User talk:Elinruby

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

Contents

Wilshire - Codex Totmizlahuaca[edit]

Hi. Thanks for letting me know you are talking the Codex Totomixtlahuaca off the cleanup-after-translation list and placing an expand-Spanish template on it because the es.wikipedia article is longer and presumably has more information. Thanks! Wilshire (talk) 5 Novermber 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilshire01 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

you are welcome. I would like to see it expanded and I really have too much else going on -- if it interests you, fantastic. I am delighted it's been adopted. A couple of points you might not know -- that particular article came in a batch of messy machine translations on Mexico and Honduras that were questioned. I did a preliminary cleanup of the english (word order etc) but did not check the facts at all though and so don't necessarily believe it. It's probably true but it needs references. Also, some of that batch already had articles in english, so you may want to search english wikipedia also. I created the category "mexican historical documents" -- I don't recall anything else in there being related, but I could be wrong and it would be worth checking. If nothing else they may give you an idea about sources. Do you know about google scholar and JSTOR? Feel free to ask questions if you have some. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for definition of Ahwazi[edit]

Hi . As your edit in Iranian Arabs talk page show , you want a definition about the Ahwazi ethnic group . I searched (as I could) to find a reliable source for definition , but didn't find a good one . But if you are interested I can give you my point of view . That term , Ahwazi , is perhaps a new coinage for an ancient group of Arab-language people in Iran . The separatist political groups (See Ethnic_politics_of_Khuzestan#Arab_politics_and_separatism) , tend to use that word to stress more on a separate ethno-linguistic group . But I'm not sure if the defining geographical , ethnic or linguistic factors is clear for they themselves. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
I have awarded you this barnstar in appreciation of your edits to Protect IP and your ability to remain calm and civil even in extreme conditions. You are a better wikipedian than I. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Biased RIAA study[edit]

Here's an article about the RIAA study, it does not say the RIAA study is wrong, but has a study that conflicts with it http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smk65536 (talkcontribs) 06:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for the Barnstar, I really appreciate it! :) That article seems to keep getting a pro-content slant, and I'm feeling that perfectly good, cited statements are being removed illegitimately, but I'll keep a watch on it. Also, I swapped out the Mozilla image for the EFF image that was previously on the page, due to possible copyvios. EFF's site is CC-By, but the Mozilla picture includes the mozilla site, which I'm not sure of, in conjunction with a Firefox theme and Windows toolbar and logo. If you find the Mozilla home page is freely licensed, feel free to replace, but crop the image so it's just the site, not browser and OS. Once again, thank you :) I look forward to editing with you more soon.C(u)w(t)C(c) 11:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly good cited content falls off that page all the time. I am here to tell you. :) The page for the Senate bill is worse.
As for the image -- that's fine. There was no image there when I uploaded mine, incidentally, so it's not so much that I think the Mozilla image preferable to the EFF one, but that someone else had apparently already taken the EFF one down and I in my corner thought a picture would be nice. You are probably right about the Windows toolbar etc. I *think* the website of an open-source project would be ok, but you're right that I should double-check to make sure of the license that applies, in case someone wants to use it elsewhere. Meantime, if you are sure about the EFF website, that's one less fire to fight. Elinruby (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Hi. In this edit, you lost me with the "if I had your point of view" phrase. Could I get an explanation? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to practice empathy. If I was wrong and it's insulting then I am sorry. You seem to think the bill is a good idea, is all. Or maybe I just think that because you kept putting the quotes from its language back. I've already said I *don't* want to see it passed, but that doesn't mean I am going to distort the facts that support it. I am a journalist and those ethics, accuracy and fairness among them, are important to me. Please, I do not want to squabble. This article is the top Google result for this topic, so let's make it something we xan agree is accurate. I can only work maybe another hour. We were doing really well there for about a minute :) Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You are "practicing empathy" with a very limited set of data. I know I've certainly not stated where I stand as far as this particular bill (or any of the related legislation presently pending or previously passed) goes, so your conclusion baffles me. I can only assume that you have misconstrued my insistence on adherence to Wikipedia editing policies as indicative of "support for the bill", simply because I keep 'enforcing' those policies in conflict with your editing - and you therefore conclude I must hold a position opposing yours. You have concluded incorrectly, and that has apparently prompted you to act in an adversarial manner; you'll find that won't serve you well as an editor at Wikipedia.
While it is 100% irrelevent to my role as a Wikipedia editor on these articles, I don't mind mentioning that I do not support and would not vote for either bill for several reasons, not the least of which would be certain provisions that would negatively and severely impact business interests of mine. Equally irrelevent would be the fact that I'm far more "technically informed" on these matters than I need to be. (Seriously old-school ... I've been doing this stuff since I SysOp'd of one of the earliest, most trafficked hacker BBSs - remember those? - and I've been in the industry ever since.) What you don't seem to have grasped is that neither political passion, nor technical expertise is required to productively edit Wikipedia — and in fact, it can sometimes get in the way. We aren't supposed to edit from personal knowledge (or from personal conviction, for that matter) - take, for example, when you inserted uncited content into an article and said you'll find sources to support it later (a serious red flag). You should know by now that we're supposed to work first from reliable sources, and convey the information from those sources in our own words -- not the other way around by conveying information that we think we "know" is right, then trying to round up sources to support it. You came to these articles with definite opinions; declared on the article talk page that you had a definite point of view and possibly even a conflict of interest (a published editorial?); then charged right in to 'fix' the articles. While the subject matter can be controversial, you were wrong to assume that everyone else editing those articles has likewise chosen sides and is either friend or foe to you and must be treated as such. We don't do that here. (For the record, my participation in editing these articles would have consisted only of making sure certain inappropriate original research & synthesis specifically about 'workarounds' wasn't inserted - and I would then have left the article to other editors; but folks had to make an adversarial conflict out of it - so here I'll stay.) But I stray...
Anyway, getting back to my request for "clarification". It was rhetorical; I only brought it up as a reminder that you really need to cease with the commenting about your fellow editors. You really don't need to be making (clueless and incorrect) assertions about my "point of view" on article discussion pages. I've been citing the WP:NPA policy to you repeatedly, but to no effect. The point, literally in a nutshell is: Comment on the content, not on the contributor. What part of that is so hard to understand? I've seen your comments about editors on the talk pages of other editors, on article talk pages, on noticeboards — and every time I remind you that such comments are unacceptable, yet you persist. (Once, you even responded with this lunacy: However, if you like, I'll edit it to say something like "Based on his past behavior, I don't feel he is a listener." Actual wording is negotiable. I don't mind clarifying that this is an opinion. Seriously?! You really haven't read the policy, have you? Comment on the content, not on the contributor.) If you really feel the need to vent, send me an email or leave a message on my talk page - the comments and insults themselves don't bother me, as I have rather thick skin in such matters ... but we don't need to be poisoning discussions that should be about article improvement. Hence my complaints. Your persistence has left me in a rather unfortunate position. Rather than a cordial and collaborative editing relationship, we have ... whatever this is. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, Xenophrenic. I'm trying, is all I can tell you. The article had serious deficiencies as it was and I did my best to address them. You cite policies a lot but have announced that you ignore the good faith rule, which to my eyes is the heart of the issue here. Usually when I say something like "I will provide a reference in a second" it's because I know an article on the reflist supports the statement but I am in a section where I can't see what name was assigned to it. Yes, I could open another window but I am working on an iffy wi-fi connection on the lowest-end netbook there is and I get the hourglass of death all the time without stressing the 10% of physical memory I've got to work with any more than I must. I think your background is relevant to the extent that I now know that you probably understand that statement. *I* think the facts support that the bill is a terrible idea, but if you have other facts, bring them. The article as it stands needs them. I have my fingers in other parts of the dyke just now (is there really no wikipedia page on load-balancing?) but if you don't get to it before I am done with that I guess I will try to google an alternate point of view. I think, esp given your statements above, that you may do a better job of that, however. My agenda at the moment is the technical concerns and then the sections of the law section.
You are correct in observing that I cite policies to you a lot. Usually when I observe an edit that violates a Wikipedia policy, I'll try to determine what the editor was trying to accomplish, and then simply fix the edit in a way that is policy compliant. No citing of policies necessary. It takes a little additional effort on my part, certainly more effort than simply reverting or undoing or deleting the edit, but I usually don't mind. However, on these piracy legislation articles, I am no longer motivated to make that additional effort. Frankly, the caustic atmosphere generated by the personal attacks and the POV edit-warring have sapped that motivation from me several days ago, so now I've simply been undoing the offending edits, and citing the relevant policies.
You are quite incorrect when you say I have announced that I ignore the assume good faith rule. If you are referring to my User Page, it says: As a general rule, I try to avoid making assumptions. WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia suggested guideline, not a policy; I've chosen to opt out of this one. I will still interact with proper civility and respect, as required, but be advised that I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door where they belong. See the difference? Perhaps reading WP:Don't assume will help you understand. Rather than not assuming bad faith about editors, I do the rule one better and avoid making any assumptions at all. Which leads me to ask you, now that you are clear on my stance, to clarify what you mean when you say AGF "to my eyes is the heart of the issue here". I've not assumed anything about you. When I asked that a statement about living persons (that certain engineers were "DNS Experts") be supported by a source citation, you argued that such a citation was unnecessary because, to you, the statement was so obviously true. Or your tagging as "citation needed" of content you inserted, and left in that state despite you making dozens more edits and then logging off. These aren't assumptions, and they aren't laptop technical difficulties - they are operating contrary to Wikipedia policy. But these are just side-issue quibbles; the real "heart of the issue" is the commenting about and attacks upon editors -- here's to a speedy end to it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. I have done my best to be scrupulously fair towards you and have repeatedly walked away from contentious discussion, leaving you the last word. But when relevant statements with reliable sources repeatedly disappear, when ... never mind. It doesn't matter. Look. I did a rewrite of a highly contentious BLP that had been repeatedly edited warred. Mainly because I had never heard of the guy and he did seem to both deserve his due and to like to inflate his back story. I am telling you this because I looked up the conflict of interest policy because all the guy's friends and enemies were duking it out on the page. As best I can tell the policy is that they can do that as long as they do so openly. As themselves and while dealing honestly with the facts and any biases they might have. By extension, I can edit a page I have an opinion on as long as I am open about that opinion and respectful of the opinions of others. The same applies to you, as you have now admitted a bias you had not previously declared. That's fine. But in order for that to work properly I need to be able to work with data that may contradict my opinion, *and so do you*. If you are upset about the cn tags why not go find a citation? That's what I did when you did it to my work, and incidentally I am glad that you did since it seems that there was at least one link that went to a place I had not intended. The facts are the facts. If I say something that is not a fact and you can show me how it it wrong, then it is not a fact, period. The same should apply to you. If you don't get to the cn tags before I am done with what I am doing I will _ I said I would flesh out the law sections section. It's just that you wrote it and seem attached to some of that language. But I mean -- what's a particularly dangerous act of streaming? What does that even *mean*? But it keeps getting put back in.... Anyway, as I said, I don't want to fight; there is a lot to do. ok? Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, as I said, I don't want to fight; there is a lot to do.
I guess that's the main take-away from this discussion, isn't it? And I agree. But you know me; I never leave an unadressed misconception unadressed, so ...
re: when relevant statements with reliable sources repeatedly disappear — Wasn't me; any such deletions I make are to bring an article back into compliance with Wikipedia policy.
re: I can edit a page I have an opinion on — There is no such thing as an editor without opinions, so that goes without saying. If an editor comes to an article without an opinion about the subject, they will soon form one. That is why we have the WP:NPOV policy, and there isn't a problem as long as we adhere to it.
re: you have now admitted a bias you had not previously declared — Indeed; I am biased toward Wikipedia policy compliance. Gosh, you caught me. But I've actually declared that numerous times throughout our interaction. As for my mentioning that I agree with you about the bill - insofar as I don't support it, and wouldn't vote for it — don't misconstrue that as "bias". That is merely a statement of my present position (subject to change at any time), based on a logical assessment of what I currently know about the specifics of the bill ... nothing more. I knew nothing of the bill before I began editing the Wikipedia article about it. If I had any "biases" about it, those would prevent unprejudiced consideration of the issue, which is the farthest thing from my situation.
re: why not go find a citation? — Under other circumstances, I certainly might, but that bridge has long since burned. Simply do a word search for the phrase "no longer motivated" in the conversation above for a refresher explanation as to exactly why.
re: what's a particularly dangerous act of streaming? — I have no clue; that is not content that I added. Perhaps check with the originating editor?
Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Halfstar Hires.png The Half Barnstar
Half a barnstar each to Elinruby and Xenophrenic - you guys bicker like cats and dogs, but somehow the result of your personal friction is damn good joint editing. The current state of the SOPA intro is something to be proud of, awesome job. Keep fighting I guess? (To Elinruby, kudos on being so prolific so quickly, the article needed it) Sloggerbum (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to quickly thank you for your help on ugg boots. I'm not sure much could be done at NPOV, as I don't really see it as that sort of problem, but it was worth a shot - and your patience in helping out was much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually smelling like somebody bills by the hour if you ask me, but of course we're supposed to assume good faith and all. You might consider COI (?) but that may require something beyond suspicion. The problem as I see though, based on that discussion, is that someone is insisting on having the last word, so voluntary mediation is *not* going to succeed. As fascinated as I am about some of the issues (which I see as rather akin to trademarked stereotypes of Native Americans), I have to go away now though - I said I was doing it before but it turns out my daughter is wearing ugg (generic) boots so I was telling her about the thread and showed it to her. Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
There have been suggestions of a COI before, but it is hard to show it, and I've been inclined just to let it sit. (The suggestions went both ways, of course, not just that people from Deckers were editing). It is an interesting case, legally, as it is an odd direction. Normally a trademarked term enters common usage, but in this case a common term was allowed to be trademarked, mostly because it wasn't a common term outside of the countries of origin. (This would be enough to prevent the trademark if those countries were non-English speaking, but the US ruling was that the legislation doesn't apply to common terms from English-speaking countries). Thus it is rather curious.
I agree that mediation is unlikely to work, but I'm not sure where the debate will head - my guess is ArbCom one day, but I'm hoping not. It will be interesting to see what the next move is. At any rate, thanks again for your patience in putting a different view, and for wading through all of our comments. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks are not necessary -- one of the reasons I participated was an interest in the US copyright angle. The discussion is also relevant to some of my prior research topics, such as language preservation, as well as to the deep-rooted Canadian distrust of the sheer noise level of American consumer culture, which assumes that its point of view is necessarily the most important. I may wander over and read the page someday. I have refrained from doing so as much of my personal time is currently taken up with an article about pending US legislation. I do not think most people understand the technical issues and since I do, at least enough to identify sources, that is where I'll be working for the near future. Later ;) Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks very much for trying to help with this mess. Your fresh set of eyes on the situation was very useful, and while I doubt it will solve the problem (as the problem isn't of neutrality, as claimed, but of variants of language and of reliable sourcing) your effort is sincerely appreciated. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't burn out[edit]

Holy balls, friend, while the SOPA page is greatly benefiting from having a resident friendly dragon on board, if you don't force yourself to relax a little bit on the page over the next two days, you're going to WikiStress yourself out. I think the initial surge is over - I have a feeling SOPA will be appearing in and out of the news for a few weeks, maybe even months, with associated surges in new citations. But you need to take breathers - the page will benefit most from your ministrations if you have the endurance to stick with it in the long run, not exhaust yourself in the first week. Another hazard is you getting so emotionally attached to the state of certain sections that the inevitable sloppy contributions of future editors will drive you to the brink of insanity. You're doing great, just seriously, may I recommend you think strategically about your long-term WikiHealth? Bonified dragons are rare and seem to die off so fast, I'm tired of just letting it happen. Sloggerbum (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your concern but it's not sloppy well-meaning contributions that worry me. What am I supposed to do about the fact that Xenephrenic has re-inserted the same inaccurate happy talk I just removed? Again? Isn't there some way to say we should just leave this out until someone else comments? I don't even know why we need that text -- we have RS text under business concerns that contradicts the badly written inaccurate intro. Speaking of attached to text.....By the way, I asked for help with this at the discussion page of the Internet portal and the Law portal -- is that the right way to recruit some experts? Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't really feel comfortable mediating between you guys - you might want to go talk to him in detail (maybe even on a private talk page) about the specific paragraphs you are edit warring over. Honestly, my guess is you two just are either using different Wikipedia guidelines to motivate your decisions or just haven't communicated something clearly enough yet, so private conversation may help. I don't know about recruiting experts, though it makes sense the project portal would reveal people. I just dislike floating tags at the tops of articles unless extremely necessary, though you may want to consider adding temporary expert tags to the specific sections you found problems. Sloggerbum (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If they can go on sections that might not be a bad idea. As for Xenephrenic, I've *tried* talking to him; usually he just tells me that I am wrong and that I don't deserve an explanation. See the extensive discussions on discussion page and on this page, shrug. Anyway. If you don't want to get involved, that's fine, but this is about to turn into another noticeboard item, which I would rather have avoided. Elinruby (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias - Conflict of Interest - Financial stakes[edit]

Hi, Elinruby! I've moved the following text here from the Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act talk page because it seems we have strayed away from discussing article improvement.

discussion quite material. Removed material includes factual disputes in addition to the personal attack on my by Xenophrenic, which he has now moved to my user page (gee thanks) Elinruby (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I left your article-relevant material on the article talk page. I also copied it here, below, so that we'd have the context of the full conversation with which to work. Please, let's agree to keep the discourse civil and on topic; we don't need to subject other editors to unrelevant wiki-drama on article talk pages. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and the bit you are citing PCWorld for above is from section 103. This one says that if I am a web host and I see I host a web site that infringes on copyright, the website holder can't sue me for any breach of contract I may have had with him. The section 103 section says that reporting a website as infringing (this would be the copyright holder not the web host) when you know it is not creates liability. However, reporting the site as infringing requires that you say you have a good faith belief that it does, so it's like an IF statement that the application logic never gets to. If you have a good faith belief that something is infringing then you are not knowingly misreporting it. I have asked for expert opinion on this so please do not simply revert my edits saying "you're wrong." You have an admitted conflict of interest here and should at the very least be proposing alternate wording. But that would require that you do research. Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not citing a journalist about a controversy, I am citing the PC World source about the content of the bill. You are confusing "bill content" with concerns about that content, or the ramifications of that content if it is implemented, according to experts. Valid stuff, for sure, but not in that section. There are other sources that give the same content summary; would you like those added, or are you going to provide a reliable source that gives a different content description?
By the way, since you privately revealed to me that you are a paid lobbyist for EFF, you should probably consider tempering your edits on the more controversial subject matter. Just a suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Giggle. I have no affiliation with the EFF, apart from having stopped by their booth at the RSA Conference a year or two ago. I also saw them in action on a story I wrote about a DEF CON presentation. I have great respect for them but they are neither my employer nor my client. I have been very open about my opinions and the sources of my knowledge on the topic, and anyone who cares to verify this can find a link to an article written under my real name on the talk page of the Senate bill. I am most insulted, not so much by the flagrantly manufactured assertion, as by the idea that I would hide such an affiliation and then reveal it to someone who has admitted a financial stake in the bill's passage and has deleted important correctly sourced material from the page. I am not sneaky, nor am I stupid. (The financial admission is on the discussion page of my user page, should anyone want to look.) I am a trained network professional with experience in network security who sometimes freelances as an information technology reporter. Look me up. Meanwhile, who are you? Elinruby (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have been asked to retract a statement I made above. I made the ludicrous assertion that Elinruby admitted to being a paid lobbyist for EFF, in response to Elinruby's ludicrous assertion that I "admitted conflict of interest here". I hereby retract that statement, and have struck it out as well. It was wrong of me to respond to a false statement with a false statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Elinruby, in the above discussions you have falsely asserted that I...
  • "admitted a bias you had not previously declared"
  • "have an admitted conflict of interest here"
  • "admitted a financial stake in the bill's passage"
I have done none of that. I am requesting that you cease with such accusations. And just so we're clear, I do not have a bias about the legislation; nor do I have a financial stake in what happens to the legislation (either way); nor do I have a conflict of interest in any way with these articles. In the interest of "practicing empathy" in our discussion above, I mentioned to you that I have business interests (clients, in fact) that would be negatively impacted by parts of this legislation. I also have clients that would benefit from this legislation. As such, I get to hear the whole range of criticism and praise about specific provisions of the bill while working with my business clients. I mentioned to you that I wouldn't vote for the legislation in its present form, but please don't distort that to mean there's a conflict of interest, or that I'm financially involved, or that the moon landings were a hoax, or any other silly conclusions. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that in order to make the point that you feel I have misinterpreted statements you did make, and furthermore that you feel that I failed to intuit that you might have added to them, you lied. Saying that I told you I had committed a violation of professional ethics. Privately, since there is no public statement that supports this falsehood. And that you think lying about this was ok. Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
"So what you are saying..."
No. Of course not. But please feel free to continue to misconstrue and misrepresent my words to your heart's content, if you feel you must, here on our personal Talk pages. I'll continue to correct them. It's been your application of that same illogic and misrepresentation in the editing of our Wikipedia articles these past couple weeks that has been most problematic. I'll continue to correct those, too, as time allows, but it is growing wearisome. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I have re-read and the above still sounds like "yes I did falsely say that you admitted doing something sneaky that would completely discredit you if people believed me, but it was understandable because I think you misinterpret my statements, and while it was wrong it was in response to an equal wrong." I have actually never had my reading comprehension questioned before meeting you, but look, this is an honest attempt to understand. If that's not your point, what is? Elinruby (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted. What I said above is that I made a tit-for-tat statement in response to a statement of yours, which was wrong for me to do, so I have retracted it. It's that simple, really. Your additional synthesis, mind-reading or divination of meanings or intentions not stated (see your "you feel yada yada" and "you think yada yada" leaps) are inappropriate. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That was not an apology for whatever "synthesis, mind-reading or divination of meanings or intentions not stated" (don't you think this description is rather insulting?) that you may have felt I have done, merely a polite preface to disagreeing with your statement. By the way, what I am taking issue with here is exactly the fact that you see a misinterpretation (whether real or perceived) as an acceptable reason for fabricate accusations of bad behavior. As I mentioned on your user page a moment ago, all of these side discussions about what you did or did not say, and whether my failure to intuit things unsaid, such as *other* clients you might have, is reason enough to refuse simple explanations of what you do, *all* that is taking up ridiculous amounts of time that I'd rather spend on something else. So. It stops here. I'll take another look at this page tomorrow. In the meantime, have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the source of the problem: "the fact that you see a misinterpretation (whether real or perceived) as an acceptable reason for fabricate accusations"
That's not a "fact". That is your (incorrect) assumption. I saw you post an over-the-top fabrication about me, so I tried to match your absurdity with one of my own. It's really that simple. I never saw "a misinterpretation" from you, I saw a flat out lie, and understandably figured it was just more of the same from you.
Please do spend time on other things; you shouldn't feel the need to respond to every post I make, immediately or otherwise. There is no rush or urgency here. Pleasant holidays to you, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Especially since it would allow your assertion that you answered a lie with a lie to go unchallenged, right? Yeah, it's not tomorrow, but I woke up and came in to look at my barnstar.
I don't lie. Ever. You can paste in your old rants all you want about me saying "It looks to me like you misquote me." It did. It still does. You just *did* misquote me, on your talk page. Or did I misunderstand poor widdle you again? Head shake. Face palm. Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
And again, no diffs showing that "It did"? Of course not. And there's another of your "don't lie. Ever" moments, yet again on the article talk page just a few minutes ago. You'd make a fine politician. And the beat goes on. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
why do you need a diff? It's the most recent entry on your talk page and you've responded to it several times. There is no dispute about authorship. Get out of my face.Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. That talk page discussion on my talk page didn't exist yet when you cast your false accusation. So I've been asking you to provide a diff to back up your aspersions. I don't "need" the diff, as I already know it doesn't exist, but I'll keep asking you to substantiate your false statements just to hear your morphing responses. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
oh, the talk page: No idea what you're talking about. Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Of that I have no doubt. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your unending contributions to Stop Online Piracy Act, even when the rest of us couldn't keep up. C(u)w(t)C(c) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You bet![edit]

A pleasure it was. And a real pleasure too (having heard about SOPA about four hours ago, stumbling on that WP article) having your appreciation (and then to see ... a bit more of what you and all ... have done on this; impressive!). ... On we go, I guess. Good luck! Swliv (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to Try and Drag You Back in This[edit]

Hi there! I've posted a few proposals for compromise on the NPOV page for Ugg boots. You've been very helpful trying to navigate this mess and I'd really appreciate your opinion on what I've presented. I hate to try and drag you back into this but I'd like to get an outside perspective on whether this is a productive idea. I think it would clean up a lot of confusion to keep things simple. Again thank you for your time and efforts.--Factchk (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting today. I really appreciate it. I know this debate can be frustrating.--Factchk (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
this seams so cheap for what you've gone thru with that NPOVN discussion on Ugg boots, though I suppose now that I've sent it you'll be considered an honorary bias Australian editor. Cheer up mate you could be called worse Gnangarra 11:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Elinruby, thanks for your hard work on the SOPA article. Much appreciated! Atlasowa (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA[edit]

Hi Elinruby, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

I looked at your comments. Thanks! :-)

But I think you should tell me where my sources went wrong. Why is a source from 1894 not necessarily reliable?VR talk 03:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I said. I said I was not able to verify that the source existed in the time that I was willing to spend on the matter. In other words, the online archive does not go back that far and I was not fired up enough about this to find out what university library might have a copy. But that does not mean the source is bad. If you re-read slower you will find me saying a) that there is no requirement that a source be *easy* to verify, just that it must be *possible* to verify it and b) when Athenean sneered at it, that history does not have a sell-by date, unlike science or technology, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with an 1894 reference as long as it supports the contention it is supposed to support.
That said, this question has been somewhat interesting in that Athenean cited three quite scholarly sources, the sort of thing you might use in a thesis footnote, but two of them were not really reliable for the question because they were limited in their scope to Europe and therefore their failure to include al-Karaouine proves nothing. A third did not really support his contention, I thought. Yours on the other hand were a bit weaker overall. Some of them only mentioned this question in passing, but got rated fairly high because the authors appear to have expertise. Others I rated lower because, well, if they don't say where they got the information, it's hard to tell how much credence to give them. I went through them one by one but put that under a hatnote as it was a hugely long post. Take a look in contrast at some of the ones I listed, which deal specifically with early universities, although some of them in turn are specific to Africa...but these are not sources which can be mocked.
Reliable for purposes of Wikipedia is not the same as academically irrefutable, and for purposes of weight this matters. If that is unclear I will try to answer any questions you may have.
You should take another look at the discussion, by the way. Someone has correctly pointed out that the proposed changes diverge from University which has many of the same problems and in fact uses the same source, limited to Europe, that Athenean posted to the discussion. I proposed enlarging the scope of the discussion and waiting for input from involved editors. I am trying not to become one; I have a lot of things I have promised to other people that I put off for that discussion. In particular I promised to look at the sourcing for Pakistan's role in the Taliban article, which is also at NPOV. Right now I think that there is a case to be made for ISI involvement, but not for the claim that they *founded* the Taliban. But I am not done with the sources and have gotten in a job which must be done by tomorrow. If you have thoughts, please feel free to speak up there. I am just barely literate on the topic, but I suppose I do qualify as fresh eyes. Elinruby (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me get back to this. I had totally forgotten about it!VR talk 05:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and update[edit]

Hi ElinRuby,

I wanted to thank you for your reply at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences, and to tell you have I've now extended the query to cover three specific conferences relating to a particular paragraph (I'm a little worried that it's an old enough thread that it won't get enough attention, hence my hawking for more opinion here... :) Failedwizard (talk)

SOPA again (apparently)[edit]

Similar proposal to an earlier one, to suspend NPOV for the SOPA article. You put things so well the first time that I copy and pasted it into the current discussion. I hope I didn't overstep on this. It just exemplified my feelings very well. 24.11.87.186 (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hope you are doing well, and feeling ok! I agree with mr. anon - I was on the talk page and ran into your reposted spiel about npov, and think it sums everything up perfectly. Bummed by a blackout though. Wish this stupid law never appeared in the first place, 24 hours w/out wiki is going to be hell. Sloggerbum (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you alright?? Sloggerbum (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
yes. Just preoccupied. More later. Elinruby (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm holding you to that - let me know when you re-enter wiki world, you're missed Sloggerbum (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

You may interested in this mediation as you were an active participant when this was on WP:NPOVN.VR talk 00:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is in response to your message. You said you may still me interested in mediation. I have also asked GunPowderMa to enter into mediation due to our disputes. And, although my disagreements with GunPowderMa are more wide-ranging (including Madrasa and Medieval Muslim universities), I feel they are sufficiently related. Would you like to enter such a mediation if it happens?VR talk 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugg page[edit]

As the page is locked I have set it up in my sandbox and made test changes per talk to see how it looks. I have also rewritten the history a bit. The page should not be seen as a replacement but one we can do test edits on. Feel free to have a look, make changes if you like and/or comment on the sandbox talk page. I have posted this message on several editors talk pages. Despite P&W's usual claims in this regard, we have a consensus for the edits per talk page so if we (editors who have shown they can work together and compromise if needed) can agree on how the article page reads it may avoid the inevitable long winded discussions in Talk once the page is unlocked. Wayne (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

just checking in[edit]

Hey Elinruby, you should seriously log on here every now and again and let people know how you're doing. For reals. Sloggerbum (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic Arts[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic Arts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beef Products Inc.[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beef Products Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DotConnectAfrica[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:DotConnectAfrica. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kickstarter[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kickstarter. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

old

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Honeywell Turbo Technologies[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Honeywell Turbo Technologies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nuveen Investments[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nuveen Investments. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Astroturfing[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astroturfing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2008–2012 global recession[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2008–2012 global recession. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

)

Please comment on Talk:Organic milk[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Organic milk. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Discount-licensing.com[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Discount-licensing.com. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:VergeGameStudio[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:VergeGameStudio. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Social market economy[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Social market economy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flying car (aircraft)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flying car (aircraft). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Effects of global warming[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Effects of global warming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gift economy[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gift economy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PIGS (economics)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PIGS (economics). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Silk Road (marketplace)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Silk Road (marketplace). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Litecoin[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Litecoin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Blanking, old, did not comment

Please comment on Talk:Roundup (herbicide)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roundup (herbicide). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberty University[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

IP block exemption granted[edit]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, TOR, or similar anonymizing tools, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. J.delanoygabsadds 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sustainability[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sustainability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

=

Old, did not comment

Please comment on Talk:Cryptocurrency[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cryptocurrency. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Single-payer health care[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Single-payer health care. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beef Products[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beef Products. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ion Antonescu[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ion Antonescu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Information revolution[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Information revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Pakistan[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economy of Pakistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Principle[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Principle. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economic growth[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economic growth. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fractional-reserve banking[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fractional-reserve banking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Iran[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economy of Iran. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Uber (company)[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Uber (company). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neo-feudalism[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neo-feudalism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of economic thought[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of economic thought. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Capitalist mode of production[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Capitalist mode of production. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Advanced capitalism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Advanced capitalism. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Capital accumulation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Capital accumulation. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Production, costs, and pricing[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Production, costs, and pricing. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nature's Harmony Farm[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nature's Harmony Farm. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xiaomi[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xiaomi. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vivint[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vivint. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ask.com[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ask.com. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Argentina[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Economy of Argentina. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Piketty[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Piketty. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Space Elevator Consortium[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Space Elevator Consortium. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Genre infoboxes and footer templates[edit]

Just a head's up, footer templates like Template:Punk and Template:Hardcore punk are for articles about music genres, not individual bands or labels. The same is true for Template:Infobox music genre, which in addition should only include the relevant genres. (It's very unlikely that a punk genre, for example, would be influenced by all of the listed stylistic origins.) So edits like this and this are unnecessary, plus this even added unnecessary maintenance tags as if they'd been there from 2013. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar my bad then. I will try to revisit this and fix my mess. What I was trying to remedy was a whole lot of scattered orphans in the Latino punk genre, where I don't have a lot of subject knowledge. Perhaps you know of a list I could put these on? I got into this because I noticed that Latino punk was an orphan, and had no wikilinks, and Saicos apparently was really important... and... so it goes. Right now I am wikignoming off on another adventure and just broke Henning Mankell, so I need to fix that chop chop. And he is famous and just died and these have been languishing a while. Let me know if you have suggestions though, I am definitely open to hearing them. I do not normally play in the music pages, Thanks for the feedback. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Latino punk is probably the closest thing we have. I couldn't find any categories, and I don't think we have any lists, either. Looking at Latino punk, there aren't many related articles at all. Which is sad, but I know those bands have to exist. (Of course it's possible that there aren't sufficient sources on them to support articles, or maybe nobody has located the sources and started the articles.) I'm not an expert on Latino punk/hardcore bands, either, just a fan of Los Crudos. Anyways, I think that a link to Latino punk is fine for most or all of those articles, just without the genre templates. I can try to find some time to clean them up in the next day or two as well if you're busy. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar they do exist; but almost all the groups I wikilinked on the Latino punk page (which was an orphan) were also orphans.And yeah, I thought it was kinda sad too. There was an Argentine punk page and a Punk in Brazil page which were also orphans. There was a page for El Vez which was an orphan. Pretty sure his record label page was also an orphan :) maybe a list is the answer. Also, a lot of the bands mentioned on these pages seem to still be in existence but not have wikipedia pages. I fixed the fire on Henning Mankell, but there is quite a bit still to do there -- he's relatively obscure in the US but everyone is doing a retrospective and in the noir genre he's actually fairly significant. And he's one of my favorite authors so I'd like to clean up the page. Latino punk was something I picked off the list of pages that need help as a pro bono project and it developed a whole scary bunch of project scope creep. A lot of the text needs re-writing and while I did a first and second pass, mumble, I have no idea what a reliable source is for punk rock and yada yada. I am interested kinda but I sank a bunch of hours into it already and had moved on... I'll come back to it when I am done with Mankell though, which is a single page vs a whole tar pit Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy with work. I'll undo the genre templates for now and see if there's any other tinkering I can do on those articles. Feel free to dive in if or when you're done elsewhere. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Petroleum Institute[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Petroleum Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Biodynamic agriculture[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Biodynamic agriculture. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you so much for your tenacious edits on the Panama Papers page, especially regarding the Clinton links! Much appreciated Face-smile.svgZumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you so very much also from me!Face-smile.svg – --79.223.29.95 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Panama / Taiwan[edit]

Hey there. Just dropping a note to say that that paragraph bothers me too but I don't feel up to the task of rewriting it entirely as I think the issue is a little more complicated than that. And oh, thanks for your work on the article! :) TKY (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@TKY: it usually is ;) Doing anything at all with Georgia gets you a gold star as far as I am concerned...Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto and messed up refs[edit]

You are screwing up the references. Please do them right. I've reverted your edit. You can undo my edit IF you fix the refs. See the two notices above this, you did the same there and I've been fixing those mistakes. No more. Bgwhite (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: hmmm I am under the impression that I am mostly getting these as I go -- a lot of the above are already fixed, I think -- but hey, alright, if I am upsetting you I will stop for a minute and make sure. And check my user page more often I guess, though usually I go by the reference section errors But I am moving big blocks of text around, losing the odd bracket in cut and paste does happen and I do fix them. Usually quite promptly. Are you getting an error message every time one exists for any length of time because of your script or whatever that tool is? Is that what's going on? Not sure what I can do about that if so as I am already tring to be careful, but I will see what I can do. Scrolling up to check over what bracketbot says now Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: I reverted you and there were zero (0) reference errors on the Benazir Bhutto page. I am still going through the messages on my talk page to make sure I didn't leave an unpaired parenthesis somewhere but I really --- well, this is not a good time for me to discuss this with you. I think you should figure out a way to update the logging on your tool or at least do a reality check before you accuse people of "trashing" wikipedia. Maybe check your assumptions. For one thing, you haven't been fixing the references listed on my talk page because I remember fixing them. But I will check, just in case I am missed one, because I said I would. Where you have seen me before is Panama Papers, which, yes indeedy, is chock-full of machine translations of plagiarized text and untranslated syntax from wikipedias in other languages which probably never heard of the MOS, and oh, references that contain wikilinks and no title and all sorts of happy stuff like that. And some of my drpped brackets, because I've done big edits there too. But even I cannot fix all wikipedia errors in the blink of an eye, buddy, much less introduce universal use of cite ref by all the non-english-speaking newbie IPs that ...argh. Bottom line, it appears to me that your tool does not expect errors on wikipedia to get corrected, and while I certainly feel you on that, you would appear in this case to have been quite wrong about that, mmm? So my suggestion is a) maybe a for loop to see if all messages are still actually present before you start fix operations or lose your temper, and b) maybe consider switching to decaf. Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

North Mount Lyell[edit]

Is a company, mine and place, I have no idea whatsoever where your edits are coming from, I do hope you are ok. JarrahTree 02:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC) The other way to put it, is do you have a reasonable explanation as to why ? :-

  • 06:54, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+32)‎ . . North Mount Lyell ‎ (added Category:New Zealand people using HotCat)
  • 06:52, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+43)‎ . . North Mount Lyell ‎ (added Category:Businesspeople by nationality using HotCat)
  • 06:50, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+32)‎ . . North Mount Lyell ‎ (added Category:Mining in Tasmania using HotCat)
  • 06:50, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+33)‎ . . North Mount Lyell ‎ (added Category:History of Tasmania using HotCat)

Mining and History, maybe,(technically there should be a more complex array of mining companies, and history of the west coast rather than the whole island, but not now) but then there is the problem of parent and child cats and category trees... JarrahTree 02:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I just saw your diffs come in and I am looking at them now. I got them as I was writing this; "@JarrahTree: I am fine. I am trying to fill in some mining history. My topic only tangentially touches on New Zealand though, and I admit to utter ignorance of the place. I did get that much though, that the company had a mine and that that is where the place name came from. If there is something specific that I did that is wrong with the article now then please be specific and I will address it. If we're talking about the change you reverted last night and that I thanked you for reverting, as I said, I must have thought I was in another window. It wasn't something I would do on purpose and thank you again for fixing it. If you are talking about something else, then please let me know what. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)" If it's categories, mmmmaybe... I've been accused of being category-happy before, checking it out. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead sentence is North Mount Lyell was the name of a mine, mining company, locality (sometimes as North Lyell) and former railway
  • It is on the west coast of Tasmania, and is not a person or a New Zealander
  • It was not a businessperson - a defunct mining company maybe...

JarrahTree 02:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I see. My apologies. One reason we are having this conversation is that Tasmania is not in New Zealand. Doh. How embarrassing. I did know that, yet for some reason when I did that I was thinking it was the north island of New Zealand. I see you took that one off, and good. As for the business person, I was thinking about Crotty, but I suppose that would be better on his own page, since he has one. Chances are there isn't a Businesspeople in Australia category either; there were very few subcategories there as I recall. If you think the category is too broad for the article, then fine, chalk it up to youthful exhuberance ;). On History of Tasmania and Mining in Tasmania: yeah, was just trying to get the article connected to others of its kind. One of the things I am finding in the mining articles generally is a lot of siloing and incomplete accounts. If there is some sort of West vs East dichotomy in the category tree in Australia, then do whatever you think best. It's just a driveby attempt to be helpful. Sorry that not all of it worked out ;) Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

np,... JarrahTree 02:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent comment[edit]

Hi, Elinruby. I hope this note finds you in good health and spirits. I just finished reading your comment here. Could I please impose upon you to provide diffs showing where you say I:

"... lied to an administrator when I complained about this...", and also
"He also told the administrator that I didn't want any other point of view in the article ...

I just want to be sure I'm addressing the correct instances when I post my responses, and when I have uninvolved administrators carefully examine and evaluate each allegation, I want to be sure to point them to the correct exchange. That was such a long time ago, and some of our discussions were quite lengthy, I admit I'm now a bit foggy on the details. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup Barnstar Award[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
For considerable work on the Shooting of James Boyd from Activist (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Vid for you[edit]

Panel: “Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation” → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsgapaYCs40

In response to the revelations about the pay-to-play scandal tied to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-state.gov email system and the Clinton Foundation, Judicial Watch hosted an educational panel discussion: “Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation” on September 29, 2016. Panelists include author of the New York Times best-seller Clinton Cash and President of Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer; Joe diGenova, former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel and founding partner of the Washington, D.C., law firm diGenova & Toensing; and Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch. Moderator will be Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. --87.159.120.181 (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Putin[edit]

I'm glad you're paying attention to Putin, etc. I just looked at the article for Neil Bush and was astounded to discover that it hadn't been updated in maybe ten years and was referring to what Boris Berezovsky was doing a decade ago as if he were still alive. Is nobody minding the store? Activist (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In many cases no. It has been some time since I looked at Putin's article, actually, although he came up with reference to the Panama Papers. Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sketch[edit]

I've just gotten home after driving about 2,400 miles and not getting enough sleep. Looked at the article and am glad I didn't waste more than minutes while I was gone on what appears to be a lost cause. It seems akin to finding oneself in the middle of a troll feeding frenzy. If I do get time to spare, I'll see if I can figure out the best way to involve arbitration or administrative remedies. Activist (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

right now he is arguing that the picture of the knife is ok as a citation on the no original research board. I am taking a break from the article, but I will be back Elinruby (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've got to run to town for a couple of hours, but I've been unable to devote the time the situation here demands. I have to admire your perseverance in the matter. Before I response to the bizarre conduct, I wonder if you could answer one question. Supposedly, the responding officers in the JBS situation became aware of his violent history at some point before his tragic homicide. Do you know if or when that was the case? Thanks so much. Activist (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I moved to NPOV since nobody answered at the OR noticeboard. Several of officers have testified that they did. They repeatedly say he was dangerous because he was mentally ill. (Sandy and Perez for a start) Let me see if I still have the link up tp Jason Carpenter's testimony, for example. Elinruby (talk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLYb5ueFm8U )0:38 and following says he was not being reasonable, which is not quite the same thing. I'll post refs here as I come across them tho. Elinruby (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There was some stuff about the CAD messages. These are flawed tho. For example, there is mention of an officer getting a broken nose, but we don't know if he punched her or this was collateral damage in the scuffle. The "citizen" he got into a fight with was at a pretty rough soup kichen in downtown, and there is no telling what happened there. I still cannot find any charges for these incidents. I think it is important that Mikal Monette testified that schizophrenics can't stand to be touched. Boyd did not pull a knife until they tried to pat him down. @Activist: 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive at Talk:Shooting of James Boyd[edit]

Hey, I just temporarily unarchived it. What happened was that 290K of stuff makes the archive page itself too bulky. I'm archiving a part of it manually right now. For the rest, I propose letting the bot run as it automatically divides it into chunks and properly archives it (it's going to run in like 12 hours or so). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the help. This is a piece of wikignoming that II am not very familiar with. I am just getting lost in all these indents. Trying to introduce some clarity for all of our sanities. Please feel free to help as the urge strikes. I just don't think there's much point in me trying to explain original research; he is sure I am wrong and you know what? if I am, fine as far as I am concerned. I just identified about four topics that should really be updates to another article but the other article is not there. Without dealing with all the other shooting and lawsuits in the pipeline. It looks like someone else needs to look at the original research questions and if necessary explain them to Beany. In any event, I'm done trying, at least for now. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neoliberalism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neoliberalism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MPay[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MPay. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh lol, I was the one who started this particular RfC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
my sympathy, @Lemongirl942:; I just took a look at the thing and ... yeah, good luck with that. It does always amaze me how SPAs always push to the point of making what they are doing really obvious, and yes, this does seem like that's what you've got. If you still need a hand I guess I could wander over there and opine; I hadn't looked at the RfC yet because I know next to nothing about the place, but I agree that that sentence in the lead would have me looking around for the PR people. It appears to me that you have a consensus semi-going over there, although I haven't looked at the actual talk page so I don't actually know how bad the POV-pushing is. I do get the flavor of it though. Elinruby (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I actually took a break from that page due to burnout and wikistress. There are now a bunch of SPA/Meatpuppets who are trying to vote on the RFC and retain a puffed up version of the article which somehow is heavily biased. Basically, they want to leave out anything bad about Singapore. Oh, and a few days back a dodgy account actually took me to ANI for apparently "stifling dissent" at Talk:Singapore. I couldn't help but laugh. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
AGF has a lot to answer for sometimes. I still have my guy lecturing me on how NPOV means he can introduce material arguing with something the prosecutor said. On some point that nobody cares about but him, and even assuming he is right, *you and I* would't get a check for $250 and a couple of days off if *we* shot someone, grumble. But bottom line, she did say it in her opening statement at the trial, so it's in the scope of the article, and he, he thinks it makes the defendants look bad. So *he* is hot to make the point that time off after a shooting is the latest thing in law enforcement and A Good Thing. But nobody else has made this point -- and he can't understand that when you speak as wikipedia you don't say "the prosecutor said this but she is an idiot". Since the article is unfinished due to the time we are spending on this, I 've just started working on a rewrite in draft space. and blowing off steam plowing through some ugly machine translations... Elinruby (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC) x

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For making Battle of Sayo better than a stub. In veritas (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Remember to sign your posts![edit]

Just a friendly reminder to sign your posts, you forgot to do that here. NightFire19 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@NightFire19: article completely abandoned; have been deciphering horrible machine translation all by myself. Didn't know anyone was paying attention. Feel free to add to article, which is beginning to approach legibility after MUCH work, but is still very incomplete Elinruby (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the article was in much worse condition when I first found it, so bad that I nominated it for deletion. It's getting better though, edit by edit. :) NightFire19 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I considered it myself, but it does touch on some stuff I didn't know. Though how you overlook Art Deco I dunno. Mind you I haven't added it in yet either but I am going to have to research to do that. Elinruby (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

wusa9[edit]

although in some cases these mistakes were later corrected, it was usually long after the incorrect information had already done damage, and because the propagation-vector tended to be a personal social media username controlled by a single person, may not have been noticed or corrected at all.... political staffers have been fired for spreading fake news that in part originated with legitimate reporting by WUSA-TV containing errata ....

gimme details. Elinruby (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC) moved here from draftspace
It's in the fake news website article, see the refs in the subsection on incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, whose son (of the same name) was fired from the Trump transition team over the spread of 'fake news' stories, see the refs attached thereto. FlynnJr added #pizzagate hashtag, atttached to a retweet of somebody else that was quoting DC police as saying the armed incident had "nothing to do with" the pizzagate conspiracy theory, which in fact was a direct quote (although unattributed in the FlynnJr tweet and in the person he retweeted) from some WUSA-TV reporter, who was doing stream-of-consciousness tweets on the official twitter-feed of the TV station during the initial press conf on December 4th. There was a "correction" on the WUSA-TV twitter-feed by December 6th, which was the day FlynnJr was fired if memory serves, albeit the correction did not specifically back-reference the earlier errata. The cops were just being cautious obviously, and almost certainly said something to the WUSA reporter like 'there is not any non-circumstantial evidence at this point in time to connect the alleged suspect with pizzagate' which thanks to the character-limit of tweets AND to the sensationalism aspect the journalist just paraphrased it as "nothing to do with" pizzagate and dropped the presumed-to-exist qualifiers entirely. Or maybe the cops on the scene were not as cautious as they ought to have been when speaking to the press, and gave no qualifiers. (The first tweet about the incident was that according to the cops it was unlikely to be a terrorist incident, so you can imagine the reporter's mindset in asking questions -- seek the maximum amount of gore and fear which can be legally communicated under the restrictions on libel and slander, because that is what our viewers want.) Of course, outside the twitterverse and back in reality, a few hours later there WAS exactly such evidence... in the form of a confession... as the old saying goes, though, a rumour travels around the world whilst the truth is still putting on rainboots. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Dada and the 20s[edit]

Just take WP:BOLD, mon ami: just edit the article and put in what you think is the best thing. Il faut cultiver notre jardin, be bold. Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

mon jardin se déborde. M'enfin. Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

two stubs related to fake-news-the-metaphor and clickbait-scam-websites[edit]

I just expanded Scandal:_How_"Gotcha"_Politics_Is_Destroying_America which had no sources. Do you have time to work on scraper site which is in the same tenuous situation? I can dump you some of the sources I found. If not no worries, of course. Happy new year, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I can at least look at scraper site.Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Appreciated, danke, Talk:Scraper_site#possibly_useful_sources has a couple extant bluelinks and not-yet-utilized sources. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

In 2011 and 2014, the Government has held illegal credit operations from no transfer of funds to the national financial system entities controlled by the State.[edit]

sentence does not parse. Is it trying to say that transfers between sovereign fund accounts are illegal? Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding We The People[edit]

CNN already reports on it being continued by the Trump administration. Huon (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Huon: thanks

Please comment on Talk:Neoliberalism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neoliberalism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Rosetta Barnstar Hires.png The Rosetta Barnstar
For your work cleaning up articles listed at WP:PNT. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Memphis Meats[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Memphis Meats. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

situation irrégulière[edit]

Went over William Bourdon and made some changes to one section, paying particular attention to your html comments.

  • situation irrégulière – a non-specific term meaning that "something is wrong with the administrative or legal status of a foreigner in France"; could be their visa is expired, or they don't have one, or they're not allowed to work, or not with that type of visa, or they should have a carte de séjour and don't, or they shouldn't be in the country at all, etc. I usually just word it based on context, and if there's no guidance from that, then I say something vague like, "without the proper papers" or "papers not in order" or similar.
  • locaux – "premises", "headquarters"; even "building(s)" or "complex"; or where they "are housed" or "based" or "hosted"; and so on
  • proche (n.) – as you had it: close friend (also, 'next of kin' and similar expressions in other contexts)
  • plainte contre X – think algebra, the "unknown quantity"; basically, charges (or a lawsuit) against people unknown; a standard French formulation. (But watch for another 'X', meaning they're an alumnus of the École polytechnique; but this is not about a complaint against an alumnus of Polytechnique!)

Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I don't remember what questions I left as comments that would have led you to explain this to me, but erm, I speak French really well, you know. I did all my schooling in French before I went too college. However I find myself fumbling when it comes to specialized vocabulary, and as you may have noticed I tend to over-document when unsure of something. I was probably concerned about special meanings in the legal terms because French law has some pretty foreign concepts in it and I had to feel those out by myself; none of those articles existed until I translated them and this one was early on (and I admittedly should have come back to it. Thank you for finding me that picture.) Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about the html comments that you left in the code about translations you weren't sure of. There were several such. In the second version for example, for the original: Il est proche d'associations d'aide aux étrangers en situation irrégulière, notamment la Cimade... you added your translation, along with an appended comment:

He has ties to unusual traveller's aid associations, notably the Cimade...<!-- association d'aide aux étrangers irréguliers, unclear if foreigners or associations are irregular -->

That's one of the "html comments" I was responding to above, since you seemed to be inviting such a response by the embedded comments. Since they were still there when I got around to looking at the article and fixing it, I thought you'd want to know. Mathglot (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I remember leaving them but I don't remember what they were. If they are now resolved then fine, you did right to remove them. On the one you mention above I think I was wondering if the situation irregulière referred to (guessing) lapsed visas or maybe refugee or asylum claims and whether this was the focus of that non-profit. Shrug. I am sure you did the right thing; I've seen a lot of your edits. I'll check it out one of these days but I just got back to the Dilma Rousseff stuff and don't want to stop -- I really is a huge egregious BLP problem that strictly speaking I should have deleted, except that a lot of work had already gone into documenting the other side of the story and the event is too big not to cover. Elinruby (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: actually cough "association" is feminine so it does mean the foreigners not the association are irregular, doh. And yes you are right, this is exactly the sort of article where I appreciate someone letting me know Elinruby (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Formation[edit]

In this edit, you wrote:

Formation -- this is a disambiguation page. I am guessing that something that was on the list was redirected here (?)

The page was overwritten in this edit by the "translation". (As I understand it, at the time most of these translations happened, the tool provided no warning whatsoever to its users that they'd be destroying an existing page.) All the CXT translation edits are tagged ContentTranslation so they stand out in the pages' histories; these are the edits that need to be checked, not the current versions of the pages, which will have often had their problems disguised by well-meaning copyeditors. —Cryptic 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cryptic: OK -- but this is no longer the case, correct? Right now I am doing triage on what we might not want to delete. So if the overwrite was reverted -- and yes, there was a problem with the tool doing that at one point, although it is fixed now -- but point is, if the overwrite was fixed then the disambiguation page should not be on this list of things people want to delete. Or if I am still looking at this wrong, please explain :) Meanwhile, I know that supposedly these pages are riddled with error, but I am not finding this to be the case. Some of the translations are in fact bad enough and about obscure enough topics however that I do think they should be nuked. Elinruby (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review isn't so much a "list of things people want to delete"; it's a list of all CXT edits in the affected timespan. The reason Formation was still on it is simply that nobody had removed it yet: the editor who reverted it wasn't doing it in the context of it being a bad translation, but because he was watching RecentChanges or Formation itself and saw it being blanked. (Formation wouldn't be eligible for deletion in any case, since there are non-machine-translated versions in the history.) —Cryptic 11:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cryptic: re ineligible,that's true, I'd forgotten the proposed change to the rule. But there *is* in fact a proposal to nuke this entire list. It's on the Administrator noticeboard and on the WP:PNT page. Elinruby (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why translation is hard. In French, it means nothing more than a group. But not group theory. That is why translation is hard. The "dude" who told you was right. The common conversation was in Latin, so I assume you know that. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

note to self - Quebec stuff that needs fixing[edit]


other things I've said I'll fix

  • also orphan Drought_cycle_(Brazilian_literature)
  • Joseph_Léopold_Sigisbert_Hugo - Napoleonic general
  • Frederick_Weygold 19th century photographer of Lakota
  • Irène_Laure-resistance, french-german reconciliation
  • Palacio de Fabio Nelli
  • Contract Carousel
  • Aimée_Lallement - bug the translator about this
  • Oudaden

Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

random randomness[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: I have no idea what you're talking about. You have not been in the extensive discussions and didn't answer any of the posts I made while doing this work. Just reverted the work. Seems pretty disruptive to me. And you claim I need to seek consensus. Where have you been? And you say I claim ownership, when you are doing your best to block me from improving the article. Listen here Mr 4-month-old account that knows all the rules, don't make me laugh Elinruby (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the contributions but please review them[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Various easy to avoid typos were introduced, and even ref errors. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: Why in the world do you think I need to be instructed in Show Preview? This is why we can't have nice things. I've been editing wikipedia about twelve times longer than you have, assuming good faith ie that this is your first account. Which is frankly incredible, but fine. I need all the help I can get with this article. If only I can get you to helpful. I am very willing to believe I made an incomplete edit or something last night. Stuff happens when you're working with material this bad and I appear to be the only translator willing to deal with this article, God help us, because my Portuguese is pretty much all cognates. I can read it but it gives me a headache, requires many lookups, and is nerve-wracking. Someone else should be doing this but that someone has not appeared. It annoys me to to be lectured by someone making disproportionately less effort. Not to mention that the 40 people watching the page are willing to condone out and out libel. I think it would annoy anyone. I don't give a shit about Dilma Rousseff but I am prioritizing this article because it really is that bad. If I make a mistake or do something you don't like then fix it if it is clearly a typo -- have you read my user page? -- ask me what I was trying to do, or shut up. Say I as politely as possible. If you want to be helpful, there is a whole list of mistakes I am trying not to to make on the talk page; feel free to tackle one of those. If you had an edit conflict earlier then sorry. I am off to get coffee and will be out of the article for most of the day, although I may work on something related like Operation Car Wash later on. Right now I am back to wondering why we can't just delete this article. That said, I still don't like the lede but it's better than it was. But let's see what everybody thinks of the copy edits last night. Elinruby (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

CXT nuke proposal[edit]

Howdy, @Elinruby:: just wanted to give you a heads-up that the modified nuke proposal for the large list of translated articles to review was accepted, and now we're in an interim period of a couple of weeks where we get to tag any articles we wish to save. The exact procedure for how to tag them hasn't been fully defined yet, so no rush, but this would be a good time to start thinking about making a list of what articles you want to "vaccinate" against the nukebot, so that when the procedure is clarified, you'll be all ready to go ahead and tag your list. You can tag whatever articles you want, regardless whether you've worked on them or not. At this point, I'm just slogging through the list adding ISO-639 lang tags to the numbered items, so you, me, and everybody else only have to even look at articles that originated from languages we feel like working with, and skipping all the rest. Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I am out of town on a borrowed IPad and can't work on this now. Tuesday. It's tempting to just let Wikipedia continue its death spiral actually. Elinruby (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: still dealing with family bullshit. Maybe tomorrow. Meanwhile, did the procedure ever get defined? Elinruby (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Take care of your family stuff, no hurry on this. Btw, took a quick look at Dilma article, mostly the talk page, and you're doing great work over there, very impressed. Procedure not defined yet, I always forget we're all volunteers here; it's like I was waiting for the electrician to show up as soon as we got consensus on the proposal, but that's not the way it works, lol! So, I guess it'll get defined when it gets defined, and we're part of defining it. Enjoy your RL time! Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I am wading through the french track and field olympians, with detours for anything that catches my eye. Crossing entries out that are not a problem. I saw that we have multiple lists now but am not up for trying to implement version control right now. Maybe later. For right now I will stick to that one to avoid compounding the problem. Leaving comments and not striking when unsure.Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You're doing the right thing; I noticed and wondered about the other lists, too, but since S Marshall is continuing to operate on the original list, that's good enough for me, and I'll do the same. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
k thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Presumably you've received the alert from Talk:AN/CXT Pages to review: in theory, the nuke deadline was today, but if we take two more days to wrap it up, strike what we'd like, or move stuff to user draft space that would be a courtesy to everyone, I think. If you're still editing articles, or commenting up the list, this might be the time to stop, just review the whole list, make sure items that you've previously commented up as "worth saving" are either struck (if you still believe so) or moved to your drafts so they don't get nuked. If no objections, Tuesday could be nuke day. (And maybe even if there are objections, since the Rfc was decided two weeks ago, and theoretically today was supposed to be the day). Anyway, just wanted to make sure you knew, since I know how tirelessly you've been working on this, and just because the list gets nuked, is no reason to stop working on the ones you want to afterwards, as long as you've been able to save or set them aside, first. See #deadline at the talk page. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Primefac. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: heh. Sorry he took it that way. I mean... bah. A personal attack? He dismissed a ridiculous amount of other people's work. So thoughtlessly he doesn't even remember it. But fine, sure. I attacked him if it makes him feel good :) I had already given up on explaining it to him and wouldn't have bothered at all if his message hadn't sounded like it might be a question. No doubt I shouldn't have tried and meh I will cop to that. Already have in fact. Twice. In that "personal attack" on X2. I actually suspect a language issue of some kind, but it's just not a fruitful question to explore, I suspect, and there are plenty of language problems right here where you came to tell me this for some reason. Sorry for any failure on my part to explain what the X2 policy is to an editor who voted on it. Frankly I don't understand why we have it myself and I hope *this* is not coming across as a personal attack, mumble. Ta. Have a good evening Elinruby (talk)

Palacio de Fabio Nelli[edit]

Hi Elinruby, Just a heads-up about Palacio de Fabio Nelli which is #1802 at WP:AN/CXT: I've unstruck this as having translated errors of fact, starting with the first sentence, which it gets wrong. I know you wanted to keep this one and list it at WP:PNT, and I was actually in the middle of doing that and tagging it with {{Rough translation}} but backed out because the article in its current state is beyond the pale, and it would be much quicker and easier to start over from scratch than to try to fix this, at least if it was me doing it, and that's why I believe it deserves to be nuked. If you feel differently and would like to work on this version of it, can you please move it drafts namespace, or a Userspace draft to save this copy of it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Alright. I believe I have that one backed up; I'll check. What's an translated error of fact? IE is the problem the facts or the translation? I did not check the facts on it so you may be right. Primarily looking at notability and English in these passes the last day or three, unless I note otherwise. Thanks for the heads-up. Elinruby (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear; I mean that the English garbled a fact, translated something true in Spanish, and asserted something untrue in English. I.e., introduced a factual error not there in the original. Can't think of a one- or two-word term for that, but sure could use one. "Trans-garbled"?
Btw, re AN/CXT #2011 Aurélie_Félix: "cadette" in this context is a sports competition level geared to a certain pre-adult age group. Exactly what age tranche it corresponds to may differ from one sports org to another, but is generally before "juniors", so, "..., cadet, junior, senior, adult". "Cadette" is just the girls' group of "cadet", but in English I'd be inclined to use the uninflected ending ("cadet") for either the boys' or girls' group, unless English RSes say otherwise. If we're talking about just one person in the group, then it's less clear, but I'd still probably use the uninflected form: even though "he's a blond, she's a blonde," in English, but I'd still probably say, "This year she's a cadet, next year she'll be a junior," or something like that. But again, RS habit would rule, if there's any occurrences of it in English. A good place to look might be Montreal English, because they might have "cadettes" on the French side, but by law they'd have to have some way of talking about them in the English papers. Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: question re Palacio de Fabio Nelli- so you are saying that another classical period was more important? I realize that there maybe more problems like that and will proceed with caution if I do something with it, but just wondering what period you think is more important. Not arguing the point - I make no claim to knowledge of Spanish history let alone cultural history (unlike French) but the answer to that question may help me take a harder look at it, since you seem to disagree with my fist one. Temporarily moving to my to-do list so I don't forget to make my mind up about it. Thanks for your efforts and for the well-taken comment about the Montreal Gazette. Hoping to not inherit the athlete articles, though, although they do seem notable to me, just not something I usually play with. Ditto all the Spanish and Portuguese articles, with a few exceptions Elinruby (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Elinruby, Unless it was unanimously sourced up the yazoo, claiming anything like one classical period was more important than other would be a judgment call, so I would never make that claim. So, no, that's not what this one was about. It was about totally hanging the adjective "important" on the wrong noun, thus changing the meaning of the sentence, and making something "important" that never was (or at least, was not alleged to be, in the original) and failing to convey the whole point of the sentence, which was that the building is the best of its kind. It's the building that is "most important", not the time period. It's an understandable error for a machine to make, because it requires properly parsing a linear sentence into a multiply nested grammatical structure (parentheses upon parentheses), which humans are still much better at, and do almost without noticing it, and is still tough to get right programmatically. When I first looked at the English and saw how wrong it was, I couldn't even *imagine* how they could have got it so wrong, then I looked at the Spanish original, and realized that the adjective was right next to the time period and following it, and so an obvious mistake for a dumb program to make. Or even, a smart one. But a human would never make this mistake, so much so, that I couldn't even see it or imagine it, at first glance. On second look, the reason for the error became clear, but it doesn't excuse it.
This is probably good fodder for my imaginary list of automatic translation mistakes, that I keep intending to write someday. One day, computers will be better at this, but ambiguous, multiply nested underlying tree structure is hard for computer programs (can even be hard for humans, when they get too deep) and so it will be some time before computers are good at this. The problem is, that computers are already good at producing a good, linear, surface structure in the target language (English, in this case) so it becomes very difficult to persuade people why the translations are junk, when the English is perfect, or close to it. Imho, having a "vote" or an Rfc whether to keep a particular translated article are a mistake, because monolinguals must be a huge majority here, and they will outvote us every time, as long as the English looks good. I don't really see a good solution to this. Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
early versions did do that yeah. I did see the ping but thank you for making sure. I am writing an answer and I am taking the time to be careful with the wording because it's been a really insulting process and it's hard to be civil when I keep being dismissed as if I have no idea. I do this work all the time; it's what I *do* at Wikipedia. I have made my living by writing about software and by translating French to English at different times, but it's hard and I shouldn't worry my little head about it. Sorry. I am not mad at you. But this isn't how I would have chosen to spend a Saturday, you know, explaining to Wikipedia that there is a reason it's losing editors, especially when history says that these particular editors won't listen this time either. But yes, I understand now -- that is what I was trying to ask you. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Being dismissed by non-translators unfortunately comes with the territory, and I've thought about this, and so far really don't have a good solution. My best, though inchoate, thoughts on it so far, are to go hang out with the WP:MEDRS folks, because they are also a minority, and so how did they get their (perfectly reasonable and proper) MEDRS policy through? My guess is, because they had a significant minority of scientists from non-MED fields that "get" it, and would support them, even if they're not MED science types; an environmentalist, a particle physicist, an exobiologist, who knows, but they'd "get" what the MED folks were trying to do, and support them. At least, that's my supposition. I just don't know whether we could pull off the same thing, because who, other than other polyglots, is going to support us in having more reasonable translation policy? Still thinking about this, and welcome your thoughts on it.
Totally get what your saying about trying to convince WP, and about their losing editors, and the whole thing. And no, they probably won't listen this time, either; so my advice is: after you've written what you want them to know, slash it down to the bare minimum, just give your conclusions and skip all the evidence which they won't understand (or care about) anyway. If anyone gets interested, or a real discussion actually ensues (unlikely, in my estimation) then there's always time to wax prolix with the examples, and the reasons, and the wherefores. But in the meantime, I don't want to lose *you* so if this is all getting on your nerves, then please don't let it—take a break or work on non-translation stuff or whatever it takes.
Also, I want you to consider me an ally. Whether I agree with you or don't about this or that translation, or what article should be kept or shouldn't and why, all of that is minor and irrelevant, relatively speaking, to the good of the project as a whole, and your obvious high regard for the building of a good, useful, and high-quality encyclopedia. So don't think that's going unrecognized, and if nobody else has said it, I'm saying it: "Thank you for your efforts, please continue doing what you're doing, and don't give up." I'm sure we'll have dust-ups now and then about this or that minor point, but that's small potatoes compared to the major goal of having respectable and beneficial translation policies and articles, and we're on the same side of that one, and I look forward to working with you anytime, on that greater goal.
If it's nice where you are, get out there and enjoy your Saturday a bit! Have a nice piece of blueberry pie with premium vanilla ice cream; it'll make dealing with WP when you come back that much easier.  ;-) Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Mathglot, about MEDRS, where I know the people & the history: In addition to the intrinsic merit of the guideline, MEDRS was helped by 1/the serious recognized problem of how to deal with the proponents of alternative medicine, many of whom are zealots not amenable to reason 2/the bias among WPedians that all of most of alternative medicine is likely to be nonsense & its proponents to be fools or charlatans 3/the recognition of the need for WP responsibility for accuracy in this field and 4/the persistent efforts of some exceedingly self-assured medical editors -- along with the unwillingness of most WPedians to confront experts in that subject area. That's an unusual situation, not likely to be repeated.. But there are other topic areas where the general feelings of WPedians and commonly shared bias can give less positive results: the refusal to take religion seriously, the refusal to consider most of the academic humanities as important, the need to express the dislike of Donald Trump at every opportunity. One of the weaknesses of the WP consensus process is the ability of a small stubborn group to indefinitely prevent resolution--or at least prevent it until everyone has gotten thoroughly sick of them. There is also the weakness arising form the multiplicity of venues, where it is impossible to track everything, and the more active one is, the harder. (I use a variety of personal lists, and each time one gets too clogged up, I try to start another.)
Elinruby, my own method of effecting change here was one I realized right from my start ten years ago--never to press any one issue too hard, but to keep coming back to it once every year or two, I knew I intended to be here a long time, and this method had helped me greatly in my career in an academic bureaucracy. A problem with this is that I tend to attract supporters who get impatient, and ruin things. (Another is the inability to have any change be permanent.) I learned very early on not to work explicitly on policy, but on accumulating a weight of individual situations and examples, and gradually shift consensus. I've also a personal rule, never to reply more than twice in any argument--if I haven't convinced people then, I'm not likely to. And to simply apologize when I make errors or push too hard--that's very unusual here. You've been along about as long as I, and I'm sure you've seen most of this also.
I should mention specifically, that since you have extended confirmed status, the restrictions on the use of the translation interface will not apply to you. There's another thing you could do if you liked,which is become an admin (unless there's some real problem in your record). You don't have to use it much, but it helps to have it. If you like, I'll nominate you. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: My own guiding principle is accuracy but I am open to discussion as to what accuracy is. Every so often I try to solve something at the NPOV or RS boards. Or at least more the article in question to where the point of contention that is different and perhaps slightly better than it were. Mainly by being willing to go off into the weeds if necessary. I usually just wikignome away though, trying to improve the ability of bread and butter articles to reflect *all* of aspects of a topic. I will give admin some thought. I am currently primarily focused on trying to recruit editors for articles that need editing.... I am not sure what would be involved. But yes I am here to help this ridiculous sprawling mass of text, if I can, to move forward. I do try to push, when I push, in a friendly and matter-of-fact matter, as in a packet is a packet and "I am sorry but you are right and so is he". And WP will be better if we recognise that. Anyway, I realize tha I can use the CTX tool, and have. But X2 says that if I do, any admin at their sole discretion can now zap the work. And some of those admins have strange ideas. It's all good though, the whole thing is darkly amusing actually. I do agree with the other issues you raised and have seen a lot of them also. Back to MEDRS I do want to mention that I really appreciate the quality of the medical articles -- my family is making health care decisions for my parents using those articles as a matter of fact and it was good to be able to say someone has looked at it for accuracy if it's more than about a day old. What Mathglot and I were discussing was some translation/article creation system that would be less ad hoc and involve less wasted motion. But we haven't discussed a way to make this happen.Elinruby (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
My interpretation is that articles by those authorized to use the tool are not subject to X2, but I will have to check. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: Apparently not. I had three articles on the list, all related to Panama Papers work I spent *months* on. And I finally had to strike them out myself, though Mathglot did some needed work on one, adding an image for example, but this had *nothing* to do with the quality of the translation, but rather the state of the French article 01:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
that they did it does not mean they were supposed to. As discussed at the list & its talk p., the list contains a good many items which are not translations, or which were manually edited extensively. I will check. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby, you can relax: since you have already marked your Panama items at WP:CXT/PTR with strikeout type, they will not be deleted by an admin. I noticed you left a paragraph of description there, trying to justify a "keep", but that wasn't necessary. You don't have to justify anything at all; just the bare strikeout is sufficient to save the article. Even in the case of an admin mistake about interpreting the strikeout or a script error in executing it, the Panama articles *still* won't be deleted; they'll be staged to a temp area for a while before actual removal. So any articles that you strike the titles on, are completely safe and you needn't justify why you want them saved to anybody. Just strike the title, and you're done. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, just noticed this comment of yours at #2972: "not striking because mine, but I think it should be. I would if it was someone else's". There's no need for some kind of selfless modesty here about striking. You should totally strike because you're working on it, or you want to work on it in the future. That's the best reason for striking it. Don't hold back "because it's yours"—on the contrary, strike it precisely for that reason. I'm striking for two reasons: either the article translation is already legit and deserves it, or it's an article that looks interesting to me, that I want to work on in the future, but don't have time right now while going through the list. That's a totally legit reason to strike, and will help the encyclopedia in the end.
In fact, if you've been holding off up till now from striking the articles you've been working on because they're yours, I'd say stop examining new articles and go back over all the ones you've examined already, and make sure you strike all the ones you want to save; don't wait for somebody else to do it, because it probably won't happen. You save the ones you want; nobody else will. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Previous unwarranted uw-4 above[edit]

Hi, @Elinruby:: This is just FYI, no feedback required. Regarding the unwarranted uw-4 warning above, please see this. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Garbacz, and reverting to an earlier version[edit]

Hi, Elinruby,

At #2611 Garbacz, for a bad cxt vresion that overwrote a previously good stub you mentioned that "...but it's been worked on enough to prevent a revert back to original article from working." I assume that what you meant here, is that you can't revert by clicking the "undo" link in the Revision History, is that right?

But you can always revert back to an original, or any intermediate version you want. If you look at the History of Garbacz, let's say you want to go back to the version of 19 March 2013‎, right before the crappy CXT overwrote the previous version. To do that, just:

  1. click the "19 March" date in the Revision History. The old page comes up with a pink banner with the old version info.
  2. Click the Edit tab. The normal edit window will open, along with a second pink warning box at the top. Just ignore it.
  3. Scroll down to the edit summary, and add something like, "Remove machine translation and revert to last good version of 11:33, 19 March 2013 by Addbot."
  4. Click Save.

That's all there is to it. Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: yes and you get a message saying that there are too many intervening changes, and a manual revert is required. This is essentially cutting and pasting the old version into the window, I gather, and I considered doing that, but then we would loose whatever the additional text says. I left it for the moment in case a polish speaker happens along. While you are in an explaining mood, though, if you remember what your issue was with the pun involving Dean Swift and Vaness.. I am not quite seeing the problem? Nor do I think the article is critical to wikipedia, so there is no rush to reply. This little interlude where I have been heavily working on the list as hard as i have is drawing to an end and I am going to be around a lot less in the next week. If you see an article I worked on or seemed to want to keep please feel free to strike it on my behalf... or not, if you prefer. Let's see what people think of all the comments. There are still specific categories whose handling I question (Chinese communist party, Olympic medalists etc) but there are also new people working on the list so Dilma Rousseff is going to be the priority for what little time I have have next week. Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
You do not have to cut and paste the old version into the window. Did you try the four steps above? There is no cutting or pasting involved and it is very simple. Mathglot (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
k Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and reverted it to version just prior to CXT. This is now a good stub, as it was before. Mathglot (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
k. Polish speaker does not seem to be about to happen, I agree. Elinruby (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexandre Du Mège[edit]

Thanks for your several edits to this article. I'll review the tagged problems and see if I can figure them out. It was my first translation and I did not realise there was no preview available before hitting the publish button too early. In future I'll review any machine translation more carefully and copy edit to make sense as I'm doing now for another French article I'm working on. Would you mind if I ask you to review it once published? Again thanks ww2censor (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: you can do that if you like but you should know that the article is on a list of machine-translated articles proposed for deletion. I do not recall whether I struck the name from the list but I do seem to recall the article as not too bad an article about not too notable a guy. Some of the vagueness may be from the French article. My question is whether you plan to do that work on it any time soon. I'll ping you again a bit later with the link to the list of pages. To answer your actual question, I do not mind looking at the article if it's a matter of looking at the translation but you should know that publishing an article doesn't require my approval generally. I guess it matters a little as to whether I struck it or not, but you could also take it off the list, as I understand it Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I know it's been a while but I have not forgotten this article. I found some additional citations and reworked the prose to reflect those citations. Maybe you can give it a quick look again to see if you think my revision are better, at least for now. I am still looking for more clarity and will rework those statements when I find something to verify them. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

CXT/PTR redirects[edit]

Hi, Elinruby: I struck #3507 on your behalf. Don't forget that when you identify a valid redirect that is on the list, to strike the redirect as a keeper. Otherwise the nukebot could remove a good redirect. Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there's more of them: can you recheck 3502-3, 3537, and 3552 in that section, and strike them if the redirects should be kept? Thx. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: kind of a political question. Do I think a bunch of stuff was charbroiled there, yes, and I am not sure what we are defining as valid. Broadly though, apart from those articles, it's a redirect back to a main topic of something we don't suppose the readers care about? I'd be redirecting all that Il Divo shit myself, but apparently someone cares about it Elinruby (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I couldn't follow what you were saying with regards to the 3500-series ones, so I've struck 3503 and 3552 as keepers, and marked 3502 and 3537 as kill, here, and a bunch more here and here. Hope this meets with your approval. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Probably better than what would have happened if you hadn't. There was a lot of badly-translated Honduras work and S Marshall went through there with a chainsaw. I was uncertain which was worse and don't know what a "valid" redirect is. I've never redirected anything in my life. I just anticipate needing some of the law enforcement agencies in the future, is what I was mumbling about. Hopefully this clarifies. I just had a conversation by the way with an editor who reverted something I did with a Macedonian fighter. I told him he was probably right but if he is paying attention he should come get his stuff off the list, so, *that*'s another chunk of stuff I am going to stop worrying about as well. I am now going though the list to finalize my struck/unstruck decisions, but I am fairly certain there aren't any true *gems* left, though possibly some salvageable work. I am inclined to let the Olympians be deleted as their author seems to regard them as finished. Souks of Tunis I am more torn about. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

2095. La entrada de la flor[edit]

Just a heads-up: From your comments at 2095 "La entrada de la flor" it sounds like you meant to strike this one, but it's not struck. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I am torn about that one. I probably did but I could go either way on it. I have some work in it but I don't think I can get it much past where it is and that really is still kind of crappy. My question is how many of these processions exist in Spain, or Catalonia or whatever. I also wondered if there was some tie to the Procession of the Marigolds in San Antonio, but that celebrates a military victory I believe. In any event, what do you think of the article?

Remember that it's all about whether the CXT has been fixed and the translation is passable now. It really doesn't matter whether the article is notable or not, or even whether it meets multiple speedy deletion criteria, or it's a hoax or a copyright violation or anything because that's all irrelevant; for strike(keep)-vs-kill it only matters whether it's a junk CXT translation. If the translation is now good (or it's not a translation), strike it, and if it isn't, don't. (That doesn't mean you have to ignore the other stuff, but there are different measures to take for those, like nominating for deletion, which you can certainly do if you feel like.) If it's no longer an article (e.g., became a redirect to a good article) then you can strike to keep, because it's not a bad cxt translation. Beyond that, add any hatnotes you feel like to the top of the article about Notability or anything else. I've done that, on a number of articles, and I've even improved a handful of them, but that's a completely separate operation, and nothing to do with strike/no-strike which is about cxt translation and nothing else. So don't take Notability into account while trying to decide whether to keep or not, just cxt-badness level.
In this particular case, since I see that based on your edits, you've taken this one under your wing, strike it if you want to keep working on it (or move it to your user space drafts if you think the translation is so crappy it shouldn't be exposed in article space). If you don't strike or move it, it will get deleted, nullifying your work on it. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ya well that would require that I look at it and make a decision but yes I understand what you are saying, thanks Elinruby (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Kanata[edit]

Incidentally, I looked at the history of that Kanata article and once I saw Strathcona and Hochelaga I remembered that it *is* a Mohawk word but Mohawk goes without saying given the location. This is in the article twice by the way and should not be; Kanata Ontario did exist but it was named for the name of Canada (versus that being the original place name of the town outside Ottawa). I think MmeSoleil's edit did exactly what you said and I'll raise you that it also mistranslated "ancien" or was it perhaps "ville ancienne" as 'ancient' when 'former' is what was meant. So fairly evil. At some point these should perhaps become separate articles, though, if only to keep that from happening again. Meanwhile there is something there in the article now that sounds like 'this is supposedly a mohawk word when it's actually from this other iroquois language which is spelled the same way and means th same thing'. Er, what? The Mohawk are an Iroquois nation. I am not sure which First Nation is from the Ottawa valley, but it's not far from Oka so there is probably some tautology there in that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talkcontribs) 20 May 2017 07:25 (UTC)

I noticed that "Iroquois vs Mohawk" stuff, too, and while I was mildly interested in following that up, I was more interested in just fixing the redirect so it pointed to the right place. And you're absolutely right about the incorrect translation of 'ancienne ville'. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
P.S. An admin came by and responded to an earlier request of mine and Kanata is now the disambig page which points first to the Name of Canada article, as well as Kanata, Ontario and a few others. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
that makes sense, but what about the text of the article that got clobbered? I thought we were going with the version immediately beforeMmeSoleil? I *was* thinking though that part of the reason this whole mistranslation happened, apart of course because of the software, was that the prior article tucked Kanata the suburb off in the last paragraph. Because of readability I've actually said some rude things about putting all the alternate spellings and translation and ... distinguish is it? A ne pas confondre? in the lede, but I sort of assumed we we going with a hatnote on the article about the name of Canada, which is clearly more more notable (?)which I thought was policy (?) But answer at leisure; I have as I said before, seen enough of your edits to believe whatever you did is better than what was there before, and it's not a priority at the moment as long as the links in the articles go to someplace that talks about what the article authors intended  ;)
PS incidentally I am intending to be in wikipedia for several hours if you need anything. Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Parents of cats[edit]

Hi and thank you for your appropriate categorisations of articles. I noticed however that you categorised Ana Cano into Category:Philologists and Category:Romance languages. This was unnecessary as these categories are parents of the most specific relevant category: Spanish philologists, which the article was already included in. – Uanfala (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: good point. Do you speak Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian by chance? Elinruby (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

could use some help over here. How about Gujarati or Bengali? Indonesian? Elinruby (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you managed to list almost all of the languages that I had previously studied for less than a month each. But I'm afraid I've forgotten the little I used to know. What is the thing that you need help with? – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
hmm let me give you the context first. There is a software tool for translation that was rolled out, but due to some sort of glitch it did not always check properly to make sure there wasn't already an article, and a few users produced many bad translations also. I personally use the tool myself and like it but again, some editors were doing translations in language pairs where they apparently had no knowledge of either one. In the discussions about this, which did not initially include me or anyone else that uses the tool, a proposal got approved to delete all (CTX) translations in that period. Some of them really are that bad; my point however has been yes yes and some of them are quite good! And I am not just saying this because I had three of my own articles on the list ;) Anyway, the mission is to triage stuff that would be easier to re-translate (than to fix) out of the stuff that, doing a light copy-edit for stilted language if applicable -- I am usually doing this anyway -- and de-orphan and categorize the ones to keep. We still need certain languages and could also use some subject knowledge, in for example, French military fortifications, 17th century academics, Chinese generals... estonian painters and the like. We've got french speakers but there are a lot of french articles and many as well in portuguese, spanish and italian, which I am getting through by reading them out loud and listening. The other part is trying to spot the more subtle errors such as are caused by a bad word choice -- for example "ancient" is only sometimes the correct translation for the French word "ancien" -- sometimes it's "former" and does not imply great age. Anyway. Come help if you want. List at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/CXT/Pages_to_review.Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
let me know if you have any questions. If you think an article should be kept and fixed, you strike it. If not, you do not strike it, and it is helpful to leave a comment so people can tell someone has actually looked at that article Elinruby (talk)
Thank you for introducing me to this process. I'll try to keep an eye on it if there are translations from languages I can be of help with. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I hope to help the process become something else because what we have now really does not work. I will probably stop doing translations if the policy stays. I mean, really, a policy on deciding the validity of translations that is often being made without consulting anyone that actually speaks the language or is familiar with the tool. What? But for this batch here, some of them really are that bad so I am helping; otherwise they will just delete them all because that is what they see as the preferred solution. Frankly I am glad some people got barred from editing wikipedia over these. I use CTX myself but just to save typing. It usually starts making mistakes fast when it comes down to idiom. But. It would have been easier on everyone's nerves to have realistic expectations. I am still trying to explain the difference between a translation *problem* that makes the article actually wrong, and the tool had to pick he or she and guessed wront. Was it you that was talking to someone about a typo in a flowchart? Elinruby (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not me, I can't remember pointing out errors in flowcharts. – Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Rodin[edit]

Well, he's in Category:19th-century French sculptors and Category:20th-century French sculptors, so there's no need for him to be in the parent any longer. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

alright. I was hoping it was something clever like that's not the scuptor that's the sculpture. Har har. Meh, and all this Rodin to look at too. Fine, thanks for the answer ;) I don't think we're talking about the same thing but I will take that under advisement Elinruby (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Lang-tagging at CXT/PTR[edit]

Hi, I see you've been back at CXT/PTR. Can you do me a favor, and add the 2-letter language code on items, as you comment up the items there? As you examine the articles, can you check what the language of origin was, and if you could tag the line in the list with the two-letter code, that would be helpful.

For example, #2412 currently says: "2412. The_New_Adam - in National Gallery of Hungary...".

It's actually a painting by a Hungarian painter, in the Hungarian gallery, so you'd think, translated from Hungarian, right? Nope. Bulgarian. So I'd like to see this one tagged like this: "2412. The_New_Adam - bg; in National Gallery of Hungary...".

Just having the right code there makes it easier for the person with the right language skills to have a look, if needed. Also, to find the right translator to deal with it, if we don't have someone that knows Bulgarian. So I was just thinking, since you're commenting up the lines anyway, maybe you could just drop the tag in at the same time. No worries, if not. Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC) t

@Mathglot: sure. As a rule of thumb though, most of the articles about individual pieces of art are bg. But yes, I can do that. I had to go to the hospital to see my mother but am back and have several hours for this...what I was doing last night was starting at the beginning and going through, plus looking at your pings in the 3000 series. But yes, I have commented a few lines of untouched articles as to what the topic is, and yes I can add the language code. I see a need for Farsi and Arabic, but you know that. If I get the time I will also do some recruiting as you suggested above. Elinruby (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks (and also for the tip about most of the art being bg). The request about lang-coding is for a very practical reason, too: remember your talk page comment about needing more reviewers in Asian languages? Well, I took you seriously, and have been busy working on that. With respect to the two examples you raised, have you seen WP:CXT/PTR/BL#ar Arabic or WP:CXT/PTR/BL#fa Farsi? There are only 4 results back so far, but I literally just started Arabic yesterday. If you want to see the results after a couple of days work, check out WP:CXT/PTR/BL#ro Romanian and WP:CXT/PTR/BL#hu Hungarian.
I wanted to start easy for hitting the ones with tons of articles like zh, tr and ru, but I'm almost ready to tackle those, now. This editor-recruitment thing is like its own little "sub-project" of CXT/PTR, but it's a ton of fun, finding reviewers or translators, sending them invites, and collating their responses back into CXT/PTR; by doing so, I can leverage their efforts into reliable responses about languages I do not know. So far this has been a solo effort, but it's actually a lot of fun. If you want to take on a few of the languages there, I can tell you how I've been doing it (there's some doc there, but pretty sketchy so far; I need to beef it up). I know you want zh, ja, etc, but if you want to help, I'd recommend starting small first, or it can be overwhelming. Korean might be a good starting place if you want to get your feet wet with this, it's needed, but not huge. And it's fun.
Anyway, that was the reason for asking for the lang-tags; it makes this work easier at the top end. Oh: if you do add tags, it makes it slightly easier if you delimit them the same way every time; either semicolon after (that's what I've been doing: (" bg; ") or any special character front and back (":bg:") and Language full-name is also okay ("Bulgarian") but not preferred, because if you're typing fast and make a typo ("Bulgraian") it won't get picked up, so just the xx 2-letter code is best (upper/lower case doesn't matter).
At this point, both efforts are helpful: either Asian-language editor recruitment at WP:CXT/PTR/BL, and lang-tagging (which I will go back to, as soon as I catch up on my Asian-language recruitment backlog). Hope your Mom is as well as can be.
P.S. Do you think everyone would get mad if I asked for another postponement, of maybe a month? I literally just got started on this language-recruitment thing a few days ago, and it's already starting to show great results, but there's only days left, and it's not enough. Plus, there's that good-article-clobber thing, which got pushed to Village Pump/Tech by Tazerdadog, but just isn't getting any feedback, I don't know why. Later, Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I suspect someone may, but at this point it is becoming clear that many of these articles are very good and on notable topics. Some of course are not, some are very bad, but I have only written kill on about 30 articles and the others that aren't good are usually underlinked and under references and pretty mediocre, but improvable with a bit of effort. I don't want to get into the weeds with the 18th century philosophers -- I think they are notable and also that they deserve better articles. By the way, is italian on your list? I can only vaguely read it and hesitate to rely on my reading of it, though in some cases the articles are rather formulaic. I think it would be better if you asked for the postponement than if I did, as I think I am seen as a bleeding-heart inclusionist. Incidentally it would also be very good to find people who speak portuguese and spanish; i have been working on those because I kinda can, but I am a bit uncomfortable with that, and would prefer a native speaker look at the articles. I am fairly certain there aren't any subtleties in the stuff about the history of Goa, for example, but I could totally be wrong. But anyway. I am off to actually do some of this. I have a couple of hours right now. Talk soon. Elinruby (talk)
I can verify Italian. The problem is, I'm concentrating now as fast as I can on two tasks: editor recruitment, and lang-tagging articles on CXT/PTR when I'm not dealing with the first one. So I don't have much time left even for Spanish or French articles or German, which I'm better at than Italian. However, if you have a specific question on an Italian article, just shoot it to me here, and I'll respond. Definitely you can shoot me Spanish questions, and Portuguese, too, if it's not horribly jargony and complex. Spanish and French are my strongest, after English, then probably German, and the others.
Have you had a chance to look at WP:CXT/PTR/BL yet? What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I think it is a great idea. I have started a little with the tagging and will do more. I did just realize that the hospital locks its doors at 10 and it's 9:30 so.... I'll be back. We've planned on an early night of each dealing with some stuff we need to do so I am pretty sure I can get some more stuff done later. My mother is currently quite coherent and seems rather well, so I need to visit with her while that is the case, but the doctors say that the infection she has cannot be treated due to her frailty and essentially sooner or later she will die from it. Any time; they expected it to be the day before yesterday. But meticulous and repetitive work is rather centering so don't feel like I should stop doing this and just deal. I am around less and right now I am gonna go, but I am still very much in this. Ta, later.
I saw your invite to Jmabel for Spanish, but give the poor guy a break, I've already invited him for Romanian. But since I see you wanted people who could do Spanish, I've beefed up the WP:CXT/PTR/BL#es_Spanish section, and added a whole bunch of Spanish translators you can try inviting. My experience so far, is that 9 out of 10 won't respond at all, one person will do a few, and one person will do as many as you can throw at him. So there's a real advantage in sending out lots of invites, because you never know if the one who's gonna do 10 or 20 or 30 of them, will ti be the sixth guy you invite, or #11, or #19 or what? I'll try and add some more Spanish translators to the list there, so there's at least 20 or 30 you can try to invite. (And don't forget to add you sig!. Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, there's 30 of them there now; that should be enough to get you a few that are actually going to work om the articles you send them, and return results, and maybe 1 or 2 that will keep assessing as many as you can throw at them. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes someone else did point out the sig thing to me, thanks. I was pretty wiped out yesterday and basically in a mode of just stumbling around...this can be helpful at times for recruiting the people who come tell me about mistakes I have made. I fell asleep but have the entire day for this today. Gonna start by backtracking over the invites I sent; I have had a couple of responses.Elinruby (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi, Elinruby: Note: No more lang-tagging is needed!! Thanks to a new query I requested from Cryptic, we now have the exact original lang-tag for every article in the list. Now, we just have to find translators, and send out invites. I noticed you sent a Spanish one to King of Hearts (talk · contribs) but notice he's only an es-2. I wouldn't send one to anybody less than es-4, or maybe es-3 in a pinch if we didn't have enough people like for Albanian or something, but for Spanish we must have zillions. I'd stick to es-4 and above. By the way, KoH is zh-5, so I'm sending him a Chinese invite. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

if I sent someone es-2 an invite that was the fatigue as I figure even I am a 3 or maybe becoming a 4 given all the practice I am getting lol. We do need portuguese for all the Goa stuff I did but I was bold and struck it because it looked important and unlikely to be be re-created. I have done quite a bit of work on it also but can I certify it, nope. I am fairly certain there are no huge errors but there are sources to expand all of that if someone is interested. Also scattered lithuanian treaties and princes. Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I can help verify translations of articles from Spanish :)[edit]

I'll be glad to help verifying those articles and I can also help with more, if needed. Thanks for telling me, and have a nice day! Ce Ele 415 (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ce Ele 415: thank you that offer; let me get you the link(s) to different stuff that is happening. For Spanish two of us do read Spanish reasonably well, but, speaking for myself now, I have no formal training in the grammar and know what I know through French and through many years of living in New Mexico, where Spanish is an official language and also is the language of the majority of the population ;) But the issue is sheer quantity for Spanish ( and also Portuguese if you can help there... ) Elinruby (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ce Ele 415: the main list is here. There has been an attempt to sort by language here but it looks like the list for Spanish has not yet been generated. There are a lot of Spanish articles though; look around in the 3000s for example. For Spanish the issue is more or less just the sheer volume, and also that while we do have some editors who read the language we do not have an native speakers. Feel free to pitch in anywhere you like -- the one convention is that the sign that an article should be kept (and possibly worked on later) is <s></s> tags. Other comments about topic or quality or what the article needs are helpful for getting the article adopted. Thank you for your help. Elinruby (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby and @Ce Ele 415: I just got a new query result from Cryptic which will shortly give us the definite list of Spanish articles, purged of all false positives as soon as I massage the data. I will be replacing the entire Spanish list at WP:CXT/PTR/By_language#es articles shortly; but if you wish to start on the list before that is done, that is okay: just be aware you may come across some articles here and there that were not originally from Spanish, just skip those and go to the next if that's the case. Stay tuned. (Elinruby: ditto for all other languages, but I'll do Spanish first, so you can get going with this.) Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, the new, definitive list of Spanish articles is now available, here: WP:CXT/PTR/By language#es articles. Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I can also help with Catalan too as I'm bilingual (because I live in the Balearic Islands), though the articles will have to wait, as now I'm having a lot of work, but I'll start as soon as I have some spare time ;) Have a nice day Ce Ele 415 (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: will want to stay in touch with you then. And please feel free to work on what you can where you can. Elinruby (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sent invites for Chinese[edit]

I know you were interested in getting editors for Asian languages, so I just sent out 25 invites for Chinese. Almost every language is listed at WP:CXT/PTR/By language now, along with every article at CXT/PTR that was translated from it, whether or not that article is tagged there or not. (That's why we don't need to lang-tag at CXT/PTR anymore, because we have the complete list.)

Anyway, wanted to ask you which languages Asian or otherwise, you would like to see invitations sent out for next? I was thinking Turkish and Russian, what do you think? Also, I'm not bothered if they do the nuke on June 6, because in reality they all go into quarantine, so I'll just keep going merrily along sending invites, and they can verify them in quarantine or wherever they are, and if they Pass, we just move them back to article space, and if they don't, we don't. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Starting to get Chinese assessments back now. Will be integrating them into the list shortly. Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: there's a decent amount of Turkish as I recall, plus a couple I struck because UNESCO world heritage site, and not that bad. I don't think we have a Persian speaker either, and the I think HyperGaruda at ar-1 is the best we have there. Elinruby (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Did I say I was getting Arabic and Farsi results back? Had a glitch I have to work on: the wording of the template caused some editors to put pass/fail icons on the article page itself; they have all been notified with corrected instructions, the template itself has been fixed to make it much clearer, and now I have to go remove those pass/fails from the articles, and copy the results back to CXT/PTR/BL. Btw, noticed you sending out invites like gangbusters in da, tr, vi, and some others, woo-hoo, go for it! Also, concerning Arabic translators: we have Essam who is ar-N and en-5, Yahia who is ar-5 (essentially equivalent to a native speaker), and Gav1991 fa-N/ar-4. HyperGaruda, who is good for Indonesian, is only ar-1, so that's not nearly good enough to evaluate Arabic-to-English translations. And thanks for the work on getting Uafala(sp?) involved with bg. Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
As I gain experience and refine the procedures and use more regexes, this gets more and more efficient. Just sent out 52 invites to German speakers; that's way more than I've done before in one batch. I started out just sending one and two at a time, so this is a big ramp-up. When I first saw that Spanish has 600 articles in the list, I thought we'd never get them all assessed, but now I think it's quite possible; if we invite 100 or 200 Spanish translators, to find the prolific ones who will do 20 or 40 each, we could get it all done. If you'd asked me a week ago, I would've said it was pretty impossible to invite that many, but I don't think that anymore. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Good. Elinruby (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Save your souks[edit]

You have just a short time to save your Souks by striking. See 919, 1352, 1353, 1358, 1359, 1363, 1367, 1451, 1460, 1477, 1560, 1562, 1696. There are others, but they are struck. Other non-souk items possibly on the Medinapedia project list that you might be interested in: 1850, 2034, 3086, 3088, 3089, 3090, 3140, 3487. There's probably more, but that's all I know about. Two days left. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

just coming back in and planning to work overnight. No extension then? Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. But I'm not stopping on the Asian languages recruitment, because it's going so well, and articles aren't really going to be deleted, at least not right away, they will be quarantined someplace where we still have access to them, and so will translators and editors. So I'll keep sending out invites. In the worst case, I'll have to modify the invite template so it can find the template either in article space, or in quarantine, wherever that ends up being. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I was talking to Tazerdadog about this. We're still going to lose editors though. Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:APD and James Boyd[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:APD and James Boyd, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:APD and James Boyd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:APD and James Boyd during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Verification of Portuguese translation[edit]

Hi Elinruby. Thanks for your message. I was not aware of this type of situation. I will take a look t the article. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Thanks! that would be wonderful. We particularly need help with Portuguese but please feel free to pitch in where you like. If you prefer I can suggest them to you in batches of four or five at time just to get you started Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Checking on your people[edit]

Hi Elinruby,

This is in response to your request here.

This is probably too soon to notice much activity, plus this probably needs a "results" column which I forgot to add (next version!) but for starters, this should help you at least keep track of everybody. Note that some of these editors haven't contributed in quite some time, so I wouldn't hold my breath on results back from them.

ER invitees from June 2-7

In col. 2, en-N assumed, unless specified.

User lang inv-dt last >May 1 rslt-dt results remarks
Abach no-n en-3 Jun 2:no Mar 22 0 mm/dd n/a 1 edit in 2016, 0 in 2017
Aldnonymous id-n Jun6:id Jan 13 0 mm/dd n/a Indonesian admin
Alextrevelian 006 es-n en-3 Jun 5:es 2011 0 mm/dd n/a
Barend no-n en-4 Jun 2:no Apr 9 0 mm/dd n/a
Bendzh xx-? Jun 5:fi 2014 0 mm/dd n/a
Brandmeister ru-n pl-3
en-3 az-2
Jun 5:ru May 31 0 mm/dd n/a
Caeruleus92 en->tr Jun 5:tr 2016 0 mm/dd n/a 2 edits on wp
CarlosPatiño en-n es-n Jun 2:es 2011 0 mm/dd n/a
Catrìona es-3 Jun 2 Jun 7:es many mm/dd n/a
Ce_Ele_415 ca-n es-n
en-3
Jun 2:es Jun 4 ~30 mm/dd Answered and passed 2, offered 3 more, no answer yet Elinruby (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Case ru-3 Jun 5:ru Jun 7 many mm/dd n/a
Finnusertop fi-n en-4 Jun 5:fi Jun 7 many mm/dd n/a
Gatorfan652 es-3 Jun 2:es 2012 0 mm/dd n/a
GeoOliart94 es-5 Jun 2:es 2012 0 mm/dd n/a 1 edit on wp
Halibutt pl-n en-3 es-2 Jun 5:es,ru May 31 5 mm/dd invited for both es and ru, no answer yet; also user page says he is a spokesman for Polish Wikipedia, and we could actually use him more there Elinruby (talk)
Halibutt xx-n Jun 2 last 0 mm/dd invited for both es and ru, no answer yet; also user page says he is a spokesman for Polish Wikipedia, and we could actually use him more there Elinruby (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Havok xx-? Jun 2:no Feb 8 0 mm/dd n/a
Houshuang no-n en-5 Jun 2:no May 29 1 mm/dd n/a prev edit in 2014
Javitomad es-n en-4
ca-3 lad-3
Jun 5:es 2014 0 mm/dd n/a
JIP fi-n en-3
sv-3
Jun 5:fi May 14 2 mm/dd n/a admin
JTtheOG es-? Jun 2:es Jun 7 many mm/dd n/a Mexican American
King_of_Hearts zh-3 es-2 Jun 2:zh Jun 2 many mm/dd n/a admin
Leifern no-n en-n Jun 2:no Jan 12 0 mm/dd n/a
ManiacK lt-n en-3 Jun 5:lt 2016 0 mm/dd n/a The invitation says 'lt' but should say 'Lithuanian'
Messhermit es-n en-3 Jun 5:es 2014 0 mm/dd n/a
Monkeytheboy es-n Jun 2:es Jun 1 1 mm/dd n/a
Njk da-2 Jun 5:da Jun 6 many mm/dd passed 5 articles Elinruby (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Noyster es-3 Jun 2:es Jun 3 many mm/dd asked a question, was answered
PedroPVZ pt-n Jun 5:pt May 31 many mm/dd n/a you left pass/fail icons on his page that look like his results, but aren't
Rezonansowy‎ pl-n en-2:pl Jun 5 Jun 5 2 mm/dd n/a en-2 is a bit sketchy for this project. The invitation says 'pl' but should say 'Polish'
Shanes no-n en-4 Jun 2:no Jun 4 4 mm/dd n/a admin on en.wiki
Simny no-n en-4 fr-3 Jun 2:no Jun 3 4 mm/dd asked a question, was answered
TTTAssasinator vi->en Jun 5:vi Jun 7 many mm/dd detailed assessment The invitation says 'vi' but should say 'Vietnamese'
Victor Lopes pt->en Jun 5;pt Jun 7 ? mm/dd passed 3, failed 1, expressed complex assessment of 5th, offered to go directly to list and I said sure Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC) }

Hope that helps. If I notice results coming in, I'll update the table, but I don't have them watchlisted, so I'd have to drop by here to find out; when you're back let me know, so I can stop. Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Added a place to put results. Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I am checking messages. I intend to be heading back out in maybe a day or two and will be reviewing stuff after that. Btw I ran into someone today (rl) that I'd been trying to recruit for Dilma Rousseff and mentioned to her that we have some articles on the history of Mozambique and Goa in pt, and she seemed to be saying she'd come in. She'd be a brand new account if she does, so lend a hand if you can to anyone you see like that in the pt articles. She says she is fluent because she is married to a portuguese speaker. Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Will do. Maybe coach her a little on core principles as it takes a while to learn how things work around here, remember? Or, if she's just going to be doing copyediting at first for grammar, style, etc. (not a bad way to start, to get the hang of previewing/saving etc.) then she doesn't need to know much, but as she starts picking stuff up from Pt sources and adding them here in En, she's going to need to know how to [WP:CITE|cite sources]], and pretty soon after that learn about templates like {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} to back up her additions. But first, let's see if you get her on board, that would be great. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I got several answers and will update the list and the table shortly, but I need to go do some stuff just now. I will be in and out most of the evening, but mostly out. My friend is a nice sensible lady and totally understood the fairness issues I was explaining to her about the Dilma Rousseff pages. Elinruby (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
back online, going to go log answers, update lists. Unless you tell me something else I plan to put check marks next to the ones that are pass, since we have a native speaker saying it is a good translation and presumably ok with putting the translated template on those, right? I am thinking I will update the by-language list and then the translator list to show who has responded. (?) Re translators who have not edited in some time, in some cases there is nobody who has posted more recently. This was the case with Turkish for example and either Latvian or Lithuanian. Or maybe both. The editor who was talking about Bulgarian had not started yet as far as I can tell but look, the Bulgarian-language about slavic and scandinavian art is essentially a database import in places, very formulaic. I questioned a couple of painting titles and they proved out. These articles are all referenced to that 280 best work of art in Europe project last year. (I forget the exact name). We should check copyright on these and get translated templates on ones where a native speaker says the translation is accurate. Incidentally, didn't Turkey turn wikipedia off? *I* don't really want to be on the same side as the current government of Turkey, personally so I urge we keep Turkish articles as a matter of policy. A lot of these are about archaeology and should not be controversial, as I recall. If these articles are going to some sort of draft space anyway I don't see the harm of doing a second round of recruitment for Turkish, because I am sure there is somebody. I don't have myself listed for anything on Wikipedia, for example, just Wikimedia Commons. Heck, it makes me want to organise Turkish expatriates to into an editathon; we/they would have to be very careful about attribution though....

Elinruby (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Did you notice that one of your es translators, Ce_Ele_415 (talk · contribs), is ca-N? Spanish translators are (relatively) easy to find; if I were you, I would call them off working on the es articles, and send them some Catalan instead. I'll be out most of tomorrow, back in the evening, and if you'd rather I take that on, and I can; let me know. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

no, although the name suggests it somehow. I will try to get to this but I am having trouble getting through the to-do list I set earlier. I have annotated the invited-translator list on my user page as of a couple of hours ago, but have only updated the master list for one translator so far, danish. One question about a word in the title that is being varyingly translated as door, garden door and French door. There are answers from several, including the vietnamese articles. Elinruby (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
actually I sent a message about this before I forget. I mentioned you so you should get a notification Elinruby (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Turkey has disabled Wikipedia in all languages[edit]

Article] about this government measure mentioned above (Al Jazeera) Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Old news. Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
i know, but let's cut turkish wikipedia some slack for their ten translations is what I am saying. This probably has something to do with the paucity of turkish=>english translators. I'll see if I can mine further anon and maybe recruit a turkish speaker in N Elinruby (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Most listed at Category:User tr-N: left the project years ago. Only four have contributed anything in 2017:
  • --User--- --lang-- --last-- --nbr since May1--
  • Crusoe704 May 16 1 -- this is Coffee currently on wikibreak
  • Hendecagon en-4 21March 0
  • Rangond 1March 0
  • Ulgen 12 May 4
Haven't checked Category:Proofreaders tr-en, Category:User tr-5, or Category:User tr-4 yet. Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
that'll do for a start. Too bad we don't have geolocation as a parameter. Elinruby (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
tr-5:
Ithinkicahn 5 May American
Diyar se 8 March en-5
tr-4
Azerifactory 8 June en-N az-N ru-N

I invited the people in the first list Elinruby (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Azerbek 6 Jun az-N tr-4 en-3
ArazZeynili 24 April az-N tr-4 en-3
Haven't finished going thru the tr-4s but won't be around most of today. A lot of the tr-4's and 5's are Azeri, because the languages are related. You just have to make sure their English is okay. I prefer at least an en-4. Mathglot (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

pieces in ' Fort de Caluire'[edit]

I say that pieces are the wagons that were used to carry the mushrooms that were part of the mushroom farm the fort became after the fort was disestablished.

I admit that this translation need to be cleaned up, but I suggest this is what it is. The term got into the enwiki article because it was in the frwiki article and the frwiki article is not more clear than the enwiki article is.

I've followed some of your changes to my articles and for the most part they are very minor. Saying that I am badly translating is going too far, and probably reflects that campaign against machine translation that seems to be the project of an organised group on the enwiki.

Many of the other wikis have quite a bit of machine translation without the bruha going on in the enwiki.

Only around 20 articles are translated each week from other wikis to the enwiki. That's pathetic. Several hundred are translated from the eswiki to the cawiki each week.

Since the enwiki is the mother lode for all translators to translate to their own wikis it needs to have other people translating articles into it, and too much bother over machine translation is starving it of good infomation.

Endo999 (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sir. Your defensiveness is annoying and you are talking to someone who a) translates all the time thankyouverymuch and b) knows software development and c) speaks French really well. So well that I can *assure* you, with enormous confidence, that, for example, there is no universe where toponymique means topographical. It is what it is?? Your thingie morphed the town of Caluire-et-Cuire into Caluire and Bake! That's *worse* than word-for-word, because workd-for-word would be "cook" not "bake". And fyi do not go by my edit descriptions, I call all edits on these minor, short of a complete rewrite, simply because I don't want to to give ammunition to the Luddites. But don't kid a kidder, dude. In Fort de Bron you translated "la Première Guerre mondiale n'ayant pas concerné cette région" as "did see fighting in this region". I mean. This is the sort of thing people are talking about when they try to make us translate using quill pens. Please tell me that you aren't still producing stuff like this. Because I am not someone you can dismiss as...whatever it is that you have been saying to dismiss people. Translations are supposed to bear some resemblance to the original. If they don't then there is a problem to be corrected or a flaw in your algorithm or whatever the hell it is you're using. You don't know who you are talking to obviously -- I use machine translation. If the original looks wrong I omit it. Don't make me dig out the policy that says you are supposed to do this. If I have to dig I'll also dig up some statistics on how many of these really really bad translations are yours because guess what I have been looking at these translations for about three months now and overall they come from a handful of careless editors.
Seriously, you're a software guy apparently? You think your stuff doesn't have flaws? Don't get me started. Just tell me, please, that you have improved the tool since you did these translations. Elinruby (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Endo999: I see that at least one of these is from 2015. Seriously, now, you have improved the tool, yes? Please tell me you have. I think you should also consider that catalan and spanish are related, whereas let's say Chinese and Finnish are not, so these are different problems and all the neural nets in the world don't mean these can be done on auto-pilot. Yet, anyway.

Incidentally -- mushroom wagons that are 4.5m x 4.5m? So not. This may not be the end of the world as gibberish goes but the bottom line is, if it is gibberish why import it? I understand that there are issues sometimes with articles on other wikis and I have had that conversation with en-wiki peeps about hey I just translated it, doesn't mean I need to expand and categorize it within the first thirty seconds of its existence... and if that was all it was I'd be sympathetic. But this is real disregard for the facts and it *is* a problem if you are defending this stuff, because some of use are drowning in it. Elinruby (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to make improvements to existing enwiki articles, but please do not make major issues of minor changes. If you actually know French well, then translating some new articles over from the frwiki to the enwiki would help all of us, instead of solely trying to say that existing translated frwiki to enwiki translations are unacceptable. There are probably only 2 or 3 frwiki to enwiki translations a week so we could all certainly use more of that translation. Endo999 (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to explain to you that translating "there was no fighting in the area" as "there was fighting in the area" is NOT a minor change. Translating "rooms" as "pieces" is not "minor". I am just asking you if you are still doing this. That's all. Are you? Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Endo999: You see I am on strike for the duration because they have enacted a policy at the moment that says that anyone can delete any machine translation. Because of you. And about three other editors. Which I have been fighting, incidentally, very much a lonely voice in the desert. But you make it *much* harder when you act like I am nitpicking. I don't complain about these articles, I find the errors and fix them. Fairly cheerfull,y so far, until here you are getting all huffy about the suggestion that you might have made a mistake somewhere. Come on now. This is what, a port of Google? Surely it's better and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. But seriously, I really want to know-- are you still doing translations? And what are you using? Elinruby (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Endo999: Oh hey check out Fort Saint-Jean (Lyon), which I started out of frustration with the other two: "Le fort n'est, au départ, qu'un bastion" (The fort was at first nothing but a bastion) became "The fort was not initially a bastion" -- seriously, you think these are minor problems? The article has been like this for almost two years. I think your thingie has a problem with French subordinate clauses. Or maybe negation. Can't help unless you talk to me. And first the lightbulb has got to want to change.... Elinruby (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby, I can only agree with your comments about translation, although I might have made some of the points more strongly. Anyway, to answer your question Endo999 used the cxt for MT starting with Questel Fort on 17 Oct 2015 and ended with their 229th translation on 18 Feb 2017 with Théo affair. Fort de Caluire was #6 on 24 Oct 2015.
Oh, and I almost forgot: did you know that Caluire and Bake was founded by Joan Looked? Just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
it's late, and I forgot to thank Endo999 for the laugh: I say that pieces are the wagons that were used to carry the mushrooms. Lol!! I know, right? it's like, where do people get these things from? I say, the pièces are the green cheese that fell from the moon into the mushroom wagons, leaving craters where the green cheese fell out! Lol!!! They're obviously not the "rooms" of the fort, that would just be wa-a-ay too easy, being that "pièce" is like the French word for "room" for every building of any kind on the planet.
"Hello, central reservations? Is this the Ritz Place Vendôme? Yes, hi; this is Mathglot speaking; I'm going to be in Paris from the 18th through the 25th, and I need a mushroom wagon with a queen bed, minibar, and wifi. What do you mean, you don't have any mushroom wagons? Hang on a sec, lemme pull up Google translate, I'm sure I had it right..." Thanks again, I really needed that, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monogram Pictures[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monogram Pictures. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox economist[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox economist. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of highest funded crowdfunding projects[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of highest funded crowdfunding projects. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White privilege[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White privilege. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Assistance[edit]

Thanks for your interest in Redskin (slang). There is little point in discussing the copy editing (Native vs native) of the content I added on "Red as an identifier", since User:Bromley86 has once again deleted the entire subsection for no reason I can identify other than his personal opinions.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I did try to get you to agree to include a summarised version of your addition, but you reverted that for "no reason I can identify other than his personal opinions." What you call personal opinions is just me applying policy to generate a good encyclopaedia article, and I imagine you believe you're doing likewise.
Anyway, I've set up a talkpage section for the WP:3O on this matter, and there's a subsection with your name on it, literally.
If Elinruby wants to take this 3O up, that'd be great - it's not a wide ranging dispute like last time: effectively it's just a dispute on the weight that a particular item should have, and whether it gets a para or a sub-section. If they're not interested (a yay or nay would be appreciated), I'll advertise it on WP:3O. Bromley86 (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vegeta (condiment)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vegeta (condiment). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cuneiform Records[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cuneiform Records. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DAT Solutions[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:DAT Solutions. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peacock Alley (restaurant)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peacock Alley (restaurant). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ramparts of Senlis has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Ramparts of Senlis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Elinruby. You have new messages at Jcc's talk page.
Message added 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Fake news reconsidered has a new comment[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fake news reconsidered. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Retrospect (software)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Retrospect (software). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Élzéart d'Uzès[edit]

Hello, Elinruby. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Élzéart d'Uzès".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laffer curve[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laffer curve. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ducati Monster[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ducati Monster. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/English[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/English. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spanish Empire[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spanish Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Please comment on Talk:Disk storage[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disk storage. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metric[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Metric. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Energy East[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Energy East. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

L

Please comment on Talk:Ponzi scheme[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ponzi scheme. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Francisco Morazán (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to La Trinidad
Panzós (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Izabal
Rainforest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Biotic
Tropical rainforest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Leaching

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spire Credit Union[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spire Credit Union. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Law of France (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Constitutional Council and Conseil d'État
1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bronze Cross
Civil law (legal system) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Codification

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pink tide[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pink tide. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

First Battle of Blida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Beni Salah
History of Costa Rica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cartago
M'banza-Kongo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Oratory

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Flagg![edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Flagg!. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Czechland[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Czechland. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Brazilian general election[edit]

I assume you're watching Brazilian general election, 2018. I don't know much about it, but it sounds like a choice between two starkly different leaders, per this NYT article. Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

brazilian politics are about as sketchy as they come. Elinruby (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thames crossings[edit]

Just a quick heads up, the article's title is List of crossings of the River Thames (because it's a list). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: there is a redirect and the links go to the same place Elinruby (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but links to redirects seem to be controversial (quick wave to The Rambling Man Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Links to redirects are usually lazy and reflect badly on Wikipedia for our readers when they see at the top of the link they clicked on "redirected from..." - they probably don't even understand that.... So avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and The Rambling Man: welp I got started on this when I couldn't find the name of a certain bridge, so I submit that was is somewhat worse. Shrug. If you want to go through and change the links feel free -- they will be on the Source end of the Thames. But it seems to me I looked this up once and the mOS was -- redirects are cheap. I have exhausted my interest in the Thames and am not going to go though the links again to avoid a redirect that Wikipedia doesn't care about. I have no objection to someone else doing it if this really bothers them, shrug. Have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and The Rambling Man: WP:NOTBROKEN. By the way, the redirect was already there, I just used it. Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not suggesting anyone necessarily fixes redirects as standalone edits, but when making wholesale changes to articles, it's easy to fix the redirects which are completely unnecessary for our readers. To be honest, that NOTBROKEN needs a bit of an overhaul, but there's not enough time left before the heat death of the universe to secure a consensus. The only redirects I tend to be annoyed by are pipes to redirects. But that's just me. And I'll keep doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I put a link to a list on the members of the list under See also. Tell you what, if I go back in there I'll change any that fall under my hand. But that's definitely not going to be today. And might not be ever. I just got annoyed at how long it took me to identify that bridge. With the link to a list at least there is another place to look. I usually fix bad english and poor translation so I'd be open to fixing redirects as I go through making readability changes in articles, if you can enunciate a reason for doing it ;) Otherwise, hmm I have my own annoyances, passive tense and German-style capitalization high on the list. Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Luilu[edit]

Hello, Elinruby. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Luilu".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lord & Taylor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord & Taylor. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operation Car Wash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazonas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Benin Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Urhobo
Gécamines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Katanga
Sticky and blunt ends (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Melting temperature

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Caution[edit]

Please use caution when reverting edits. Your edit summary of reverting vandalism [here] is rather, shall we say, disturbing. I usually try to avoid being a vandal. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vsmith: well you didn't do a very good job there, now did you? Those were peer-reviewed journals I located over many hours and which are desperately needed in that article. I am one person on a bad connection so I am doing this in baby steps. Ideally I wpuld yes cite them as references in the body of the article but they are at least IN THE ARTICLE now, as opposed to the article being a massive rationalization of the Hutu-Tutsi genocide. Anyway, I hope to get to incorporating them into the article shortly. Your help is welcome, if you will quit deleting other people's work as they are trying to do it. By the way, fighting just broke out in the area again, so the article is likely to become high-traffic soon. Better it at least mentions somee important stuff at the bottom than not at all.

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gécamines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katanga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Westfield Garden State Plaza[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Westfield Garden State Plaza. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Aveba[edit]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Elinruby, thanks for creating Aveba!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your source(s).

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New York Life Insurance Company[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York Life Insurance Company. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Cobalt[edit]

I will rearange your addition a little, because we have similar text already in the later part of the article. Thanks for the reference! --Stone (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Stone: can't look right now but offhand I have no objection, esp if you are right about the similarity. Thanks for letting me know. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --Stone (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chupícuaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hidalgo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Great Courses[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Great Courses. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New York Life Insurance Company[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York Life Insurance Company. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Navarro[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Navarro. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tattoo[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tattoo. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting Group[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting Group. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Weisbrot[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pimpri-Chinchwad[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pimpri-Chinchwad. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Help request for mapping section titles[edit]

Hi. We (the Research Team at Wikimedia Foundation) are building an algorithm that will align Wikipedia article sections across languages. For improving this algorithm we need the help of multilingual Wikipedia editors to provide true statements to the algorithm. You are contacted because based on your Babel template and/or content translation tool usage you know at least two of the following languages: ar (Arabic), fr (French), ja (Japanese), en (English), es (Spanish), ru (Russian).

(Note: by clicking the links in the following paragraph, you will be taken to Google spreadsheet.) If you'd like to help us with translating a subset of the section titles on or before 2018-05-06, please read and follow the instructions. If you see instructions in another language, please scroll down to find your preferred language. If you have questions about this message, you can contact us via Diego. Thank you! :) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Ingraham Angle[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Ingraham Angle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Central Bank Digital Currency[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Bank Digital Currency. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of company registers[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of company registers. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore Airlines destinations[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore Airlines destinations. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alex Jones[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alex Jones. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:InfoWars[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:InfoWars. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)