User talk:Herostratus

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

Contents

Reversion of Removal of Questionable Citation For The Onion[edit]

Regarding your reversion of the edit noted here, please look at the “citation”; it is simply a click-bait blog that discusses “25 Years of The Onion Making Fun of Dentist Conventions.” You’ve got to be kidding me that should stand as a citation when the history—and founding—of The Onion is far from secretive and is very clearly discussed in detail in the publication’s history section itself. There are many publications that are not The New York Times used as citations. No need to add some desperate click-bait blog’s rehashing of information they most likely culled from this Wikipedia article itself. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, fine, if you feel that strongly about it. But I mean, really:
  • You're not maintaining that the reference isn't true. If you were doubting the veracity of the ref that'd be one thing. But you're not.
  • And in every likelihood it is true: they are a business and they have no incentive to lie about this fact or to not care if they get their facts wrong. It's not just some random person's blog but a page of a websiste that appears to be a thriving business that has a professionaly-staffed website. They may very well have another set of eyes (or more) going over these pages, besides the writer.
So you just don't like the source. But fine, maybe you're right so I'm not going to argue about this. I'll tag it for {{citation needed}} and probably we can get a better ref that way. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Utterly unbelievable logic here. I “don’t feel strongly” past two solid facts: The site used as a citation is very clearly a click-bait site that just compiled a list of “dentist convention” articles from The Onion and that’s it. Within the article itself there is utterly no citation whatsoever of where that odd “Aug. 29, 1988” date came from and all “sources” are just cited arbitrarily from other sites. But your claim of “…but a page of a websiste that appears to be a thriving business that has a professionaly-staffed website.” is past belief. It’s not. It takes two seconds for anyone in the world to launch a blog, add tons of affiliate ad accounts and suddenly become a website. That does not mean they can be considered a source of valid information. Especially when the core of their articles is just a list of items designed to be clickbait. Simple as that. And again, you want solid citations from legitimate sources, guess what? Scroll down in the article itself which is filled with citations. Simple as that. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Why are you continuing to argue the point when I'm not even fighting you? You repeat "click-bait" as some kine of mantra as if it has some kind of meaning. It doesn't, it's just a random pejorative that doesn't tell anything about the reliability of the ref. I agreed with with you to allow removal of the ref and tagging it as uncited instead. As to the rest, let's just agree to disagree and move on, colleague. Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I’m “arguing” with you since utterly anyone with any basic sense of how citations work in the world—on Wikipedia and elsewhere—can logically deduce that a website that has a zillion ads pop up, provides no sources and just provides an on “25 of something” list is not a reliable source. The idea that someone who claims to have been editing on Wikipedia since 2005 yet somehow defends a horrible citation like that really baffles me. So I need to personally state your POV on this matter is not only entirely wrong, that I am fairly confident if your POV were to be brought up with other Wikipedia editors who have deeper experience than the both of us, you will still be proven solidly wrong. You might want to step back and realize what citations are, what proper sources are and why they are valuable to Wikipedia. Encouraging the use of crappy sources results in crappy content. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I dunno. "Smartmeetings" seems to be a legit business. It doesn't look like its run out of somebody's basement, although you never know. I'm not sure what your point is about them being unreliable. Yes they're a commercial site, but their commercial interest doesn't extent to the content in question. In other words, they have not commercial interest in lying about when the Onion was founded. There's no benefit to them, AFAIK, in making the Onion to appear to have been founded earlier or later than it actually was.
Right? Can we agree on that? Hopefully we can agree on that.
OK, moving on, how carefully are their facts checked? Probably not very carefully is my guess. although it's hard to know for sure. They probably don't have a separate editor going over the material checking every fact. They might. This does not appear to be a one-person operation. It might be a ten-person operation though, I don't know. In any case, let's assume there's not a rigorous fact-checking operation, so we're thrown back on the writer. Well the writer is the organization ("Smart Meetings"). So we've granted that they don't have an incentive to lie on purpose. But do they have an incentive to not care whether or their facts are right or not, or do they lack the competence to know how to determine if their facts are right or not?
I don't know. I doubt that they'd just pull "Aug. 29, 1988" completely out of their hat, as that sort of approach to facts, if pursued generally, would probably not be a good business practice, overall, and they would eventually go out of business (if its an organizational approach) or be fired (if its an individual writers approach). This is true of newspapers and other sources we use.
So they probably got the info somewhere. They seem to be a functioning organization, staying in business, so they probably have some level of competence to tell shit from shinola, so to speak. So my guess is its not complete nonsense. It's better than nothing which was your preference, and sufficient to support the assertion subject to a cry for a {{better source}}. I see that you did add a citation, which is the desired outcome. Your citation is to an entity called Paste Magazine. If Paste is a print magazine, great, but if its just online -- which anybody can make an online website in 15 minutes, right? -- I don't know if it's better ref than the previous one. Probably is. These things are hard to know for sure.
BTW a lot of this drawn from Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist, which I wrote and which you might want to read through before coming to people's talk pages and slinging unfounded insults. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Hope you don't mind that I'm posting this here, but I've noticed a few of your responses at WP:HD and figured you might be able to help with this. In a WikiProject, I started an informal RfC to get feedback from other WikiProject members. Is there an alert bot or some other method I can use to send a notification of the talk page discussion to all of the WikiProject members? The number of users we're talking about here is relatively small (less than a 100), and so I could do this by hand, but it would be nice if there was an automated way in place already. I know when a Newsletter is created, for example, notifications to all members are sent out. I was hoping to replicate this for a particular talk page discussion. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind. No there's no automated bot that I know of. We're probably kind of leery of having bots under individual control that send automated messages to talk pages -- it could be seen as a form of spamming. Presumably active project members are watching the project talk page. Herostratus (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I completely understand the point about "spamming". After digging through my talk page history, I found that one of the project members used EdwardsBot (diff) to send out the Newsletter. Guess I could look into that if needed, or not since it's no longer active! Thanks again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Iraq national team in 2014 removal request[edit]

Hi,

I wanted to delete all the national team pages because I merged it into one page to keep it simpler to manage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_national_football_team_records_and_statistics

If you would like to help me deleting the other pages, I would be grateful.

I responded on your talk page, to the effect that you can just make the existing pages be redirects rather than deleting them. Herostratus (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks bro! You too Steel Dogg (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Taki's Imperial Japanese Army Page[edit]

I saw you had a query as to this website when you used it as a source recently. It is considered RS given armor historian Steven Zaloga used it as a source for his 2007 book Japanese Tanks 1939–45 and mentions it on page 43, that the website is good for its "extensive coverage of Japanese tanks and tank history". Also, "Taki" is Akira Takizawa, co-author of the 2008 book: World War II Japanese Tank Tactics, Osprey Publishing. Kierzek (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh OK. Did not know this, so its probably OK to remove the "better source needed" tag. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe so based on the expert opinion of Zaloga and the fact the gentleman is a published author on the subject by a known publishing house. Kierzek (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. Herostratus (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pull quotes[edit]

Regarding Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation, I never quite understood why the MOS is so adamant on this issue, it even uses strong word like "especially avoid". Surely something important was at stake. I think it would be worth to find out what exactly. In the meantime, it's interesting to note that the mobile version of Wikipedia renders {{quote}} with decorative quote marks! (black instead of the blueish of {{Pull quote}} but otherwise almost identical) – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

About the mobile version: huh, but then why not. It's a typical and functional way to show that it's a quote, after all. Well I hope you will Support the change over at the RfC. And no, as far as I know the reason for the proscription against using quotation marks is just that someone way back in the beginning decided we needed them just for pull quotes. It's just habit and tradition at this point. Herostratus (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll probably stay neutral. I've always followed the MOS and template documentations, whatever they say. If those change, I'll change. And thank you for incorporating the MOS bit into the RFC, as well as that observation on mobile Wikipedia above. I think it's valid evidence for those who wish to form an opinion on this. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Well but what? Always following the MOS and documentation is not a reason for not taking a position on a change to the MOS. Right? If you're a stickler for following the MOS, you should note that there in September 2011 there were 17,000+ uses of {{cquote}} (probably more now, I don't know how to get the figures), and all of them (or 99%) were in violation of the MOS. Don't you want the MOS to reflect actual usage? Either way, since you've take the time to look into the question, why not take a stand. We need a supermajority to bring the MOS into line with practice, and there will doubtless be Oppose votes. Herostratus (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The reason, aside from the substance of the proposal and the problems it presents and would worsen, my reaction again the RfC was so strong was because of it's venue and nature. The proper way to change a guideline is to go to the guideline page and make a case for why consensus can change, not to try an end-run around consensus by hosting an anti-guideline RfC at a talk page frequented by no one but huuuge fans of abusing the template in question for decorative purposes. This is basically no different from trying to change some other guideline via a back channel, e.g. trying to change WP:RS and its admonition against treating unpublished manuscripts as reliable sources by hosting an RfC to push for this change at Template talk:Cite arXiv, on the basis that this template has been [mis!-]used thousands of times to do so. In reality we have the template for a completely different and uncommon purpose, namely providing convenience links to archived ("arXiv'ed"?) pre-press copies of papers that have been published in reputable journals, but whose "official" copies are behind paywalls). Your case and that hypothetical case are actually rather closely parallel, in multiple ways. The fact that we've retained pull quote templates, specifically documented for use only as pull quote templates, does not mean that abuse of them for decorative and misleading purposes is magically permissible just because it's been hard to stop people from doing it. There are technical solutions to both problems, e.g. making {{Cite arXiv}} throw an error if it is not used in conjunction with another citation template, to the RS journal or book, inside the same <ref>...</ref>, and using a namespace test to permit the decorate quote templates on user and projectpages but not in articles, since there is increasing evidence of consensus that WP should not be using actual pull quotes in articles at all, a point I see below that you seem to agree with.

Anyway, my point was not to "get into it" with you on a personal level. I just have serious concerns about a) the desire for WP to look better being used as an excuse to just let anything that someone thinks "is attractive" be permitted regardless of the fallout (see again bottom of my talk page for detailed analysis of why these templates are often content-harmful, violate core content policies, and end up being "reader-hateful" instead of reader-friendly); b) the WP:PROCESS problem of trying to get around consensuses people don't like with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stuff (even if not intentional; I make no allegation that you're WP:GAMING at all); and c) the general emboldening effect such activities have toward the "let chaos reign" and "fuck the MoS" and "down with all rules" contingent (whose ranks have swollen as WP attracts a "third wave" of editors, almost all millennials who grew up on blogging and "reality" TV, the invasion of advertising and PR into every possible cranny, and shamelessly biased news, and who were not around for WP's formative years and the seriousness with which things like NPOV are taken, in very subtle ways missed by noobs). I share your frustration with the fact that trying to change a guideline at the guideline's own talk page is difficult and slow; I've been trying to fix a policy conflict at WP:MEDRS for about two years. Each time I bring it up, I get slightly more traction, and I expect that it will be resolved some time in 2017 or 2018, despite the fact that it should have been fixed in 2014 (or never arisen at all). In this quote templates case, there's not even a policy conflict to resolve, just an "I want WP to look different/more jazzy, and to have a more freewheeling layout" desire, which is a harder sell, especially if going that route may create policy conflicts.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

OK! It's OK. I've been around the track, I'm not bothered by any of this. One point: I was not trying an end-run around WP:MOS! I didn't even know the MOS mentioned the issue, I had forgotten about PW:BLOCKQUOTE... and as soon as this was pointed out, I posted a prominent notice at the MOS talk page pointing to the RfC. Ideally the discussion would have been at the MOS talk page, I agree. However, since 1) I already started it at the template talk page, and 2) after all most of the proposed changes are to the template, and 3) a pointer to the RfC was quickly posted at the MOS talk page, I think it would just have caused confusion to try to move it, and it's OK where it is, with the pointer in place? Hope you agree.
As to the merits, a lot of it does come down to opinion. I look forward to looking at your points in detail (soon, not right now) and engaging in no-holds-barred debate on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Coolio, and yes, I retract "trying"; that does seem to imply intent when I say I'm not trying to imply intent. Just sloppy wording. Despite the length, I wrote that on my way out the door to work (I type really, really fast).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not quite pull quotes[edit]

Rather than clog up your RfC, I thought I'd just mention to you here an example of pull quotes being used at Philippe I, Duke of Orléans #Homosexuality. Except that it doesn't use the {{pull quote}} template; it uses a custom 1986 box. Still a pull quote, though. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Right. Huh. Well, as I said, I'm not here to preclude or prevent the possibility of a rare occasional pull quote, if another editor in his wisdom deems it suitable, and by "never used for actual pull quotes" I mean "never, within a rounding error (that is, less than 0.5% if instances)". I myself would question whether using the quote twice in the article like this is helpful, but I haven't studied the matter.
Heh, it's amusing that the one use (so far) that we've seen of pull quotes doesn't use {{tl}pull quote}}... Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Semantometrics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to JISC
Watertown Red & Black (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pop Warner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gasthaus Gutenberger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Stein
Malaya Sadovaya Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Alexander II
Systempunkt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Robb
Wayne Wilder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bass

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 21:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC about quotation boxes.[edit]

Hello Herostatus. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, OK. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amadee Wohlschlaeger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Louis County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

In all that, did you see my link?[edit]

I didn't. To the extent that it's a complete rewrite of the existing article (I haven't done a text comparision but it look it: the section are all different for instance) this makes it very hard to review. Generally, we work with change-a-paragraph-here and add-or-delete-a-couple-sentences-there. One reason being that a complete rewrite discards the previous work (which doesn't appear called for in this case). I like to build on existing work. There are other reasons... it's much easier for a crowdsourced article to ensure that there's no original research I think...
Anyway I don't have to refs to really check your material. I'll take a look at some if I can... Herostratus (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I have almost all of the sources.... The mainspace article is crap. It's not just kinda crappy; it's top-to-bottom crap. Starting all over again is the only feasible way. Having said that, the topic at hand is HUGE, as I indicated earlier. That famine was a head-on collision of a number of different forces that had been building for at least several decades. And to make matters worse, no one really even knows the real reason, because no one was carefully recording events. Was it FAD or FEE? No one knows! No one knows how much damage the brown spot disease did to the crops. That sort of damage is not readily visible to the casual observer; the disease doesn't make rice plants melt into dust. It makes them far less productive (but they are still standing there). So if anyone just kinda drives by in a car or glances from a roadside a few yards away, they'll think, hey, the crop wasn't hurt. And on and on and on. There are MANY facets to this problem... I have only discussed one here...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Well... OK. I mean I don't have the expertise or sources or really the acuity gainsay you... we'll have to see how it plays out...
I'm skeptical. The article doesn't look like crap. I'm also skeptical of " No one knows! (but I do)". If truly "No one knows!" then just leave it out.
The whole thing makes me nervous that you're approaching this as a historian or professor would. That means original research. I'd rather see a good roundup of the current mainstream beliefs about the matter. Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

() I didn't say "No one knows (but I do)." I said, "No one knows, including me... but I am not currently aware of any Wikipedians who seem to have a clue about the very large scope of this issue (though of course all or at east most scholars in the field do). As for WP:OR, geez, I've been around for 10 calendar years (active seven), have six FAs, have very often participated in FAC, etc. That doesn't mean my poop doesn't smell, but hopefully it should mean that I do know what WP:OR is. I am trying to round up current beliefs... The article is crap because it elides many important issues, and spends a lot of time gurgling on about moderately important ones... and because over its history various editors have muddled it up with their emphases on at least three different hobbyhorses... etc. If you actually wanna engage this topic, I'm happy to email you any source that I currently have. I expect this article to be in my sandbox (not mainspace) at least a couple more months. Seriously.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

OK fine, right, I believe you. Herostratus (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If you wanna work on this, drop me a line. Always welcome. Do you want me to try to answer your questions on the article's talk? I can try, but the main problem withe the text is not any one detail.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's not in my wheelhouse to work on stuff like this -- I have a short attention span and have trouble digging deep into a subject. I also don't have the refs of course. I'll help where I can. If you have a specific thing I can do, I'll do if able.
No you don't need to answer the questions. Don't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 15:03, 9 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) 04:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited F. M. Howarth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pattern maker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

failed verification in Antoine (musician)[edit]

Hello Herostratus. I can't find support for "He was graduated from the Lycée Champollion in Grenoble, excelling in advanced mathematics." in the self-sourced bio referenced. I don't know much French so perhaps you can help me out here. I'm not finding any mention of mathematics. Thanks Gab4gab (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. I breezed past "I was a brilliant student, earning a full scholarship" without noting that it didn't mention math specifically. I did have another source indicating that, but I can't find it anymore... don't know why I didn't use it. But OK you are right. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Herostratus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich[edit]

Hi I'm surprised you would undo @Jytdog:'s removal. This seems to violate the ARBAP2 ruling. Please consider a self-revert and continuing discussion on talk. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with ARBAP2. What is it? The edit summary was "this is NYC's tabloid. Not the kind of source we want in a controversial article". But the New York Daily News is a reasonably respectable paper AFAIK. It's just a regular newspaper I believe. It's printed in a tabloid format, but so? It's not tabloid journalism and I've never heard anyone say it is before this. If it was a recent addition and reverted perWP:BRD, that's different. But that's not what the summary says, If ARBAP2 says "Jytdog can delete any sources he wants to and can't be gainsaid" that's different. Does it? Herostratus (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course it's recent. The whole article is recent. I'll post the ARBAP2 details here FYI. They are for your information and should not be taken as an accusation. I think you should reverse your undo of Jytdog. You seem to be saying that it's OK since you're right and he's wrong, but of course that's the stuff of edit wars, not resolution. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm right (neither does he) but I think I probably am. I mean, I recently thought the Daily Telegraph was a poor source, I took it Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and I learned that it wasn't a poor source, and fine.
Similarly, Jytdog can open a discussion about whether the the New York Daily News is a good source. Either on the article talk page, or I would recommend at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I think he'll be told it's an OK source -- it is after a mainstream major newspaper in a very large city and a large circulation with AFAIK decent fact-checking and reputation for veracity -- but maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to find out.
What I mean by "new" is, if you think the material was inserted recently enough that it's subject to WP:BRD than fine, revert it. However, WP:BRD is only useful for reverting to a previously existing stable version, and if there isn't one... I dunno. Read the rule.
OK thanks for the pointer to the ArbCom thing. I guess you can bring me up on charges if you want to. I'm perfectly willing to take the New York Daily News to the RS Noticeboard, but I just did one of those and I don't think I should have to all the heavy lifting. You do it. Herostratus (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Sanctions Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unified Deep Water System of European Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Herostratus. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia e-mail.
Message added 16:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library - Newspapers.com[edit]

Hello Herostratus Just thought I'd let you know that your account is now active for Newspapers.com. Happy Editing! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I tested it. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

MOS rfc closed[edit]

Dropping you a note as you started the rfc.

Obviously the close does not preclude followup RfCs on style, nor the current rfc on pull quotes.

Hope this helps. - jc37 00:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


@Jc37:Well OK, fine. This is fine and I have no objection. But a couple things:

First thing -- what do do about pull quotes.. Close the new RfC as "Accepted"?

I originally conceived the RfC as prompt for general discussion, not necessarily set up for an up-or-down vote on any proposal. (This was mainly at the request of another editor who wanted to go slow). (There's absolutely nothing wrong with teasing forward our of such an RfC, though, as you did. These things develop an organic momentum of their own.)

But anyway, because of this, and because the RfC had been archived without being closed, I assumed it wouldn't be closed. Therefore I went ahead with another RfC, which was a specific yea-or-nay proposal with exact specific edits proposed. It is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes. As you can see it also has been quickly sent to archive without being closed.

Nevertheless, I feel confident that, between your close of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_184 and the obvious trend at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes, there is support for the changes proposed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Specifics, and examples.

Normally, I would feel OK with closing this myself, but I fear being accused of bad faith by one particular editor. Would you do the honors of closing this, or re-adding to the active talk page, or requesting another person to close it, or whatever you think best? Thanks! (The precise edits to be made are layed out; I, being familiar with these various template, would be glad to make them following another editor adjudicating that the proposal is accepted.)

Second thing -- boxes around quotes, specifically. Close the old internal sub-RfC?

Although I originally conceived the RfC as just a prompt for general discussion, another editor did create a yea-or-nay subthread for a specific proposal within the RfC. A little unusual, but fine. That subthread is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184#Permit Template:Quote box for regular quotes. It is specifically to overtly allow {{Quote box}} to be used and recommended (in addition to {{Quote}} for quotes. It draws a line around the quote.

My take on this is that the proposal was accepted. There was 20 support against 9 oppose, 29 editors being a reasonable quorum IMO. And not only that but some of the oppose argument were a bit weak in my trying-to-be-evenhanded opinion, although someone else might disagree. (It's all discussed in the "Summary to date, and thinking about next steps" subsection at the bottom.)

Being cautious, I was thinking of running another RfC to avoid accusations of bad faith (as you see if you read that thread, there were some). However, TBH I think you or anyone could and probably should close that sub-RfC as either Accepted or Not Accepted. Not Accepted would be surprising IMO, but its out of my hands.

Are you willing to do this, or hand it to someone who will? If I get an adjudication I can do the edits in the appropriate places. Let me know, and sorry for the length of this. Herostratus (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

<humour> I see how it is, I help out on Wikipedia, and then someone finds more work for me to do? - will this inbox ever get clear? </humour>
 : )
Kidding aside, sure. I'll be honest and say I may or may not read over all that today (though I seem to remember reading some of this already), but sure, I guess I'll go see what I see. - jc37 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
OK great! Herostratus (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Herostratus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Eric Corbett[edit]

"weaned on a pickle". Never before have I laughed aloud at a Wikipedia comment. Thank you. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Not original with me. It was someone's (Dorothy Parker?) characterization of Calvin Coolidge, I believe. Herostratus (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

For future reference[edit]

I've had in the back of my mind to memorialize diffs of two things you've said recently on the subject of giving content creators the dignity of deciding certain minor stylistic decisions. But for the life of me I can't locate either of them.

  • One was a discussion somewhere in which you made a long post, which I immediately complimented as "one of the most beautiful" (or maybe "one of the best") posts on the subject of drive-by editing/worthless wikignoming/something like that ever; then I said maybe you and I should write an essay together. This was maybe 2 to 6 weeks ago. [Later...] I recall now that you enumerated five reasons for your position, and then said you could probably give more.
  • The other was in the last few days -- you used the term stare decisis.

Can you find those for me, pretty please? Here's a list of our "interactions" [1] -- maybe something will ring a bell. EEng 01:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty please? EEng 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, of course, sorry. I was about to get to it. The wheels grind slowly at Casa Herostratus. For the first item, my full post was

This is certainly something that should be left up to the individual editor, for various good reasons. One good reason is that (as we can see above) there is no one clear correct or better way. A second good reason is that adding another needless rule bogs down the MOS with more detail and makes it harder to learn and harder to use. A third good reason is that creating a rule means enforcement, it puts interactions about the matter into an enforcement mode where editors are playing rules cop with other editors and this is not as functional as peer-to-peer interactions. A fourth good reason is that there's zero evidence that it matters to the reader.
A fifth good reason is that micromanaging editors to this level is demoralizing and not how you attract and nurture a staff of volunteer editors (for instance we have a stupid micromanaging rule that I have to write "in June 1940" and not "in June of 1940" which is how I naturally write, and every stupid micromanaging rule like this is just another reason to just say screw it. As the Bible says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" (1 Timothy 5:18, paraphrased from Deuteronomy 25:4) which updated means "Let the editor who did the actual work of looking up the refs and writing the friggen thing -- you know, the actual work of the project -- be at least allowed the satisfaction of presenting it as she thinks best, within reasonable constraints".
That's five and that ought to be enough although I'm sure I can come up with more if pressed.
If you run into a situation where (as the OP noted) "In this edit, Mitch Ames removed the italics from "right" that I had just added" then play it as it lays, guided by WP:BRD. Anything that you add is subject to redaction and then discussion per WP:BRD. In this case, Mitch Ames would have been well within his rights. WP:BRD in these cases just means "I liked it better before, prove your edit is objectively an improvement". Your options are to let it go (recommended!) or open a thread on the talk page and maybe you can convince Mitch Ames and the other editors that, after all, the italics are an improvement in this particular case (if that's how you want to spend your energy).
Conversely, if the italics had been there for a while (sufficient to be part of the stable version of the article) then the removal of the italics would be subject to rollback per WP:BRD and you would be within your rights to roll back the change.
This means different articles will do it differently. This annoys a certain type of editor. Oh well.

The refs to the biblical passage (which I surmise is the heart of what you found excellent -- all props to the bible-writing dudes) were added by someone else, perhaps you. The original thread can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 188#How_to_indicate_which_person_is_which_in_a_caption.

It'd be great if you added that to a essay we could call, something along the lines of "don't micromanage, and don't overly worry about minor stuff".

The stare decisis thing, I don't remember. Sorry. I just can't recall using it recently, or at all actually. I can imagine myself using it along these lines: "If you come across a passage that you might have written differently, leave it alone on the principal of stare decisis (does not apply if the material is truly dreadful)". Or something like that.

Always glad to see you around in these discussions BTW. You strike me as generally cogent and usually right-minded. Herostratus (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Great! And I found stare d.; it's here. I've enshrined your words in The Museums. EEng 03:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Though not the "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" essay I hope perhaps you and I will write some day, you may perhaps be interested in an essay I've started on a somewhat related topic, WP:Lies Miss Snodgrass Told You. EEng 04:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, will do. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthony Marais[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Anthony Marais has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable writer. Article contains zero independent sources, language is mostly promotional in nature.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 06:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 184.145.42.19 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Album cover james ramey.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Album cover james ramey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Accident?[edit]

Is there a reason you can think of that someone would change your username display? —ATS 🖖 talk 02:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit. Did not see that. I can't think of a reason, I suppose it's just a slip of the keyboard. Herostratus (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, biscuit. Face-grin.svgATS 🖖 talk 02:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of James McCown for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James McCown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McCown until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Place names[edit]

Thanks for your comment, just a sidenote: Why do you think the Gdansk vote is "not bearing", it explicitly says: "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)." This is exactly what we are talking about.

And I did not just revert Rocky's edits, I carefully restored the version before the IP edits, it's just much easier to use the "undo" button and edit the preview (we're talking about several dozens of articles, it's a lot of work) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. After looking at the Gdansk vote, I misspoke. (At the same time, it was a long time ago, and we it was centered on Gdansk; a case could be made that it's peripheral to any current general discussion.) It might be that we should have a WP:RFC.
I think that restoring the version before the IP's edits is part of what Rocky is unhappy about. It's a little confusing, but I think that what Rocky did was undo the IP's and also make some changes of his own, at the same time; just rolling all that back deleted all his personal additions, which he felt were OK edits. Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
But he made no personal additions, he only deleted content and replaced a normal sentence structure by a See also section. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well that's what I meant; those deletions and replacing the normal sentence structure with a See also section are his additions. FWIW I agree with replacing "for X, see [article]" with a See also entry. That's how we generally do it. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, that's the proper approach. Although I do question: is it normal to have a "See Also:(history article)" for thousands of villages in any given region? For example, you don't see a See Also:History of New England on every single page for all the towns in New England, do we? Why are towns in Pomerania any different? It's a leftover from the highly suspicious IP-hopping anonymous user that made these POV edits to formerly-German towns in the first place. Shouldn't it just be removed altogether? Rockypedia (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I question it also. It could be seen as excessive. On the other hand, providing more information and more links to quickly get to more information is good, provided the info is germane to the subject and doesn't overwhelm the reader. The question always is "what best serves the reader?" and sometimes that's hard to figure or a matter of opinion. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Article for Deletion[edit]

Hey Herostratus. Thanks for your direct approach on the Richard Rios page. I wonder if you might take a look at this subject: Bob Milne? I put it up for deletion a while back and I thought it would go through; but a quirky admin wouldn't weigh the 2-1 in favor of delete votes toward consensus. I still believe it isn't strong enough for a BLP inclusion on WP as the only claims to notability are a concert at the Library of Congress (which is no special accomplishment -- anybody can even rent Carnegie Hall nowadays); and a not-so out of the ordinary skill of being able to hear different pieces in one's head -- which I believe most expert musician's can do: conductors, composers, etc. I just can't find anything more that would warrant his inclusion; (and nothing of substantial content has been added since the 1st AfD tag was removed) but I've never put an article up for a 2nd AfD. Would you mind weighing in? or do you have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Enh, thanks but no thanks. I'm an inclusionist now and the Bob Milne article isn't hurting anyone, whereas the Richard Rios article was becoming an actual annoyance. And even though you're right that Milne most probably doesn't meet our notability requirements, at least he's an actual serious artist and not a character in a kid's cartoon show whatever, like a lot of our articles. Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus You make me laugh. Thanks anyway. Happy editing! Maineartists (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Simon Magus[edit]

Hello, and good day to you and yours, I, yesterday made the entry Eddie Nawgu , to the simon magus article and you reverted it. I'm sorry I made the error, I just figured I'd include known Sorcerers to the 'see also', list. since they are alike. I would make sure to first consult from you before making changes to sensitive pages.

Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's OK. Relax. Your edit was not an "error". I just didn't agree with it. I understand your reasoning, but I just don't agree that Simon Magus should link to Eddie Nawgu, just because Eddie Nawgu was a sorceror -- it says "Whilst alive he could easily have been likened to Simon Magus" but there's no reference for that an so forth. We want to keep our "See also" sections trim and lean.
You didn't make a mistake. And you certainly don't need to consult me before making such edits, now or in the future. It's a free project and you are allowed to make edits like that and I am allowed to disagree with them, and we can talk about it. Maybe I'm wrong. The proper place for this is the article talk page (Talk:Simon Magus). Right now I see Eddie Nawgu is nominated for deletion, so let's how that goes first, but if it survives, by all means make a new thread on the talk page and make a case that "See also" should include a link to Eddie Nawgu, and maybe people will be convinced. Herostratus (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

DYKs[edit]

Nice job on R. H. White. How come no DYK for it? 2600:1002:B119:82BF:55BE:4B8B:9B9E:43B3 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I have done about a dozen DYKs, but the thing is, it's work: you have to vet another DYK to nominate your. And I don't particularly enjoy that task, or really much care if my articles get DYKs. I do do DYKs sometimes when there's something particularly interesting in the article. Herostratus (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Garnet[edit]

Well said, [2]. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Heh, thanks.
Now what we really need to do is revive the saying "all Sir Garnet". If we're going to bring back the 19th century, it's as good a place to start as any. I'm doing my part! The downside, of course, it that one comes off as a complete toff. Herostratus (talk)
Hahahah, a toff. But an Oxford educated one, not a toff like a Hooray Henry. I read Sir Garnet's article, btw. He's still relevant and I enjoyed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
=) Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
=). SW3 5DL (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:Ring of Fire (song)[edit]

Since when is it "trollery" to be answering a serious question related to the article, and even do so with sources? This is even more ridiculous since Ring of Fire (song) already contains sourced references to the fact that Cash and/or his co-writers used to consistently associate the song with hemmorhoids, and the Fox News source already used in the article for years also states that the existing association to a sore anus is also why the family has licensed the song for a TV ad for spicy foods in the past, even if a more open association such as with Preparation H would be too indiscreet for them. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I never "tried to be funny". It's a simple fact that the song's writers have consistently associated the song with hemorrhoides and a sore anus, be it in public or in private. When people recorded Bruce Springsteen's remark that it took Manfred Mann to change the meaning of one of his songs to be about "a female hygiene product" to take it to no. 1, or when they recorded that Terry Gilliam has said that (Only a) Dream away would really be about "George's frustration because I rejected all his soundtrack ideas for Time Bandits", none of these chroniclers ever "tried to be funny", be it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. The people who've made the original remarks may have "tried to be funny", but it's not "trollery" to faithfully report what creators themselves or their associates had to say about a work of art. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. I hear you. Now go away, please. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
In other words, you're apologizing for your mistake and I may now re-instate my serious post on the talkpage? --79.242.219.119 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

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

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP[edit]

Hello. Regarding WP:blp and your addition here - diff , I say, shame on you and it is the same reason you are no longer a WP:Administrator - you show very poor judgment of WP:policy and guidelines. If I can help you and the project, please do not draft a wp:rfc for this addition, it will be nothing but divisive and in the end of all that it will not be accepted, it will be nothing but disruptive without any inclusion, please consider again your intention to create this, thanks - Govindaharihari (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, fine you disagree with me. Your bringing up my admin career shows your predilection for wanting to make people you don't know feel bad for no good reason beyond the sheer enjoyment of it, which is of course typical of persons of your political bent (we've noticed!). It tells me something useful (and disgusting) about you, but doesn't bear in any way on the matter at hand. I am willing to discuss the matter with persons possessing the intelligence and character to do so productively, but not with you, so please go away. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lolicon article changes[edit]

You reverted the edit I made that I already made a post on the talk page stating the reasons why I made the change, you came in and reverted the edit and told me to dicuss it on the talk page, if you want to discuss why I made the removal go there and discuss instead of telling me to do what I already did, the post on the talk page is already there since 14:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC) , I proceeded and made the changes since no one objected since I posted it, if you have reasons to revert my changes other than the irregular content being there for months without anyone noticing it go there and state what are those. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ohhhh, OK, I didn't see that. Sorry! I'll take a look and meet you over there. Herostratus (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Herostratus defcon maritime 1.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Herostratus defcon maritime 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Village East Cinema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to East Village and Second Avenue
Yiddish Art Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Second Avenue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

This is required warning that you are at WP:3RR and one more revert will be you over the limit and be reported to admins. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maria Anna Mozart[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maria Anna Mozart. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Marché[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions appeared constructive and has not been reverted. Please take some time to help more users with our policies and guidelines. You can find these at our helpdesk which also provides further questions about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only intended to confuse editors, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

:-) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Red Raven gastropub logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Red Raven gastropub logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walking the plank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Hawkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Westfields[edit]

a batch nomination was totally inappropriate, size and number of stores may be an indicator but you're suddenly asking the community via an AfD to decide on a notability guideline when you should be using the talk pages of a notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with LibStar's comment above, noting that AfD's can't actually be used to set precedents much less guidelines (AfDs are always considered on their own merits, with reference to relevant guidelines and policies). Please also don't start AfDs for articles you think should be kept, of bundle excessive numbers of articles into a single AfD. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Feltman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pushcart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A heads up and pass it on[edit]

It looks like it is wiki policy to stick needles into people, in order to get them riled up, so as to ban them.

I was banned as 71.174.137.143 for using the word cretin after I was warned not to. The reason I ORIGINALLY used the word cretin was because I was called an idiot by JJ twice, and I DID NOT use that word after being warned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.174.137.143

There was a long back and forth with NeilN (the guy who placed the ban me) on this. After checking the timestamp of the warning and the timestamps of my posts I confirmed that I had in fact not posted the word cretin after the warning. NeilN never responded to this and while browsing I ran across the following


According to the following conversation under JJ's talk page it looks like it is the policy of wiki editors to starts fights with people in order to ban then, and that this practice has been going on for 4 years. I posted a complaint on this to TideRolls talk page, which was then reverted by NeilN. It is possible that NeilN and TideRolls can be the same person using different handpuppets. Using multiple handpuppets would make it easy to gang bang someone and push him or her over the line and get them banned.

Following is from JJ's talk page

Refrain from the unnecessary personal attacks please. --NeilN talk to me 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 But necessary personal attacks are OK ;-? More seriously, I second the note, keep to the highground William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
     @William M. Connolley: Yes, sometimes it's necessary to inform you that your father smelt of elderberries :) --NeilN talk to me 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
         I was provoked! But point taken. Though it seems to me that, with some, ah, folks, "taking the high ground" is too subtle, and a sharp whack on the side of the head is often most efficacious. Okay, I have replaced "idiot" with loftier language.
         So William's father met his mother while picking berries? :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
             Besides NPA, see (once again) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Battlefield_editing.... trolls are relatively easy to get rid of when you don' tweak 'em in the nose, or retweak them when modifying prior remarks. Instead, you just fuel the drama. As we have discussed 1-4 years ago. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.133.43 (talk)  
I have a red pencil box. Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John D. Long Lake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cedar
Yawkey, West Virginia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dagmar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll grant that the wording is a little off for this specifc case, but since you announced your intent to canvass and then posted a blatantly partisan message and did so not on a oticeboard but at a WikiProject where you thought you would get a sympathetic hearing [3] I think any reasonable person can see that you blatantly, willfully, and in full knowledge that you were doing so, violated the canvassing policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Will you relax? Don't template the regulars, OK?
You said I was WP:OWNing that page. In my view this is an accusation of wrong behavior (WP:OWN is not terrible behavior in the great scheme of things, but it's still misbehavior). In my view, this accusation is false -- I was not owning, but merely defending the page against... I won't call it "vandalism", but lets say "edits not in keeping with the intent of the page". I know I won't convince you of that, but while I could be wrong, my belief is at least reasonable, I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would vouchsafe.
Since I was accused of misbehavior, wrongly in my reasonable opinion, I didn't feel I had much choice. You think I am OWNing the page, then fine, I'll bring in other eyes, other voices, OK? I mean what do you want??? I looked in a place where I might find people who might want to improve the page, which is a natural place to look. FWIW I did not point anyone to any threads where voting is taking place, and I can't help it if people find those on their own.
As an overall observation, all this is not really a good look for you, and you might want to back off. It's looking too much like a "I disagree with what you say and absolutely deny your right to say it" deal, and that is not really in keeping with the spirit of the project. If I'm wrong, as you are certain I am, intelligent people will ignore me, and Bob's your uncle.
It's just an essay. There are lots of essays. Write your own if you like (it's usually a time waster though; all but a few languish -- although you never know). I wouldn't worry about it too much. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Okey doke. Herostratus (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Might be best if[edit]

It might be best if you leave the discussion about the essay move for a little while. Feel free to post on my talkpage if you feel like something needs to be addressed, I am notorious for being overly frank. I would like to avoid behavior on your part that makes my comments at the AN/I look off base. Harassing the RfC, like your "counterpart" Beeblebrox appears to be doing, does not tend to work very well in the RfCs that I have seen. Feel free to post a boomerang at the AN/I if you feel like you have experienced battleground behavior from that user .Feel free to provide criticism on or edit any of my userspace pages if you need something else to do on Wikipedia right now. Endercase (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, right, I intend to, I just came up with my "four points" when writing something else and wanted to lay it down. I'm out of there for the time being, will check back later. Whatever goes down is fine. And it'd be great if other people work on the essay, if the want to. It could stand some trimming or re-casting or whatever, maybe. I'm sure not going to edit it...
Boomerang on Beeblebrox? No thanks... I mean Beeblebrox is a very dedicated Wikipedian. Very. He's just mad about the essay. I get it. He's a quick block I guess (not really sure), and maybe he sees it as oblique condemnation. And maybe it is (not of him personally of course), and... oh well. He's in the kitchen and can stand the heat. But it's silly to get all het up over it. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase, I see that you've edited the essay, in a way that I consider inimical to the thrust of the essay. Not sure what your deal is, but I consider this an illegitimate edit, and I ask you in the name of good faith and fair play to reverse it, and make your case for it on talk (although even better might be to wait). I've been boxed in at ANI so I can't do it, so from a strictly power-politics perspective I can't make you -- it that's how you want to play it. But it'd be the right thing.
So I mean, regarding your assertion in your edit summary that "Having criticism in the essay in a important tradition" (false, as an objective fact -- there's no such tradition, for the great majority of essays which speak with one voice, and you would unable to demonstrate the existence of such a tradition)... So if I want to change the nutshell at say Wikipedia:Communication is required from
to
do you not see the problem with this? I mean "Having criticism in the essay in a important tradition", so (ignoring the merits of the material, and concentrating on the "important tradition" principle), this'd be a fine edit?
That fact that that would leave someone writing "please respond to my messages, it is helpful and necessary, see WP:ENGAGE" getting a response of "well, but what do you mean? It says there that communication is optional"... rendering the page as useless as if I'd blanked it... isn't that a little bit problematic?
How is this different from your edit? It isn't any different.
And none of this is predjudical against having a separate essay "Communication is overrated" or whatever. And even linking to it at the bottom of Wikipedia:Communication is required. And invoking it in conversation if you want. That is so obviously the correct, rational, and orderly way to arrange things, and that is why that's how it is done here. That I can't make people see this is kind of frustrating. Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Endercase This is the exact behavior that led Beeblebrox to file a report on ANI, in the first place.The unwillingness to cooperate. User:Herostratus, if you cannot understand the Wikipedia is on collaboration, your essay has no place in an encyclopedia. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Heh, Nevertheless, she persisted. I mean, I asked the person to redact his edit by appealing to his sense of honor and explaining the logic of it. I get that you're mad about something. However, "being mad" is not a helpful argument. I note that you don't refute the general argument I make. You don't because you can't. Herostratus (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
By this I think they mean that calling my edits incorrect outright instead of asking for further explanation is combative. Additionally, you are still acting like you own the article, which is really hurting the ideas contained therein and may result in userfication. Having a criticism section of any essay tends to allow the essay to be balanced and better respected. I like the idea of the essay and do not want to see it smacked down to basically zero. It points out important issues and suggests that empathy on the part of admin is extremely helpful. If another user has issue with my edits I suggest they change them per wp:cycle. I also can not stress enough that you really should just remove that essay from your watchlist for at least a week. Also your comments at the AN/I were ridiculous if you have the ability to strike them I suggest you do so. It is important to remain a certain type of zen when interacting with other users here, your outbursts at the AN/I failed to maintain this zen. I understand you have strong feelings for your work but remember they can never really get rid of anything you do. Deletion is not something that can ever really occur on Wikipedia only hiding, everything is saved. Endercase (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I hear you, although I mostly don't agree with you. Alright then, if I take you at your word that you are wanting to improve the essay, then the problem is that you honestly don't understand that "It hurts to be blocked!" and "It hurts to be blocked! But, being blocked isn't the worst thing that could happen." are materially very different and make quite different points. I accept that I cannot make you understand this simple and obvious thing. Since I cannot, we're done here. Herostratus (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes I share these sentiments. While I disagree with you on some issues, you make cogent points. And I recognize your long, arduous, stressful, and well-discharged service and stand with you as a fellow Wikipedian, of course. Herostratus (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder[edit]

There was overwhelming consensus to move the page, so your having essentially withdrawn your opposition and performed the move yourself does not constituate a unilateral action that you are free to withdraw. The page should not be moved back into the Wikipedia namespace without clear consensus to do so.

It was not clear from your close whether or not this was something you are liable to do, but I've seen other users try it in the past so I figured I'd remind you that you shouldn't. I even did it myself once: there wasn't overwhelming consensus against me -- I did it as a good faith gesture to win some editors on the other side of a small content dispute over, but when it didn't have that effect I self-reverted -- and even in that case I was re-reverted and some editors, no doubt acting in good faith, thought my action inappropriate.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Can everyone please just stop trying to micromanage other editors' every breath? EEng 00:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: I didn't mean the above to look micromanage-y (or hostile, for that matter) at all. It was just friendly advice. If my recent edits to MjolnirPants's talk page demonstrates anything, it's that Wikipedians can disagree on things and still be cordial. I disagree with the content of the essay in question, but I don't know the user in question from Adam, and so I'm not saying he/she is a bad Wikipedian or anything like that. I am just saying that I know good Wikipedians (myself included) who have in the past tried similar things to "I unilaterally disarmed, but I'm free to change my mind". So when I see something like the unilateral disarmament happening, my mind immediately goes to preventing the "change of mind" (without consensus, of course). I actually wouldn't even have given the above advice if I hadn't myself just nominated the redirects to be speedied: it would then technically have been my fault if I hadn't done anything to prevent. I don't have any intention of micromanaging anything, and I don't even have the newly-userfied essay on my watchlist. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No more explanations. Back to editing articles. EEng 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe in another week or two. If you know any classical Chinese-proficient editors who could help me finish what I've started on Li He, let me know. ;-) Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: 33% of all !votes were cast to keep the essay where it was 66% for moving it ((6:12)/18), as you are not a disinterested 3rd party your claim that there was "overwhelming consensus" is not adequately grounded in my view. wp:not a democracy applies here. It is also worth noting that a good number of !votes cast to move the essay cited wp:own which has nothing to do the the essay itself, and many of the rest were purely ad hominem with little to no real discussion. Yours and MjolnirPants' were the best/only real arguments to move the article IMO. Endercase (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong, as usual, but the stuff about which you are wrong is completely peripheral to the point. The point is that Herostratus is not allowed treat the move as a unilateral action by himself, and is not allowed self-revert just because he changes his mind. My reason for posting this reminder is because I was the one who speedied the redirects, making it theoretically possible for this to happen, and so I would be partly responsible unless I left this notice.
On a completely unrelated note, please stop monitoring my edits, and if you want me to stop giving you advice ("hounding", as you call it), then please stop showing up where I do, and stop pinging me.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
IMO you are only here because I stated my opinion in the AN/I and you love to disagree with me. You do show up at a large portion of my edits, often with ad hominem attacks. Whereas, I got here organically and have been interacting with this user far more that you have. As further evidence of your continual failure to assume good faith (while also coming to incorrect conclusions): I do not monitor your edits, to be honest you and your edits do not hold my interest in the slightest. I was involved in this discussion before you were (as the edit histories clearly prove), maybe you should take your own suggestion and stop involving yourself in discussions I am already a part of (often right after I post) as you clearly can not handle interacting with me while maintaining civility (as your above false accusations clearly prove). <ping left out upon request>. Endercase (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John David Long, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dias (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Article Tox_(Python_testing_wrapper) created by a paid editor. It does not have any notability. He is charging 390-500$ per article for posting such promoted entries on Wikipedia.103.255.4.2 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see. I'll look into it. Herostratus (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Far Field (Future Islands album)[edit]

Hey Herostratus, would you mind moving the article to The Far Field (album)? This is the correct dab per WP:ALBUMDAB when there aren't other albums of the same title. I don't want to move it myself now that there's been an RM.--Cúchullain t/c 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do it, as the page that exists at The Far Field (album) has had more than one edit, so an administrator has to do it. The WP:RM page tells how to request a technical, uncontroversial move like this. Herostratus (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought you were an admin. Should have checked.--Cúchullain t/c 20:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure OK no prob. Herostratus (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pret a manger page[edit]

Hi Herostratus. Why did you remove well sited and correct content? I understand you are trying to stop and "edit war" but please just google for yourself and see that the Hyman story is being exaggerated on the page, probably by a himself or by a friend as Poshcoffee. It is common knowledge who founded Pret and i have been asked by the company to out an end to the constant page vandalization by one user. I thought by providing enough credible sources i could have the section locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cos02125 (talkcontribs) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, because it is misleading? I posted a compromise version, and I opened a thread on the article talk page. Go there, where we all can talk.
Also, since you say Pret A Manger has engaged you to edit the page (to meet their personal corporate goals, which we have zero interest in here), don't edit the page directly anymore. Instead, engage on the talk page, thanks. See you there! Herostratus (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Great thank you for your edit. Your post in the talk section is very reasonable. I will stop editing. Please will make sure Poshcoffe does not change it all back again for the 10th time. The fact that the whole wikipedia page was dedicated to "the Hyman year" for so long was very misleading for all readers. Cos02125 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

re. Bombay Mail (1935 film)[edit]

"True, it's not precisely correct (Unless IIO is planning to create an article on the other film) and that does matter." You're absolutely correct, and thank you for your comments. In fact I already had created an article on the 1935 film. All the best. I need to go to the gym. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The gym, yes. Well, most of get dragged to ANI every now and then... I sure have. It can be stressful, but whatever. It's OK that our career can be looked at now and then. Like a performance review at work, it's annoying but possibly helpful to the project overall. Carry on and fear no darnkness, User:In ictu oculi. Herostratus (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
But now I'm confused User:In ictu oculi. You say "In fact I already had created an article on the 1935 film" but where is it? You moved "Bombay Mail" to "Bombay Mail (1934 film)" (and in fact the article says it is a 1934 film) but with a move summary of "Bombay Mail (1935 film)" which is confusing (you may have meant "make room forBombay Mail (1935 film)", and if so maybe you should be careful to make sure your move summaries are clear, under the circumstances)
So where is the article "Bombay Mail (1935 film)"? In draftspace or something? Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Bombay Mail (1934 film) Bombay Mail (1935 film) they are both in main space, as the heading of this section :). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
OK great. I looked at the "Haco" incident. Analyzing it without fear or favor, I found sub-opimal procedure on your part (if I got it right), sorry. It's at the ANI thread. Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I do want to point that I run into your work a lot, appreciate it, usually agree with you (and respect your opinion when I don't). You do great work here and have for a long time. Being dragged to ANI sucks, and I wish I could continue to tell them to back off. I had to follow my analysis where it led me though. Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I just want to say that I too think you (In ictu oculi) do great work. But your opinions on titles are not only often in disagreement with mine, they are often not in agreement with community consensus. Because of that, you really should refrain from making decisions about title changes on your own, as I do. If you would voluntarily agree to do that, this could be over quickly. --В²C 23:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
At the same time, User:Born2cycle, it's silly to make a shibboleth of our titling rules, which are quite probably all wrong and merely artifacts of long-ago random decisions. For instance, is Haco (singer) a better title for that article than just Haco, even if there were no other meanings for "Haco" in the universe? It is in my opinion, since it quickly tells the reader the main important thing about the person.
If we had a rule "Titles should generally include a parenthetical word or short phrase describing the entity" or, even better, ""Titles may generally include a parenthetical word or short phrase describing the entity if you think it helpful", so what? It'd better a better world probably, or anyway no worse. So making a federal case about stuff like this is over the top. Herostratus (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Short version: I disagree. Long version: see my personal page and FAQ. --В²C 17:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Uh huh, [[User:Born2cycle. Well, you've thought about this a lot, I'll give you that, and cogently too. On the merits though you are wrong IMO.
Of course it makes sense to have rules on the order of "the title should tell what the article is about" and so forth, thus "Use the most common name" etc. But "the title should be as short as possible" is not a virtue on the same level of merit. We are not running out of ink.
Which you do admit, vouchsafing that "The main benefit of disambiguating only when necessary... is... reduction in conflict". Uh huh. Then why are we at ANI. Is that a reduction in conflict? Seems like its not working and maybe we should rethink this. Disambiguating only when necessary leads to reduction in discussion. But discussion is not conflict; discussion is normal for the Wikipedia.
Conflict is what is happening now at ANI. This is destructive to the Wikipedia. Suppose User talk:In ictu oculi decides "screw it, I don't need this". Would that be another "benefit of disambiguating only when necessary"? No, it wouldn't. We need editors like User talk:In ictu oculi.
It is OK to have arbitrary rules so we don't have to gather around and discuss "should it be 'third baseman' or '3rd baseman'?" and so forth every freaken time the Mets call up another infielder. Fine. But that only works if it works. The tool is not the goal.
I understand the benefits of standardization. It's a complicated question with various aspects. But maybe open your mind to this thought: if you were more of the mind "Well, Haco (singer); I wouldn't do it that way, but whatever -- let a thousand flowers bloom" we would right now have one less ANI thread and one less stressed-out veteran editor. Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I realized years ago that unless everyone involved agrees to not care about titles there will be conflict, and I did not believe that everyone involved would not care. So I start with the premise that people care and will argue their position (whether they should is a separate and arguably moot point). Now, given that they will care and will argue, our goal should be minimization of conflict, and standardization is key to that. Title decision-making is an inherently subjective endeavor, but standards move us a long way from the subjective to the objective end of the spectrum, as you recognize. Concision is a particularly effective standard, because it is especially objective. Without concision we would be left with many more reasonable title candidates for countless articles, with no guidance on how to choose among them. So it's not that I personally prefer Haco to Haco (singer), it's that I don't want to see conflicts about such titles (and WP:RM is already rife with them). People with experience in RM discussions have a pretty good idea of how these decisions tend to go, and when they do personally prefer a "more informative" title, it behooves them to act unilaterally rather than go through the hassle of an RM where their proposal is likely to be rejected. People who engage in these end-run moves should not be encouraged. The only reason they keep doing it is because they are unlikely to get caught, and there is no negative consequence when they do. But they leave a trail of titles that are contrary to concision and community standards that they and others can and do use as example wedges to create more and more titles which are subject to challenge and conflict (because they are not consistent with standards). --В²C 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. Herostratus (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: Well... I'm a little more amenable to your point, after looking into Talk:Douglas County Courthouse (Wisconsin)#Requested move 29 April 2017. I mean, there's no guideline (that I know of) for building names, and so courthouses are apparently using two different styles. Which, fine... except there was apparently move-warring over this, and its time-consuming to have to address each of these one at a time. So, yeah, that. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have just dropped in and I see B2C conducting a highly selective trawl through 1,000s of dab related edits. I believe this is related to the proposals B2C frequently makes to guideline space that govern the work of those who do contribute to article space. Haco used to redirect to Haakon, The Norwegian Account of Haco's Expedition Against Scotland, before insertion of the unreferenced BLP, and should ideally continue to redirect to Haakon. But again anyone can find anything among 1000s of edits if they are daily following another editor as part of their habitual activity and are not themselves habitually busy with contributing to article space. I thank you for the level of balance you have injected into the discussion but it's quite clear that those invited already have their view. Cheers. And happy productive editing to you. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clement Oak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gloucester County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

NCYC and PORNBIO[edit]

Since you mentioned the PORNBIO case a while back, perhaps you could be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling#Tightening_up_of_WP:NCYC? I started it a few days back but so far there is not much discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. Herostratus (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

ideas for starting RUwiki articles[edit]

Herostratus,

I notice that you translate articles from RUwiki to ENwiki. Are you interested in starting a short RUwiki stub on the en:Toronto District School Board? It has a Russian website at http://www.tdsb.on.ca/languages/ru-ru/home.aspx, and I think it would be important for Toronto's Russophone community to have that topic available in Russian.

Thank you for your consideration, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, and it definitely sounds like a worthy idea, but I don't think I'm the person to do it, since I'm not a native Russian speaker and my version might sound a little "off". You should definitely ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia though! Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll try again and see what happens. One thing I do on the Chinese Wikipedia is write a draft version and ask a native speaker to proofread it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, hmmm, hadn't thought of that. Herostratus (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Request_for_stub_on_RUwiki:_Toronto_District_School_Board - If no other editors are interested the article idea would work well :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ted Bundy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ted Bundy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOT reversion[edit]

Why did you revert [4] ? Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, but I felt a reversion was on order on these grounds:
  1. On principle, that rules pages, and especially policy pages, should edited with care, and generally not without discussion first. (WP:BOLD, in its section about "Wikipedia:" pages, says "In this case, 'bold' refers to boldness of idea; such ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first to best formulate their implementation. The admonition 'but please be careful' is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won, knife-edge consensus – which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background".
  2. On the merits, I don't see the addition as being helpful. It introduces additional wording which doesn't really help explain the point better IMO. While it is true that we have a group called "bureaucrats", they aren't really bureaucrats particularly, they just perform a minor technical function. Our admin corps performs most of the bureaucratic-type work around here.
It wasn't terrible or anything, but that page has seem very much contention and is a keystone of the project, so my tendency would be to leave it strictly alone, absent consensus to make a change. You're welcome to propose your addition on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Conference call[edit]

Hello User:Tazerdadog, User:Primefac, User:The Wordsmith, and User:Someguy1221.

You guys were the closers at a February 2017 RFC at the policy pump (the question was "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?"). Remember it?

Something I saw there made my spidey sense tingle, and I put in the back of my head to look into it. Then it came up again, and I buckled down and analyzed the discussion -- I spent quite a few hours on it -- and I concluded you got this one wrong. It's OK, it happens.

Anyway, can we fix this? This is reasonably important. I think that people are getting caught in the wringer here, and it's not optimal.

I put my notes into some kind of form, here: WP:USO. It's kind of long, but there's an overview section, and the main part of interest is the "February 2017" section, which even that is kind of long (but you can skip the hidden sections -- they are mainly raw supporting data -- unless you want to check my work). If you would take the time to look this over, when you get a chance, it would be a kindness.

I'm pretty confident that this is not a case of my just disagreeing with you, and I hope you'll agree. I was fairly rigorous and careful I think. I'm certainly willing to consider that I myself have fallen into error somewhere, and if so I hope you'll point that out.

Again, if we conclude together that maybe a mistake was made, it's not problem. Consider this an "RfC Review" if you will, and the only thing that matters is to get it right. I of course have overturned decisions on review and reflection and I'm sure you have too, it's part of the process.

I hope any talk page stalkers I might not have (probably not many) will keep out of this, I'd rather just the five of us work through this, at least initially (or as many of you as are able to engage). I considered opening up the question on email, but I don't work well with email. If you want to work via email instead, fine, but let me know (I don't check that email account often). You may want to talk amongst yourselves and check over your notes and stuff. There's no hurry.

Thanking you in advance for your time and trouble, Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm here, I'm reading your comments, and I'm open to changing/unclosing the close if your argument is solid. I'll replace this with a substantive response in no more than a day. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No hurry, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
After a readthrough of your argument, the RFC, and the closer's email thread, I can definitely see where both your argument, and the arguments that we used as closers came from. From my readthrough the only point of contention appears to be the discounting of SCHOOLOUTCOME-based arguments at AFD - I don't see any disagreement with the no consensus close on the question asked, or with the prohibition on deleting schools due to notability concerns without checking local print media, or with the assertion that schools are special. The treatment of SCHOOLOUTCOMES created a fair amount of division among the closers. I'd like to publish the email exchange onwiki (with all names/emails replaced by Wikipedia Usernames) in the interest of transparency, and so that outside observers can know which arguments were considered, and which ones might have been missed. I will not do so if any of my fellow co-closers object, however. I would like to point out that you seem to be over-emphasizing the numeric vote-count. We were very close to the line between no consensus and consensus against the proposal. It really only took a couple of well thought out and unrefuted !votes to flip the effective result when we addressed SCHOOLOUTCOMES versus the question asked. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. For right now I'm going to lay low and not say much for bit, having done my initial analysis. Transparency is fine, quiet privacy is fine, whatever works best for you guys. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine showing our thought process (i.e. the email thread) towards coming to the close. I think Tazer put it well, so I won't bother rephrasing what was said rather eloquently. I guess the question I have is: are you trying to overturn the RFC close itself, or the OUTCOMES portion? Primefac (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand about the numbers thing. It's a data point. How important it is is a matter on which reasonable people may differ. As far as what I'm trying to do, just the latter. The proposition which was overtly advanced, you judged was not accepted, and that's quite correct: it wasn't, no matter how you slice it.
My analysis shows that nothing was decided there, I am fairly confident so far. Certainly, as you know, "X was rejected" in no way implies "The converse of X was accepted". You'd need a positive indication for that, which I didn't find evidence of. Herostratus (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you mean "the inverse of X, Hero mine. EEng 02:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I also consent to publishing the email chain. I don't think we got it wrong, but I'm open to a persuasive argument. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Since Someguy1221 did not post in the email chain until the closure was posted, I have all of the consents necessary to post the email chain up until that point. This should provide some insight on the analyses of the individual closers.

The email chain

Setting this up for discussion of the schooloutcomes closure. I will add in someguy1221 to this once he replies to my email. I will post a comment addressing the RFC substantively in a few hours, but I wanted to get everything started.

-Tazerdadog Tazerdadog (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (MST)


Getting the ball rolling with some thoughts:
My rough count of the !votes is 48 support and 50 oppose. Of course, this is not a vote. Many supporters indicated that they were supporting the status quo, not the broader question of automatic notability. Of course, this is not a vote, so let's quickly move on.
The opposers have a stronger policy-based argument. Requiring GNG in all cases is a perfectly sensible position as far as policies are concerned.
The supporters had some arguments that are less well-supported by policy. Supporting because that's how wikipedia has always done it and it has historically served us well is a poor argument. Similarly, worrying about a flood of AFD's is something to worry about in an implementation, but not really germane to whether we should change the policy. I also think we can discount opinions that argue that school articles can be kept as a recruiting/demonstration tool for new editors.
Not all of the support arguments were weak. The argument that the sources generally exist for schools, but are unusually inaccessible because they are concentrated heavily in print and local media is very valid. Furthermore, the supporters have a real argument that removing schooloutcomes will increase systematic bias.
Fundamentally, I think there are three closes available to us:
1) Secondary schools should be automatically notable. This seems to go against both the numbers and strength of argument in this RFC.
2) There is no consensus in this discussion. Schooloutcomes continues to state that schools are presumed (but not guaranteed) to be notable, and it can continue to be cited in AFD's as a summary of the arguments in favor of keeping articles on secondary schools, and noting the need to do a more thorough than usual search for sources. At a minimum, such a search should include local print media, not just what is available online. I think that the correct closure for the RFC is along these lines.
3) Declare schooloutcomes dead. This isn't really the question that was asked in the RFC. I also don't think there is a consensus for it even if it was the question. It had marginally more support, and significantly better arguments, but I don't think it got to rough consensus.
Tazerdadog (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2017 (MST)
Adding someguy1221 into this discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2017 (MST)
From my first impressions, consensus is leaning heavily towards abolishing SCHOOLOUTCOMES, based on the strength of the arguments, but I don't think it is strong enough to call it an actual consensus.
I'll have a more detailed analysis tomorrow in the late morning or early afternoon. The WordsmithTalk to me 10:20, 17 February 2017 (MST)

That RFC makes my brain hurt... but let's see if I can't get some thoughts down before the pain goes away.

I think there are three main points to consider:

1. The ultimate question is "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?"

2. SCHOOLOUTCOMES (as mentioned by Kudpung) is not specifically mentioned in the RFC itself.

3. NewYorkActuary (about 3/4 to the bottom) makes a very good point, that there has never been a true consensus about either OUTCOMES or the implied/automatic/presumed notability of schools. It's been a contentious issue from the get-go.

For brevity, I'm going to shorthand SCHOOLOUTCOMES to SO.

As mentioned, the !votes are nearly split. In a rough count of the "types" of support/oppose rationale, I come up with about ten broad categories for each, but as mentioned initially by Tazerdadog many of the support categories are rather weak ("it will be disruptive", "they deserve an exception", "schools are important to their communities") while the oppose categories are mostly policy-based (GNG, NOTINHERITED, MILL, VAND, etc). This tips the overall consensus towards oppose, but I'm not overly convinced that it's enough for an outright rejection of the actual question (especially in light of point #3).

I think there's only one consensus to come to, that of "no consensus" (otherwise we'll be drawn and quartered). In other words, the direct answer to the proposed question is "there is no consensus that schools are presumed notable" (basically Tazerdadog's point #2). However, the arguments presented by the oppose camp (in my mind) mean that SO should not be used as a reason for keeping (or deleting, to be fair).

I just re-read SO, and it states nothing about policy. It simply says "usually high schools are kept". The catch-22 argument, therefore, becomes a bit stronger as a valid oppose rationale. So, in opposition to Tazerdadog, I think that SO should not be used in AFDs. I think that it has merit, but holds about as much weight as BEFORE (i.e. if someone breaks it, the worst that happens is a trouting).

In other words, there is no consensus that schools are automatically presumed notable (i.e. schools still have to follow GNG and ORG), and SO should not be used as a "keep" argument.

Primefac (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2017 (MST)

Perhaps we should make a close based around the following points:
1) No consensus (although leaning no) on whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable.
2) SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, but SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. (i.e. not prohibited, but discouraged and potentially discounted in them.)
3) Articles on extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media. A deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. [We'd really need a definition for deep, I propose checked local print media in addition to an online search]
It's worth noting that the closeness of this RFC implies that schools are special. If the question was (e.g.) Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?, I would expect the result to be decided quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling.
Tazerdadog (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2017 (MST)
I can get behind that, in particular #2.
Primefac (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (MST)

Ok, proposing an actual text for closure.

" The question asked in this RFC was whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable. Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement. However, this is a discussion, and not a vote, and what truly matters is the strength of each side's argument. The opposers have a strong policy-based argument. Requiring the GNG to be satisfied in all cases is a perfectly sensible position, and one that is consistent with all applicable policies. The arguments of the supporters were more mixed. Some arguments, such as "Schools are important to their communities", "Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well", and "School articles are valuable as a recruitment tool for new editors" do not make much sense and were discounted. Another common argument was that removing the protections secondary schools have historically enjoyed at AfD would lead to a flood of mass AfDing is a concern to be addressed in a hypothetical implementation, but is not germane to the question of whether those protections should exist. These opinions were partially or fully discounted in our evaluation. The supporters did have some very good arguments mixed in with the poor ones. The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong.

Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this lean stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.

Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools. This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. (i.e. not prohibited, but discouraged and potentially discounted in them.)

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.

It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. I would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling.

It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the arguments to avoid in AfDs list is undesirable. Editors who mass-nominate school articles should be asked to stop."

Commentary on this version is welcome.

Tazerdadog (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (MST)

Just me being nitpicky:
1) Third paragraph, second sentence, needs a closing "
2) Fifth paragraph, change "I would" to "we would" since there are more than one of us ;-)
3) Final paragraph, I think the "arguments to avoid in AFDs" list bit should be written like that (in quotes, ital only added for emphasis), because otherwise it's a bit messy to read.
Overall I think it's very well-worded, brings in both sides and explains how we came to our decision. My only issue is with the last sentence, as it is kind of a BEANs way of phrasing it. However, I can't think of anything better to replace it with, and it's better than no BEANs at all...
Primefac (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (MST)
I agree with all of your changes.
I'm going to give our other 2 co-closers 24 hours to post issues/suggestions, and then post it up so that the tarring and feathering process can begin.
Tazerdadog (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2017 (MST)
It can't be any worse than the DM close ;-)
Primefac (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2017 (MST)
I think the draft is a solid summary of the important points in the right proportions. I agree with Primefac's changes, and regarding the last sentence I would just cut it. "asked to stop" is a meaningless and toothless phrase, and we don't have the authority to do anything meaningful about it. If it stays in, we would just be inviting an ANI thread for anyone who nominates more than one school article.
I believe the wording in the third paragraph (about using SO in AFDs) should be slightly stronger. I think there's sufficient consensus (and basic logic) that SO is not actually an argument at all for what should be done with any particular article.
Everything else appears to be right on the nose. Excellent job on the draft.
The WordsmithTalk to me 08:33, 22 February 2017 (MST)

An updated closing statement including Primefac's fixes, and attempting to address The Wordsmith's concerns. I tries to dix the final sentence instead of deleting it. I have also fixed a run-on sentence in the first paragraph:


" The question asked in this RFC was whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable. Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement. However, this is a discussion, and not a vote, and what truly matters is the strength of each side's argument. The opposers have a strong policy-based argument. Requiring the GNG to be satisfied in all cases is a perfectly sensible position, and one that is consistent with all applicable policies. The arguments of the supporters were more mixed. Some arguments, such as "Schools are important to their communities", "Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well", and "School articles are valuable as a recruitment tool for new editors" do not make much sense and were discounted. Another common argument was that removing the protections secondary schools have historically enjoyed at AfD would lead to a flood of mass AfDing. This is a concern to be addressed in a hypothetical implementation, but is not germane to the question of whether those protections should exist. These opinions were partially or fully discounted in our evaluation. The supporters did have some very good arguments mixed in with the poor ones. The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong.

Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this lean stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.

Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed.

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.

It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. We would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling.

It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the "arguments to avoid in AfDs" list is undesirable. Editors are asked to refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations."

Commentary is once again welcomed.

Tazerdadog (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2017 (MST)

A+
Primefac (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2017 (MST)
Looks good to me. The new version addresses my concerns, and I have nothing else substantial to change. One minor thing is that in the second paragraph, "lean" is awkward and should be cut. The sentence would be better reading "we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus"
Other than that one niggle, I endorse the close.
The WordsmithTalk to me 21:01, 22 February 2017 (MST)
Good catch, Wordsmith.
Primefac (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2017 (MST)
I have posted the closure at the RFC. It is waiting for your countersignature. Thank you all for your assistance.
Tazerdadog (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2017 (MST)


Herostratus, you said that editors were being put through "the wringer" by the RFC close - could you point to example(s) of what you mean? If our close is having unintended consequences, we need to try to address them. I am very sympathetic to your argument, and I initially wanted to close it that way. It certainly was a very close call as to whether that consensus we found actually fully formed. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into the "wringer" thing right yet, as it's a side issue. Reading the email thread now. I mught take a bit to digest it. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You can feel free to add anything I sent to that email thread. I've been sick the past week and haven't been paying much attention to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4[edit]

Hello Herostratus,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 413 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:TrumpOrb.png[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:TrumpOrb.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

More specifically: There exists an another file, and it does not differ significantly from the one you uploaded. I mean this one. WP:F7 and WP:NFCCP are the relevant policies, as there exists a "free equivalent" under the current fair use claim given as a rationale on the image's description page. Ceosad (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome vigilance regarding copyright and fair use (which I share) but in this case, I don't think the two photographs are even close to similar enough. You can't replace an article largely about a historic photograph with a photograph of the same event but having a completely different aspect and thus, besides not being the historic photograph, not even having the qualities that made the historical photograph historic and notable. I made my case at the photo's talk page. Herostratus (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:TrumpOrb.png listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TrumpOrb.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)