User talk:Eggishorn

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

Added Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous to the "Twelve-step addiction recovery groups"[edit]

I have read the [source standards] and find it very confusing.

Can you tell me if any of these may possibly be good sources to get Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous added as a Twelve Step Group on [Step Group in Wikipedia] and possibly even a page of its own in Wikipedia?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Thank you so much for your help!

Janice in recovery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janice in recovery (talkcontribs) 20:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Janice in recovery:, thank you for contacting me with your question. There are two sets of standards that are affecting the attempted addition of CGAA to the List of twelve-step groups. Hopefully, I can help you understand both.
First of all, however, I'd like to point out two simple ways of doing things around here that may help. First, when you post a comment to a talk page like this one or the talk page for the List of Twelve-Step groups, you should sign the post. This is as easy as typing a row of four tilde characters. These are the little wavy line characters usually at the top left of the keyboard, right above the tab key(~). Second, when you link from a talk page or an article to another Wikipedia page, it's as easy as putting the title of the page between two sets of square brackets. So, for example, linking to your user talkpage like this: [[User talk:Janice in recovery]] produces this: User talk:Janice in recovery. There's a little button below the edit window that helps you do this. If you look below the edit window, there's a label for "Wiki markup:" and the button looks like this: [[]]
The sourcing standards, however, are what you really asked about. List articles usually have standards for inclusion, and in the case of this article, the proposed group needs to have its own article already. In other words, to include CGAA in the List of twelve-step groups, you first need to create the Computer Game Addicts Anonymous article. In a way, by attempting to include the group on the list first and then create an article for the group second, you were trying to put the cart before the horse.
That said, this merely pushes the sourcing problem one step backwards and I realize it doesn't help much. So, what are the "real" standards? The three most important policies are the three core content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point-of-view, and No original research. Let's discuss each one separately:
  • Verifiablity - can a reader or another editor use the same sources to find the same information you did? This, of course, requires that you identified sources for the article's claims at all. Not every sentence needs a citation, I should point out, just the important ones. To make up something relevant, a sentence like: "Computer game addiction was first recognized by Kari Freund in 2011," would need a verifiable citation. Something like: "Computer games are now played on a wide variety of platforms, including cell phones and tablets," would not. You have made a great start on this by finding the list you included above. Some are great sources, like the Chicago Tribune article. As long as you can include at least three or four sources like this one, you can use others to fill in some of the gaps or as External Links. The wikibooks source or the CGAA website (presuming it has one) are best left in the latter category, for example. Verifiability and notability kind of go hand-in-hand. There needs to be significant coverage (that is, more than just a paragraph or two or a simple meeting listing) in independent sources (ones not connected to the CGAA itself or a member or advocate) that are reliable (ones that demonstrate journalistic selectivity and judgment) for the article to pass the notability guideline.
  • Neutral point-of-view - does the article simply provide facts or third-party evaluations and lets the reader make up their own mind? So, for example, an article about CGAA would neither talk about how important the organization is and what good work its doing for sufferers nor how its a scam organization that is taking advantage of desperate victims. Wikipedia is not a place for not a platform for promoting an organization and it is not censored to hide organizations.
  • No original research - does the article present the results of other authors work? If the article is based on primary research and surveys or first-person testimonies, then it will be ruthlessly slashed or even completely deleted. Wikipedia is not a platform to publish new thoughts and inventions. We let other sources do the work of evaluating and synthesizing significance of new thought, and then we cite their evaluations, analyses, and syntheses.
So, where does all this leave you? Well, as I said above, I think you've already done a great deal of legwork to creating an article on Computer Game Addicts Anonymous and I have no doubt that you can continue to do so. I suggest that your next step is to use the Article Wizard tool. This will guide you step by step to creating your first article and getting it posted here. When you finish it, then another experienced editor will review it and give you feedback on what may be missing or (hopefully) mark it for posting.
Finally, thank you again for contacting me and I wish you the best. I have every confidence that you will be able to "jump through the hoops", as it were, without difficulty. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Added Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous to the "Twelve-step addiction recovery groups"[edit]

Thank you very much for your information!!! I think I have a better idea of how to proceed. I have copied your reply for future reference so you can delete it along with this message. I tried the Article Wizard previously, created an article, it got a "speedy deletion nomination" (see User_talk:Janice_in_recovery) and was deleted . That attempt was before I messaged you.

I don't understand the need for a signature when my user id is present. It seems redundant, but I will comply.

Thanks again!

Janice in recovery (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Janice in recovery

I am glad that you found the information helpful. When you say " user id is present," so you mean that you see it on the talk page? When you don't sign your posts, there is a "bot" account (an automated script, really) that tries to come along and add it for you. That doesn't always work, though. Having everybody sign talk page posts makes following the conversation easier without having to refer to the history to find out who said what to whom. Here, it is easy since it is just you and me. On some talk pages, with multiple chiming in and talking over each other, it can get really confusing. Just an explanation, not a criticism.
I took a look at the previous speedy deletion nominations for your previous attempts to create the article. One issue is that they were both posted to the main space without going through the Articles for Creation process. This allows and article to "incubate" in the draft space without getting immediately deleted. It also allows you to get feedback as I mentioned above. The Article Wizard tool should have given you the option to save it as a Draft or submit if to Articles for Creation. If it did not, then you can always specify the title as Draft:Computer Game Addicts Anonymous and get it reviewed that way.
The other issue is that, for whatever reason, the people reviewing it did not see evidence of notability. This is something I mentioned above. If you indicate that multiple independent sources have covered this organization, that passes what we call the "CORPDEPTH test" and should prevent speedy deletion again. This is especially true if you use a draft.
I hope this (also) helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again! I understand about signing my post. Janice in recovery (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Janice in recovery

Montague Phillips[edit]

Thanks for yr response. I don't want to nit-pick, but I didn't seek to *create^ a page. I simply wanted to edit the translation, arrived at thus:-

Google Montague Phillips Wiki

Translate this page


Contribute to a better translation.

You do not have editing rights

I don't have the experience or wish to create page.

MontagueAmiel (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That search link returns more than 4 million results, so I can only presume that you mean the first search result, the Montague Phillips page on the Dutch Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia and the two projects are run differently, by different groups of people. If, however, you mean the automated translation link that is displayed by Google, then neither the Dutch Wikipedia nor the English Wikipedia can help you. That's Google's machine translation. We have no control over or affect on it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Hello! I'm Dinah and I've been reading your responses on Norwalk for the past 2 days so that's how I found you. Anyway could you give my Draft article a look? I've been working on it for more than a week and recently submitted it for review but it was declined... could you take a look and tell me what is wrong? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Dinah Kirkland:, I'd be happy to help but before I do, I need to make sure I'm on the same page (literally). Are you referring to Draft:Dinah Liddell (Alice In Wonderland)? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Si thats the one. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits! I think it will be ready for submission again soon! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, great. I see that you put a lot of effort into following the character through different iterations of her appearance in various media. Some of the information you have in your article is also at List_of_minor_characters_in_the_Alice_series#Dinah. That article, however, only currently has information about the cat Dinah in the first book.
So I think there is a good possibility of establishing that Dinah deserves expanded treatment. There are two problems: the first is that it doesn't immediately state that this character is in more than the first book. I've already changed the lede slightly to help make this clear. I've also moved the page to Draft:Dinah Liddell to make it clear that her fictional existence is not in only one book.
The second, and more fundamental, problem is that there aren't any sources or citations that help demonstrate this existence beyond AAiW. This results in the draft being declined because no-one else can easily verify the statements being made. Verification is very important around here, and one of what are called the Core Content Policies.
What can you do, though? Well, I have already changed the wording a bit and the page title to (hopefully) make it clear to the next reviewer that you aren't simply duplicating List_of_minor_characters_in_the_Alice_series#Dinah. I've also changed the second heading from "appearance" to "Movie and video game appearance" to emphasize this. What you can do is add citations for the rest of the article. Starting with the section "First appearance", you need to go through the article and, wherever there's a factual statement about Dinah, add a citation. The easiest way to do this is to use the tools built into the edit window.
  1. Place your cursor at the end of the sentence you want the citation to refer to.
  2. If you look above the top of the edit window, there's some icons and then it says: Advanced Special characters Help Cite.
  3. Click the word Cite. The light blue bar immediately below that changes and some new links appear.
  4. The furthest link on the left of the blue bar is now a dropdown box that says Templates.
  5. Click the down arrow and a list appears with the options: cite web cite news cite book cite journal
  6. Click the one that most closely resembles the source where you first found out about the fact you are trying to cite.
  7. Fill in the fields as best you can.
  8. Click Insert at the bottom
  9. Repeat as needed.
For example, The "Based on" section has one sentence: "Alice's fictional cat Dinah ... and her sister." Where did you find out about Alice Lidell and Willikins and Dinah? That source should be referenced there. Let's assume for a second it was a book. Place your cursor at the end of that sentence (after the period) and click Templates -> cite book. Then you can enter the name of the book, the author, the publisher, etc.
When you get all that in, then the sources you type will automagically show up in the "References" section I also added.
I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It does! Grazie (Thank you)! I will add some source links when I'm back from my wikibreak! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Di niente! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

is It good now? I can't think of anymore references to put in. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I moved the reference to the correct spot but no, that's not going to be enough to keep the article. I added [citation needed] in the places that you should endeavor to find sources that you can cite. You don't need to add a cite for each and every one of those, but more is always better. The one that definitely needs a citation, however, is the one in the "Based on" section referred to above. I would certainly encourage you to find one for that. A biography of Alice Lidell or Lewis Carroll may help, but I don't Carroll well enough to point you further. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And would you mind Changing the name to Dinah Liddell (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)? Because there is a page for the Griffin titled with that but with the video game and movies included. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. If/when it goes "live" on the main space, then which do you think is more likely to get typed by a reader searching for it? "Dinah Liddell" or "Dinah Liddell (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)"? I can move it back, but for now, its I think easier to use the shorter title. We can always change it later before it is re-submitted. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well... I do only search 'Dinah Liddell' so I guess that one. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for your advice![edit]

Despite your excellent advice I'm afraid there is nothing that I can edit in Wikipedia that JJBers will not track down and revert. I am guilty as well of being somewhat pigheaded. I believe I had learned from my past and set out to behave properly and civilly. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I don't understand what the situation is with JJBers, but it seems he has some sort of immunity granted as his roughshod reversions have run rampant across too many other articles. I don't know what sanctions will be imposed on me. But, in any event, I hope you will continue to advise me when the time comes. I sincerely thank you for your effort and if there is any favor I can do for you for your kindness I will be obliged to you. Thank you again! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42:, You are very welcome and I have no qualms about continuing to try to assist. Edit wars are always damaging, there's no doubt about that. El C apparently acted to try to head off yet another one on that page. That means that the talk page is still open to you and JJBers, however, and you can and should both discuss the usage of these categories. If a consensus forms that these categories are not needed, well, that's the way it goes. It's not a personal rejection of your offerings. The categories could (as I said) improve the article but not having the categories is not a loss to the article which a reader would be unable to overcome. I suggest that the BRD process be allowed to play out. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I did not see Primefac's notes to you both on your talk pages when I wrote that. My advice on using the talk pages is obviously moot. I'm sorry to see it come to this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Understood! I am grateful for your help. Face-smile.svg Thank you very much!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

possible redirects/page moves req[edit]

Talk:Barbara_Bush_(born_1981)/Archive_1 - see this archive Govindaharihari (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Ow, it is fine, that is someone else, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

New York Fire Patrol[edit]

Hi, I am not sure what to do with your response about my request to add Kevin Roma to the "Emergency Workers Killed in the September 11 Attacks" page. I have limited knowledge of how Wikipedia works.

The New York City Fire Patrol was an integral part of the emergency response that day. To me, (I am a Firefighter) it does not matter who pays the fire fighter's salary. To me, he is no different than the "Private Emergency Medical Services" who lost their lives.

The Fire Department of New York recognized his sacrifice with a full Fire Department funeral. To me, he has earned a place on this page.

Please reconsider or help me understand where to go from here in getting a consensus. (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, let me thank you for your service. As the brother and son of firefighters and a former EMT myself, I am naturally sympathetic to your position. My comment was not intended to deny Roma from anything that is his due.
You say you "have limited knowledge of how Wikipedia works," and that's perfectly expected. One of the main ways that Wikipedia works is through the process of consensus. Consensus doesn't mean absolute agreement by everyone, but it does mean that there need to be discussions on changes. In the case of the article in question, I started a new section on the talk page titled "Inclusion of the New York Fire Patrol members". Make the same argument there you made above and ask that he be included. Thanks for contacting me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@, I don't know if you're still watching/listening/reading but just to let you know; there has been no objection in over 45 days to including Keith Roma at the relevant talk page. I will go ahead and add Roma. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Enamel microabrasion[edit]

Hello Eggishorn , thank you for helping to improve.Cosidering Enamel microabrasion article that i created and was proposed for speedy deletion,it was deleted except the introduction paragraph,i added information again and took care of copyright issues. is that fine? Sarah Raslan (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah raslan:, the reason most of the text was deleted is that it was identical, or nearly identical, to the medical journal articles you cited. You should probably read the pages on Copyrights and Copyright Violations before adding more text. Wikipedia is a different beast from what you may be used to and treats copyrights both very seriously and a bit differently from, say, academic publishing. The next big issue with the article now is that is is written more like text from a Merck Manual or other dentistry manual. Wikipedia articles should be written with ordinary readers in mind. How many of your patients know what "contraindications" are, for example? Those are the next things I would suggest working on. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

okay so you mean how many patients will understand the points i wrote in contraindications section? so you suggest Eggishorn to remove contraindications section? am i right? i have another question what do you think if i added technique of microabrasion? will it be understandable by general readers? thanks Sarah Raslan (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, @Sarah raslan:, what I'm saying is that it needs a complete re-write to fit into the Manual of style, particularly the tone. I suggest reading this essay for some pointers. If you want, I can also edit the article for you myself. Neither of us owns it, after all. But this is exactly the type of work I used to have a business doing for doctors and other professionals. Regards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
yes for sure,please go ahead and edit in it,i didn't mean that,i just want to improve my writing,thank you,will be glad to learn from your editting.Sarah Raslan (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sarah raslan:, I went and edited the introduction, added a history section, and edited the description. Do you think you can use the changes there as a guide to the rest or should I continue? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Great! Eggishorn ,thanks, will try to go according to your edit Sarah Raslan (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

My contribution :-)[edit]

Hi there, I submitted a news article about the Twitter new dashboard to update the Twitter Pagé. It isn't advertising but tech news. I thought it would be a gods reference article. How did I fail Wikipedia norms? Would you take a second look at the submission? Thank you. Nicole NFarkas (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@NFarkas:, thank you for your question. You were using an edit request about a Twitter feature to advertise the article written in an external source and, most blatantly, solicit feedback. That's pretty unambiguous. The message I left on your user talk page has a number of links that can help you understand the norms. Good luck, and I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

oh so I submitted to the wrong place. I will try again then in the News section. NFarkas (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Much better. In the future, however, it is easier to determine what needs to happen if your edit request reads more like: "Please change X to Y" or "Please add X to the Y section." I believe that you would like to see this added at the end of the "Growth - IPO" section. I will take a look and see what I can do. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC closure[edit]

Hi there, I see you do a lot of closures at WP:ANRFC. Is it too soon to request a closure at Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut#RfC about pushpin map in infobox? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, I try to help out, as the backlog there can get really long. RfC's generally run for 30 days and I see this has been open 13 days. The last comment seems to have been 6 days ago. That's not really what I'd call and active discussion but I would not be inclined to close it at this time. The consensus is quite narrow at this time, and leaving it open may well give it a chance for more clarity. Listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Connecticut and Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps may also gain more eyes. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I should also note that I consider myself involved in this due to previous attempts to provide counsel to certain participants. Sorry if that slows things down even more. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll wait a bit and add it to those other projects. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
(Piggy-back comment): Hi, Eggishorn: this might be about a different closure than the one above, but at this Rfc which you recently closed, would you mind linking "!vote" in your close summary (or give me leave to do it, WP:TPO and the closure notwithstanding)? The reason is, although I've been around for years, I never quite knew what "!vote" meant and it always puzzled me, until I finally learned it in the past month. Please have pity on the newbies (and oldbies, like me) who scratch their head every time they see that term, maybe for years; and do link it at least the first time it appears in a discussion. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot:I have never thought about that, but I think you make a very good point. It gets used so reflexively in AfD discussions and elsewhere that I guess I never thought to link it. Thanks for the reminder. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Thanks so much for linking that. Is there a central place that I—(or perhaps better you; maybe more impact coming from you than me?)—could mention this so the "right people" will see it, and maybe go along with the idea? I could even see a new {{!vote}} being created just for this. In fact, maybe I'll go do it, if there isn't one already. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot:, this only thing I can think of might be the Village Pump, but I don't know what sub-section of that page I would categorize it as. Sorry that isn't more helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It's helpful. Follow along here, if desired. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack, incivilty[edit]

Thank you![edit]

Hey dude, I wanna say thank you for fixing that info on the Mario article, it really means a lot. I was also wondering if you can fix that info on the Charles Martinet article too, I took it to the talk page of the article and asked for it to be fixed and changed with the sources I found. But another user on there refused to change it and stated my sources weren't good enough, I'm not mad about his reply for what he said, I was just confused for why he said that. 2600:1000:B03B:8F47:6CEB:3233:3AD2:9F17 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I already made the change on Charles Martinet. Feel free to go and make sure it looks good to you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks great! 2600:1000:B078:4158:9C33:9AE4:61B:E3FA (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Michel (talkcontribs) 20:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dinah Liddell[edit]

About a month ago you helped me with my Dinah Liddell page and I've found sources for everything except for one. Would it be okay to submit it now? And can you change the Name to Dinah Liddell (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)? Just so that it's like Griffin (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Dinah Kirkland:, I apologize for not getting back to you earlier. I looked at the draft, and it's definitely improving. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that it will not be considered good enough to go "live" in its current state. Two of your sources are other wiki articles, one to this wiki and one to an Wikia external one. Neither would be considered "reliable" by a reviewer. You've also left a [citation needed] tag and the one claim that may be most useful for establishing independent notability, the "Based on" section, has no sources. Overall, it looks like there is a need for more research to establish that this is an independent subject that needs a separate article. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! As for the Wiki tags I'm trying to remove them however I use the mobile version of Wikipedia and it's very hard to do so. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Dinah, I'm afraid I have next to no experience with the mobile version so my ability to help on that is limited. That said, removing the tag should be as easy as adding the new reference. In the editing window, go to the spot where you see: {{cn}} and just delete those characters and add your reference source. Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I'm a bit busy with school and work but when I have the time I'll try and do that. Thank you! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA[edit]

Adminship nomination?[edit]

Hi, I am looking to nominate you for an admin position here on Wikipedia, as I notice you've been doing very well at handling edit requests and rolling back vandals and disruptive editors. Am I okay to go forward with the RfA? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092:, thank you for the kind words. I have been thinking about this recently myself, and was considering using the WP:ORCP poll soon. I would be gratified for a nomination, but I think it would only be prudent to see what the poll results would be first. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Just let me know if the poll brings good results. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jd02022092:, I started the poll, so you can follow along there, if you want. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I myself will surely follow along! You would make a great admin Dinah In Wonderland 17:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Jd02022092 and Dinah Kirkland: I wanted to let you know I withdrew the candidate poll. As I said there, it's clear I would have to significantly change my editing habits in order to build up an RfA-worthy resume. I have never previously edited with the intent of passing an RfA and I don't think I would find it rewarding to enact such a change just to get the admin bit. I will remain just another editor. Thanks for your support and encouragement. The endorsement of my editing that you both provided is reward enough for now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah that's to bad bello hopefully someday you'll consider it again, and if you do I'll be around for support and to follow along(as long as I'm still active that is) Dinah In Wonderland 16:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for the kind words. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

🖒 La vostra accoglienza. Dinah In Wonderland 19:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Countries by nominal GDP[edit]

Hello, I was over on the [List of countries by GDP (nominal)] page and found your comment about the European Union Statistic. I was wondering if you could help me find where the UN statistic relating to the GDP of the EU came from. I understand (barely) why you did not include the statistic provided via addition but to me, the current stat is unverifiable. Any help is appreciated, thanks! Alex the Nerd (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC Closure at Presidency of Donald Trump[edit]

The section was not removed, they renamed it a few times but it is still in the article. Alleged authoritarian tendencies PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I looked for it but didn't find it. I see Ive been reverted already but I will revise. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Cool beans, thanks for the attempt though. Would be nice to see it closed someday. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


the page on google has been hijacked, everything redirects to h!!p:// — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtim20 (talkcontribs) 07:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rtim20:, thank you for letting some-one know, but it appears to have been fixed already by other editors. In the future, the talk page of that article would probably be a better place to report the problem and there is already a discussion there. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Update:The issue was also discussed and resolved at the Administrator's Noticeboards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
I'm very sorry your ORCP did not go the way you had hoped, but I still want to applaud you for taking care of several edit requests while I was away on a flight. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jd22292:, thank you once again for the kind words. I wouldn't actually say it didn't go the way I hoped, as I was honestly looking for evaluation about RfA chances, which is what I received. I now have confirmation that, however appreciated individual other editors such as yourself find my edits, they are not the types of easy-to-evaluate thumbs-up/thumbs-down ones that RfA voters look for. I had suspected as much already, but the ORCP process confirmed that suspicion and saved me from some potential embarrassment. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328:, I was happy to do so and I look forward to your work as an admin. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel edit request[edit]

As questioned on the talk page of Disney Channel-broadcast programs, I really want to know:

What is TV Block?

Is it that information box on the Web (the Google Search pages) where I get my information on edit requests from?

I would like it if you would reply to this message as soon as you can. Thanks! 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(P.S.: Sorry if my contributer user name is kind of different. I'm actually 2600:387:B:F:0:0:0:BC.) Again, signed: 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC).

Hello, and thank you for contacting me here. First things first: the reason why your contributor name keeps changing is that you are editing Wikipedia from a mobile device (such as a phone or tablet) and not signing into an account. Wikipedia has to identify you somehow and uses your IP address to do so. AT&T assigns the IP address to you and that address partially changes over time. It isn't your fault that the contributor name is kind of different, it's perfectly normal.
Secondly, you are partially misreading what jd22292 said. The actual phrase was "TV block schedules". In other words, TV program listings such as TV Guide or U-Verse listings. He was simply saying that, when you want to change Wikipedia articles about TV programs, you need to link an article in a magazine, newspaper, website, or something else instead of relying on the published TV listings because TV listings change frequently and aren't available for other editors to verify your information.
If you create an account by clicking here, you can assign yourself a shorter and stable account name. I think you would be an asset to the project. Creating an account will also do a couple of good things for you. One, I wouldn't be able to use IP location to find out that you are editing from the Miami area on AT&T, which your IP address tells me or anyone else. Creating an account actually improves your privacy in that way. Two, after a fairly short period, you would be able to edit such pages yourself without asking for help.
I hope this helps, and please don't hesitate to ask any follow-up questions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

1) I know that I am editing from a tablet. But thanks for telling me it's normal.
2) Ohhhhh. Thanks for telling me. But I usually get my information from the infobox on the Google Search pages (e.g. GS p. "Rolie Polie Olie"). 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

What is that infobox on the Google Search pages—like the example I gave yesterday—called? I really wanna know. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what the "official" name that Google has given to that. If you call it Google infobox or suchlike, I'm sure most people here will understand. I would advise you not to use it as a source for changes to articles. Google pulls that information from all over the web and the more popular a site is, the more likely it is to show up.
So Wikipedia results show up a lot, for instance. Referencing Wikipedia pages found through Google for a Wikipedia page is obviously a bit circular. Another example is IMDB, which can have erroneous or even malicious material added. IMDB tries to remove it, of course, but if you happen to be looking at the information there at the wrong time, you can be misled. Finally, those search results are not static. That is, they change. Verifiability of information is one of the core content policies here. If another reader or editor cannot verify the claim, then it won't get added or it will get removed.
Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

But what about the part about Phineas and Ferb reruns no longer on Disney Channel? I mean, still on Disney Channel, but only during special occasions, like summer, right?

And the years in the P&F box titled "Date(s) reran" states 2015-17 (which I don't think counts as a source anymore, and I'm not asking for a change for that), so I don't think it airs on Disney Channel anymore. But then everything on Wikipedia says it now airs only on Disney XD. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Phineas & Ferb's airing schedule, but why not search for announcements of schedule changes? Just start by searching for the show on Google News, instead of regular Google search. Most networks put out a press release at least when they change regular schedules. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I found a article about about the last episode of Phineas & Ferb, but get what caught my eye: The article talks about when the show was moved to Disney XD in 2009. Even the COMMENTS SECTION talks about the move to Disney XD.

Just click on the reference below —

"'Phineas And Ferb' Doesn't Go Quietly: Series Finale Sets Disney XD Record"[1]

I've been talking this up for the LONGEST time, and it would be great if this is a reliable source and if this request is accepted. Yep, I think this'll do it. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, hello? Um, I think you're looking for me? 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I was looking for you, to be honest. I'm not always around, and I try to get to talkpage messages as soon as I can. As to the deadline reference, then I think you should create an account and try editing using that source and see whether other editors object. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean my request is accepted? That's all I want to know. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Making the request here is not going to get it accepted, so, no, it isn't. You have to make the edit request on the talk page of the article involved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Montague Phillips[edit]

Sorry not to have yet had a chance to attempt this manoeuvre. Will do so soon.MontagueAmiel (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@MontagueAmiel:, whenever you get to it is fine. As we often say, there is no deadline, so don't worry too much about it. Thanks for the message. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Submission[edit]

Hey EggisHorn,

I submitted a request to add the Ep Live like a suicide to Axl Roses page. You said the album was not important enough as to require a mention. However starting here on Wikipedia I edit things I know for sure;so i do not give false info. The EP Live like a suicide was the GNR demo tape that got them signed on Geffen records. The band then took their advance from the label and published the demo themselves with a dubbing of live crowd, hence the live in the title. The EP was so successful and rare the EP started sell for over 300 dollars in 1987 money. The band then realizing how well the public received the EP release the Live like a suicide records and 4 new acoustic tracks as the second major Record release GNR Lies following Appetite for destruction. So i feel the success of the EP and importance of the EP in the history of the band warrants the edit I suggested the edit so people can know and understand the band's history a little better.

Thank you, Randy O. Roberts II Randy O. Roberts II 14:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyorobertsii (talkcontribs) 10:36, July 30, 2017 (UTC)

@Randyorobertsii:, please see my reply at the article talk page. While I usually reply directly to questions here, I'm copying the question above there to keep everything in one place. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank for editing out GN'F'R's I forgot that might be offensive. I was just try to be accurate yk Randy O. Roberts II 04:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing a discussion[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed minor modification regarding G13. I put it at ANRFC a few weeks ago, but no one has touched it. I don't think you're involved, but if you don't want to close that's fine, I just reached out because I think the outcome of that discussion should be clear before the new larger G13 RfC is implemented. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, I'll take a look. Thanks for alerting me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

John Cline[edit]


I hope this finds you well.

I have questions: 1) where is the discussion about the deletion? 2) what guidelines has this article violated?Would someone please explain?

Mickeywrangle (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mickeywrangle:, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cline, as linked in the notice at the top of the John Cline page. In that discussion, I have linked to the relevant guidelines but to further expand on the sparse text there: Wikipedia includes articles based on a standard called "notability", which has a slightly different meaning here than it does in regular English. This avoids inherently-subjective standards such as "such-and-such person is really famous" or "I know this person and they are important in their field." The general notability guideline asks for three things: (1) multiple instances of significant coverage, (2) in independent sources, which are (3) reliable. The sources in the article are either not independent (his Facebook page) or not significant (being mere results listings). There are also specific notability guidelines for sportspersons and notability guidelines for cyclists, based on sporting results and similar qualities. John Cline does not appear to qualify under either of these guidelines. You are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion, but I suggest reviewing this list of arguments that have historically been considered unpersuasive in deletion discussions. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: thank you Mickeywrangle (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem, @Mickeywrangle:. Thanks for your interest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

One of those "programme" was missing a character.[edit]

Did you do a word search?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. If you think I missed something, I will look again. This is why the instructions for submitting and edit request specifically say: the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The request you posted was ""Pogramme" british spell" and therefore somewhat useless in attempting to fulfill your request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well you said in the comments that all was well and right there on the history it has the change and your handle. You really shouldbe more accurate in your notes.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong in the irony, you are. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Notability (beauty pageant participants)[edit]


Thanks for trying to fix my careless ping, but they can't be fixed, you need to start a new signed edit. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well, I learn something new. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks for letting me know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the star, on what is a truly ghastly page. It's really appreciated. Mramoeba (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. Every time I go to look at that page, you've already cleaned what I was about to. Thanks for the effort. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of fake news websites[edit]

That's fine, but you could have directed them to the appropriate guideline in a must more constructive way. For example: "Please rephrase your request without the unhelpful vitriol and explain why you think the source does not meet our reliability requirements." I read your response as an prickly way of saying, "You are out of compliance so your request is denied." We're not a bureaucracy like that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. It was not intended to be prickly but straightforward. I have to say I don't see a significant difference between "religious screen" and "unhelpful vitriol" in terms of prickliness but it is obviously in the eye of the beholder. Thank you for the follow-up. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

European Graduate School[edit]

Dear Eggishorn

You left me a message about recent changes on the website of the European Graduate School (EGS) that have already been undone. I am familiar with Wikipedia, having written a couple of articles on different topics before and getting rid of minor typos, spelling problems etc. whenever I come across them.

The faculty members I entered have been amply documented: on their respective Wikipedia pages (to which I linked their names), on the EGS website, in Youtube lectures etc. There is no doubt that they were there and since I linked their names to the respective Wikipedia pages, that information is available there too. The same goes for "notable alumnus" Pablo Iglesias Turrión.

I have no conflict of interest but I know the school. I reverted the reversions and hope that's it as I am not planning to spend a whole lot of time with that particular article.

Very best, (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@, an IP editor such as yourself adding a fairly large number of notable academics and alumnae to an article will usually pique attention for reasons I'm sure you can understand. My concern was not necessarily with the content of the edits but that the IP address seemed to indicate that it might be associated with the school. Hence the welcome, which is designed to alert users in case that situation might apply. As you say it does not, please feel free to ignore it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Oct 2017[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

I have removed material from Sean Hannity that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written pursuant to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden:, your understanding of the BLP policy is woefully inadequate, one-sided, and obviously biased. That a statement is sourced to an article on pinknews or a book written by a community college professor does not make them non-RS. You are now edit-warring and should self-revert as the WP:3RRNO exception does not apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit to ISIL page[edit]

I have re-added Australia to the list of state opponents. The Royal Australian Air Force has for a long time now been conducting daily air strikes against ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq as a part of the coalition air task force. Australia also has special forces engaging ISIL directly on the ground in both countries, and conventional forces in Iraq training Iraqi Army soldiers for the fight against ISIL. This is all public information and can be verified on the ADF website, specifically the OP OKRA page:

← Previous editNext edit → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 28 BYTES REMOVED, 21 HOURS AGO Reverted to revision 805635433 by Ira Leviton: "state opponents" refers to naitons that have sent forces to combate ISIL/ISIS in Syria nd Iraq, not ones that have had to suppress or suffered attacks from ISIL/ISIS-inspired terrorists. (TW) | allies = | opponents = State opponents

Thanked Eggishorn EXTENDED CONFIRMED USERS 5,977 EDITS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinbloke83 (talkcontribs) 09:18, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

@Darwinbloke83:, that type of reference is what's needed on edits to articles in this type of highly-contentious article. My edit summary was not intended as any type of rebuke. I'm sure you can understand the need to be conservative with changes. Thank you for the message. I'll take a look at where the source can be integrated later today. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Darwinbloke83:, I apologize that it's taken me this long to add the reference, but it is now there. I thought it was necessary because the article does not have any indication that Aussie participation is more than some terrorist designations and condemnations, which is obviously an incorrect impression to leave with readers. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up[edit]

I have re-written the FRINGE entry and removed the old one from both the aforesaid noticeboard and the related talk page. The noticeboard should now direct to a far more focused sub-heading within the talk-page and while I appreciate your attempts, I think for clarity, it's best to leave everything where it is now. Specifically to have the intro on the Fringe noticeboard but the full detailing, on the talk page. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I still don't agree that the issue you've raised has anything to do with fringe theories but the revised post and the explicit statement as to why you think it is fringe is a vast improvement. I will let others continue the discussion, I think I made my point already. Thank you for the revision and for cleaning up the noticeboard and talk page. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]



Hello Eggishorn:
You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 16:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 27 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash was one of three fatal helicopter accidents Bristow Helicopters suffered in little more than a year in the North Sea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles Restoration[edit]

I want to restore some articles. Wisalahmad523 (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wisalahmad523:, I have answered on your talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed article about composer Montague Phillips[edit]

I have made an effort to get down to this at long last but was unsurprised to fall at the first fence. You told me to click the link in the Table of Contents for the category of article ... - but where do I find that page? I interrogated Wiki - Table of Contents - but that was clearly not the right place.MontagueAmiel (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@MontagueAmiel:, I'm sorry that didn't work correctly for you, try this link instead. Scroll down the page until you see the "Composer" section and click the "[Edit]" link. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Hi, Eggishorn, I've finally uploaded my article request to Wikipedia with the corresponding sources, having diligently followed your advice, and I just hope your having answered me doesn't end up as a wasted effort, and that the request actually becomes a published article! Thank you for your excellent advice!


A.D. Dr8ator (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Biography notability question[edit]

I wrote a bigraphy of a doctor that has significant contribution in Music and noble deeds by providing jobs even if he is in US. I published an article with the following significance:

1. A recording artist in the Philippines that promotes Filipino music or OPM 2. He is recording artist Doctor but now residing in US and yet he still significantly help Filipinos by employing them in his businesses in California 3. He is a recording artist that promotes love among Filipinos thru music 4. He is underrated singer but with huge contribution in Music. In fact he won an Awit Awards on 1993 and got a Gold Records 5. He is a Doctor and a recording artist in US collaborating to US-based songwriters

Can you enlighten me if these are valid to be published in Wikipedia?

Thank you and best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinglori (talkcontribs) 22:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alvinglori:, it is difficult to judge whether an article subject is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia from what you've posted here. I will therefore speak generally about the inclusion criteria Wikipedia uses. The first thing to note is that articles are not eligible for inclusion or not but instead article subjects are. It's a significant difference: An article on an ineligible subject, no matter how well-written, is still not going to be retained. The standard that we use for subjects is Notability. Notability in Wikipedia terms is a little bit different from the general English meaning of that term. Here it means that you need to demonstrate that significant coverage (that is, more than just a paragraph or two or a simple directory listing) in independent sources (ones not connected to the subject itself or one of their projects/organizations) that are reliable (ones that demonstrate journalistic selectivity and judgment) exists for the article to pass the notability guideline. If you can provide such sources in the article about this doctor/musician, then it will survive. I strongly urge you to read the links I provided here and in the note I left on your talk page for more information. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

02:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Re Article commandeered[edit]

All that said at ANI, this represents a real and growing problem. Flashmobs, essentially, can take an article over, and the current solution is often mobbing it right back, with admins generally looking the other way at 3RR violations, obvious tag teaming, &cet. The Snopes article is a great example of that; every so often a couple of Phrogboiz would show up, and the rest of us would respond in a way that suggested mattressing a patient in a psych ward. Often, that process can start even though the particular edit is justified, and the the particular writer is competent and acting in good faith. Whether this article is the right test case looking at a better solution is another question, but this is a real problem. Anmccaff (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff:, thank you for the message and I agree that this is a problem. 4chan, after all, is notorious for organizing "invasions" of other sites, and that's only one of multiple off-wiki venues for launching disruptive activity. Our standard procedures are based on editors who want to help and are, and have been from the beginning, vulnerable to playing on AGF. I don't in general like test cases, however, and this article in particular seems like a poor test case. To draw an American-centric analogy, what I saw on looking into the underlying dispute was more similar to an Infowars devotee trying to "correct" the portrayal of, say, Barack Obama's citizenship. A separate RfC may be an option, but I'm at a loss as to what the RfC would suggest as a solution. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
To draw an other America-centric analogy, a good bit of policy is a bit like contesting a constitutional violation: you have to get charged with something first to get an actual decision, and I think that slows down some needed change, too. But yeah, in this particular article, there's too much legitimate room for reasonable people of goodwill to form different conclusions to censure either side. Anmccaff (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Eggishorn.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Eggishorn.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Black bear entry[edit]

Good morning, I am the person that requested to add the new section to the American Black Bear page, But i just realized that I requested to put it under the wrong section. I meant to request it go under the "Hibernation" section. Thanks and sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagner528 (talkcontribs) 16:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wagner528:, not a problem, and thank you for clarifying. To preserve clarity, please add a new edit request with the section heading of "hibernation" and include both the text you believe is in error and the text you would like to see. If I don't get to it, I'm sure some-one else will. Thanks again~. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Eggishorn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)