notability tag to the Langara College page. As a distance education student, would that be considered a conflict, no, or would it be very minor? On the one hand, I'm trying to objectively note that the article needs major improvement. Also, from my initial look, it and most of the B.C. public colleges seem to fail WP:NORG. I see schools are except from WP:CSD, so that's a no go, but wondering how often you've seen public colleges have their pages deleted? Am I off-base here, or no? It just reads like blatant spam. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, Re PRODs, yeah, I don't usually use them because people will remove them often. But if they're successful, do they count to your deletion track record? What about AfDs, who gets "credit" for the deletion, the proposer or the admin/non-admin closer? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about such WP:COI, as long as you are not being paid for what you edit, it's a non-issue. Seriously, should (for example) Christian editors declare COI when editing Christianity-related pages? As for schools and such, recommended reading is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the entire page it is on, for a nice overview of some topics. I am not aware of any good way to track 'successful' prods, if you ever find about it do let me know (could as at WP:VP somewhere, or at WT:PROD). I am honestly not sure what you mean by credit for AFDs. I think there are some tools that keep stats for those but I am also not aware of them off the top of my hand, again, let me know if you find out and you can ask about it at VP again or at WT:DELETE or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Colin Basran[edit]

Please do not unlink articles while they are at AFD, as you did with this one. This should only be done if/when the AFD closes as delete. (If the AFD closes as keep, you ought to revert your edits.) SD0001 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

SD0001, Okay, thanks. I strongly suspect it will pass with a delete or strong delete, but I take your point. I jumped the gun. Sorry about that. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Thanks very much for the Barnstar that you posted on my Talk Page! Much appreciated! Thanks, also, for your kind words. I also appreciate your input at the Talk Page of the Tate murders article, where I had proposed renaming the article to the Tate-LaBianca murders. Finally, thanks for fixing that reference error message. It was driving me crazy. I tried to find the source of the error, but I was unable to. It really drove me nuts. I am glad that you were able to find it and to fix it. Thanks so much! Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, No problem for the Editor's Barnstar, for commenting on your previously unaddressed merger proposal at Tate murders, and for fixing the named reference error. :) Doug Mehus (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Bank of America Canada[edit]

Thought I'd take this to your talk page. Something has to be done with the business articles on Wikipedia. A lot of them are just ads for the business in question. Listing products they make and how wonderful they are. I could just start doing mass prods and deletions but I've done that in the past with computer games and made a whole bunch of people mad. It's pretty much the same thing over at AfC, honestly I get tired of citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and Wikipedia isn't a directory nor your advertisement destination location. I'm not entirely sure where to go from here, it's rather exasperating. Whispering(t) 00:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinehouse Photography Club[edit]

Good day and sorry for bothering you. You seem like you know quite a bit in regard to Wiki. I dont know really what to do with the page. I was told by the one user I cant edit or make any changes because of potential COI. I tried posting it on some edit pages for possible rewording and so forth. Do you have any suggestions? What would you do in my situation? Thanks again for your time! --Dreerwin (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CAA and CC-BY-SA whatever[edit]

Thanks for your participation in AFD about Canadian Automobile Association. Thanks for explaining some about whatever license applies now. I knew it is no longer Gnu Public License, but I guess I thought it was "CC-BY-SA" or such, where the "BY" indicates attribution is required, like to the photographer's name for a photo. Per Creative Commons license#Attribution. And about just "SA"(?) there is Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Attribution. I do have the impression that a publication repurposing Wikipedia content usually should have to link to the actual article, where a reader could then go into the "View History". Anyhow, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, no problem. I'm not sure if they're required to link to the edit history. We should do some checks of Everipedia and see if they (a) link to the original article on Wikipedia or (b) just to Wikipedia itself. It'd also be interesting to see if they have to import the editing history - I suspect not. What we'd also want to do is see what is meant by "attribution". I suspect it just means Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation. I've skimmed a bit here (, but's not completely clear. Also, note at the top that re-users of the content can optionally use the GNU Free Documentation License ("GFDL") as an alternative, which may or may not have any attribution requirement. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
When I checked Everipedia's version of the article,, and clicked "View History," it says there have been no edits so it appears they're only tracking edits done on Everipedia. Interestingly, I couldn't find any link to Wikipedia, so not quite sure where they're linking to it.
As for what belongs on Wikipedia, I subscribe now to the deletionism ideology as that's the only way to get the article count down and focus on improving articles that are worthwhile. There's a LOT of articles, especially on companies and organizations such as CAA, that are just not notable—or not notable anymore. Wikipedia is not a directory and it's not for company's to improve their search engine results placement (thinking of writing an essay that Wikipedia is not for corporate SEO). Everipedia, on the other hand, seems to welcome anything and that's fine, but will be harder to manage. So, perhaps that's where companies and organizations excluded from Wikipedia can go. Your thoughts? Doug Mehus (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, i would think that Everipedia should be linking to the Wikipedia article directly, where the edit history could be found, rather than copying it over themselves. But at the CAA article and another test article where I can see they simply copied what I myself wrote in Wikipedia, I too see no way to get to mention of Wikipedia. It actually says "no RECENT edits". If i created an account and logged in could I see more?
Okay, it's official, we are coming from different directions. I am very much an wp:INCLUSIONIST. I do see the need for paring away of junk stuff and fighting paid editors, but I want to work on positive contributions and on saving worthwhile stuff. When I am at AFD I myself choose to go into topics where I estimate something probably should be saved. My wp:AFDSTATS showing now are typical: i mostly vote "Keep" and i think i am fairly influential, affecting the outcome not just agreeing with what others have said. i do quite well percentage-wise for someone mostly voting "keep", with 80 to 85% "correct" rate (meaning green plus yellow cells because "no consensus" results in "keep" outcome). Oh, hmm, you have mostly voted "delete" and don't have as much record yet. Maybe you have not been aware of AFDSTATS? It is handy for coming back to revisit the AFDs still in progress. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:SMALLCAT: how small is small?[edit]

Hi Dmehus, I just noticed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 18 your statement that categories with 4 or fewer articles are considered within the purview of WP:SMALLCAT. Can you point me to a source for that, please? (WP:SMALLCAT just says "a few".) I was amazed when some two-article categories I nominated for deletion a while back were kept, and if there's some guideline I overlooked I would like to try again. Opera hat (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Opera hat, I haven't been able to find it, but haven't the time to look for it at the moment. However, it mentioned somewhere that generally 4 or fewer articles was considered small, 2 or fewer were likely candidates at surviving deletion, 3 somewhat so, and 4 was mixed. Let me know if you find it. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
No bother; thanks for replying. Opera hat (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion concerning WP:THREE[edit]

Hello, thanks for you comments. I brought this here because where we were at was specifically as a comment that I wasn't able to reply to because of the closing so I don't want to go beyond that.
Being bold is an option and if it is not reverted then all is good. I haven't had time to consider the ends and outs but you can start a discussion on the talk page that many may be watching. You can do that and ping past involved editors, or you can add it as a RFC. You can go the bold route and use other options as needed. Arriving at a more broadly accepted consensus is far better with as many weighing in as possible. To me the exact path you choose is a personal choice.
I suppose I would have to give it deeper consideration to see if adding AFD is important, or even needed, and I suppose exploring this would lead to answers. I would have to look at the history. It might be a good idea to inquire of the essay creator.
The direction I take concerning the need for notability sourcing does revolve around how a first reliable source used satisfies significant, or in depth, coverage of the subject. If I see a second source satisfies notability I do not try to nit-pick. If it doesn't seem a second source on notability gives it that "push" over the threshold I will seek a third. I imagine care does have to be taken in trying to be too specific because it must be realized that the criterion depends of the situation. Which ever way you go please ping me. Otr500 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Senate composition[edit]

Something's not adding up correctly, as the change you made brings the total at Senate of Canada to 106. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, Has the Senate of Canada's vacancy totals been updated to take into account Senator Richard Neufeld's retirement on November 6, 2019? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Not sure. I've been trying to get the seat-composition consistent across the related articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
GoodDay, Ah yeah, me too. It's good there's two of us doing that! Figured it out...I forgot to subtract 1 from the non-affiliated seat count re: Senator Tony Loffreda. Fixed. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A slightly clearer explaination[edit]

Hello! My name is Yeetcetera and I've just seen your comment about the CU update - yes I was quoting his remark and I understand I should've italicised it, my mistake, i'm amid the floods currently happening in the South Yorkshire region, so my head is a little everywhere. I appreciate your fast investigation though, as well as your conclusion.

Thank you for you work! -Yeetcetera @me bro 17:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeetcetera, Thank you for the clarification. I had started an WP:SPI investigation, but have untagged you from that investigation and requested withdrawal. Still, it's bizarre behaviour occurring in that WP:ANI report, eh? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly! A strange fellow he was, indeed. I appreciate you withdrawing the report, I'll leave my comment as is to not cause confusion what your comment was about. Thank you for being understanding! -Yeetcetera @me bro 17:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeetcetera, Assume you mean this reply here? Yeah, that's fine, no worries.
Happy editing,

Doug Mehus (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


You're right. Don't watch, don't participate, don't collect £200 but proceed directly back to the less dramatic areas of Wikipedia. AN/I is where you go if you're dealing with problem behaviour from another editor. Otherwise, leave well alone! All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

S Marshall, Yep. Totally see that now! Thanks. :) Doug Mehus T·C 23:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page[edit]

This editor apologizes to any editor in which, with the best of intentions, he removed the deleted category Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page from editors' talk pages. He was not aware of "joke categories" and thought this was leftover cleanup he could undertake. You are most welcome to undo his edit of your talk page. One editor is welcome to trout him on his talk page, if they wish, but do not otherwise make any further comments about this issue on his talk page. He is sorry.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am curious as to why you are removing this from user talk pages. I think that if editors add it, they do so for a reason, and not because they are unaware that it makes them Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page. bd2412 T 18:22, 11 November 2019 (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.