User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 4

Archiving some more chat here, starting from December 2018. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, HouseOfChange, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm really pleased to see you intend to work on AfDs. I see you have already saved a few and have also created a few women's biographies. Keep up the good work. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (P. van Heerdt tot Eversberg-Quarles van Ufford) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating P. van Heerdt tot Eversberg-Quarles van Ufford.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work! Have you considered nominating for DyK?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Eddie891}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Eddie891:! I found her name via the Women in Red project. She had quite an interesting life, so I need to think about something to translate into the very short "hook" form for DYK. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Shepard tables at DYK

Hi HouseOfChange -- I've commented briefly on this -- the text isn't long enough -- can you expand before a formal review? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for expanding! I've done a formal review and there are a few issues that still need addressing. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Sweet Brown Snail by Jason Rhoades and Paul McCarthy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year. Wishing you a happy holiday! ThatMontrealIP (talk) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks ThatMontrealIP, for this friendly snail and for working on many good projects for the encyclopedia. Funny, I was just leaving a greeting on your talk page when I discovered you left me one on mine. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

unsigned undated message

Hi HOC! Can you help me to reestablish a page for Jaclyn Bradley Palmer. Tons of new international press. You were instrumental in trying to keep it months ago and it was said it needed to be written better with varied references. Going you can use your expertise to help.

Happy New Year, HouseOfChange!

Happy New Year!

HouseOfChange,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, @CAPTAIN RAJU:! And a very happy new year to you as well. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

[an article] moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jang Minho, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – bradv🍁 15:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to help you improve the article. I am removing "promotional" language that will get the article deleted if it stays in there. To establish notability, can you give a few links to articles Korean newspapers or magazines that talk about Jang Minho in recent years? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange Hi, there are articles Korean newspapers talk about Jang Minho these days. https://nc.asiae.co.kr/view.htm?idxno=2020081009565528272 http://woman.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?cate=C01&mcate=M1004&nNewsNumb=20200868521 http://www.topdaily.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=72239 https://nc.asiae.co.kr/view.htm?idxno=2020080911445852570 https://star.mt.co.kr/stview.php?no=2020080518561244389 https://sports.donga.com/article/all/20200812/102426701/1 https://www.anewsa.com/detail.php?number=2201051&thread=07 http://www.sportsworldi.com/newsView/20200808506518 https://star.mt.co.kr/stview.php?no=2020080720150903750 http://www.spotvnews.co.kr/?mod=news&act=articleView&idxno=374114 https://www.newsen.com/news_view.php?uid=202008151731132510 http://mksports.co.kr/view/2020/836248/ https://star.mt.co.kr/stview.php?no=2020081111124745373

For anybody following along, there was an edit conflict where I was trying to improve an article at the same time it got moved to draftspace. So the appearance (when I clicked publish on my improvement) was that I had created the entire article. I am happy it all turned out well in the end and I was able to help find sources so it eventually moved out of draft. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi HouseOfChange. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

For the curious, here is that discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive415#User:HouseOfChange_reported_by_User:2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23_(Result:_No_violation) HouseOfChange (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange/Princess Bride Reunion moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, HouseOfChange/Princess Bride Reunion, does not have enough content as written to remain published. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, apologies! I thought I had created a page in my Sandbox. Thanks for draftifying it! HouseOfChange (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Princess Bride Reunion (2020)

Hello! Your submission of Princess Bride Reunion (2020) 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add some WikiProjects to the talk page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Yoninah for your help and advice. I added Wikiprojects to the talk page and replied at the DYK page about your advice there. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sridhar

Please read the sources you are dismissing and try to understand the issue before taking a side and cleaving to it. It is stated quite clearly she is an impartial adviser, which is why nearly every opposition party in Parliament has criticized her indulgence in political commentary and prejudicial insults. GPinkerton (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not dismissing your sources, I am asking for better evidence for your claim than the wishes of people who have no standing to prevent her from speaking. The Scottish government says she is independent and has a right to speak. DS has been on the Scottish COVID-19 Board since March. During that time, she coauthored a letter to the Lancet criticizing SAGE, published 28 March. She publicly criticized SAGE again in April. In May, she criticized UK COVID policy in an article published in the Guardian. And so on. If such statements offend the Scottish government, they give no sign of it.

Even this Spectator op-ed, overtly anti-SNP says:

Prof Sridhar is entitled to express her political opinions and the fact she advises the Scottish Government should not be used to silence her criticism of Boris Johnson...She is also volunteering her expertise at a time when she could retail it for top dollar and deserves gratitude for her spirit of public service.

So it would be wrong for Wikipedia to parrot the claim of her opponents that she "should" be apolitical when neither she nor the Scottish government agrees that her committee work requires her to be silent on politics. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the statement of the Scottish Government certainly says nothing of the kind. They have pointedly distanced themselves from her comments; that in no way endorses them or establishes any basis for your claim that they "says she is independent and has a right to speak", which in any case in no way contradicts the need for her to be impartial. Obviously she has a right to speak. Mute advisers offer no advice. The very fact that the government has seen fit to comment on the issue is worth including in the article. At the moment, it seems that you are arguing that Wikipedia should always accept what you imagine the Scottish Government has said, and whatever contradicts your imagination of their position is automatically unfit for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, including what reams of sources have said, and what, as I have pointed out, three major political parties' leaders have commented on. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would also like you to point out where you have read that Sridhar was on the Advisory Group at any time before June. GPinkerton (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like you to point out where you get the idea that the Scottish Government conferred an enormous honor and obligation on one of the world's top health policy experts when she consented to take part in advising their small and local response. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like you to point out where you get the idea that I think any such thing. GPinkerton (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel you should step away from the article, because it is becoming obvious you are personally invested in the subject and you've now disclosed a clear political bias, with POV claims like "despicable". It's not for you to judge what who said was correct, and it's certainly not for you to enforce this judgement on the encyclopaedia. You have removed my edits claiming consensus must be established before major changes are made, yet you have gone and and made major changes without consultation, many of which have introduced bizarre POV angles where they have no place. GPinkerton (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I also feel that you @GPinkerton: should step away from the article, where your effort to COATRACK in multiple puffery-uppery of Scottish unionists' names and POV received no support from me or from anyone else.

Wikipedia is ruled by policy and by consensus; my voice is just one of many. Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, bold edits to an article point a way forward -- but then if others object, those particular changes need consensus, per WP:ONUS. Several editors, including me, have recently made incremental, well-sourced, neutral POV edits. Those edits were accepted, although yours were not.

If, as you imply above, I had use the word "despicable" in the article rather than on its talk page -- well, that would clearly violate NPOV.

I am tired of your multiple insults and failure to WP:AGF on the article talk page and now on my own. WP:ANI is the place to complain about other editors. It is bad enough having to read through your walls of angry text on the talk page--please leave my talk page alone in the future. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

::So you're just ignoring the RfC, I take it. GPinkerton (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC) I already !voted at the RfC and so did you. A second time, since your reading skills seem subpar -- stay off my talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:StreamingIn.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:StreamingIn.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: This was one of two screenshots I took to prove that a Glasgow Herald article cited in Devi Sridhar did exist, and included words quoted--facts being disputed on the talk page. (The long-gone and very-minor article was no longer indexed from the publisher's site. I found it behind a paywall, so just pointing to the URL wouldn't have helped.) I believed that my temporary use of a partial screenshot did not violate the rights of or do any harm to the copyright holder. The two screenshots were not suitable to be in an article, hence were deleted later, per policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni ANI

I went ahead and opened it. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 11:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Time for a new draft of In Praise of Blood?

• In Praise of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see my suggestion here on the article talk page. Are you ready to talk about the draft that you began, or suggest what to do next? Thanks EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• • EdJohnston I would welcome your comments on the draft I wrote. I am happy to resume discussion on the article talk page, so I will make some suggestions over there. Thanks for your effort to get collaboration on track! HouseOfChange (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Everything is Going to be Alright, Martin Creed, 2015.

Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year. I wish you a happy holiday and good health! Possibly (talk)

Thank you, Possibly! Seasons greetings to you as well. With the solstice just past, I can almost hear springtime approaching. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Luminarias	Happy Holidays!
	Hi HouseOfChange, May your holidays be merry and bright, and hope you have a happy and healthy 2021 Netherzone (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice from Saflieni about an ArbCom case he plans to file

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests regarding Fringe theories and advocacy with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 18:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Saflieni (talk)

Happy New Year!

HouseOfChange,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Jmill1806 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Rwandan genocide case request withdrawn by filing party

The case request Rwandan genocide has been withdrawn by the filing party. The comments made by the arbitrators details arbitrators thoughts on the case request. A permanent link to the case request can be viewed through this wikilink. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC) (updated 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC))

@Saflieni: 8 hours before posting this notification, Dreamy Jazz notified me and you and others with the header Rwandan genocide case request declined by the committee. Here is the text of that official Jan 5 notice (now replaced by this one):

The case request Rwandan genocide has been declined by the Committee. The comments made by the arbitrators detail why the case request was declined. A permanent link to the case request can be viewed through this wikilink. For the Arbitration Committee, User:Dreamy Jazz .... 14:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

According to this diff, Saflieni sent ArbCom received an email request on Jan 3, not on Jan 2, to withdraw his case.

On Jan. 5, after receiving a "declined 0/7/0" message, Saflieni complained, and DreamyJazz volunteered to change the notices. Saflieni's claim at ANI that his ArbCom request was not declined is mistaken. His request was declined, full stop. After Saflieni's complaint, DreamyJazz updated the notice on my talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't continue to accuse me of lying. I have withdrawn my request per email to the Arbitration Committeee on Saturday 2 January 22:23 (UTC). What happened after that is irrelevant, except the suggestion that the arbitrators rejected the evidence of the case. They didn't. A number of them voted against opening the case for arbitration because they believe fringe theories to be a content issue. This is the text of my message:

Dear Arbitration Committee,

On 30 December I opened a case about Fringe theories and advocacy. I retract the case for the following reasons:

1). The page has been flooded with false accusations and insults which I take very seriously. They're all violations of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility but the Clerks have not responded to my request to remove them as off-topic and offending. Because the worst rant is by an administrator who has a history of accusing me without evidence, this leaves the impression that some Wikipedians are more equal than others.

2). Another attack was added in the comment space of HouseOfChange last night, but none of the arbitrators notice it: HoC's suggestion that scholars who qualifiy the fringe theories as a form of genocide denial are somehow part of an international scheme to silence a critical journalist on behalf of a foreign regime.[1]

3). None of the voters so far bother to explain their reasons for considering the facts as a content dispute. Attacks against scientists by an editor are not content issues.

Under these conditions a fair treatment of my request is impossible. I therefore withdraw my request.

Sincerely, Saflieni

[1] In Praise of Blood is a book article, not a WALLOFSHAME about its BLP author. Calling out people who criticize Rwanda's RPF as "revisionsts" and "genocide deniers", (aka "genocide blackmail") is very common. In Rever's case, it has already resulted in death threats[34] and in stories such as "How Judi Rever is a cynical genocide revisionist, intent on murdering victims a second time." (Rever's revision is that Hutus killed by the RPF were also victims of a genocide,[35]--but this possibly-mistaken viewpoint is not the central thesis of her book.) HouseOfChange (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC) [1]

Saflieni (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: My experience on Wikipedia is that other editors are rarely intentionally dishonest, although they are sometimes misinformed. So please provide some diffs where I have accused you of lying even once, let alone multiple times. Otherwise, it would be a nice honest gesture for you to withdraw your accusation that I continue to accuse [you] of lying.

The discrepancy between your statement that you sent out email 2 January 22:23 (UTC) and Barkeep's statement at 16:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) that "your request to withdraw the arbitration request was retrieved...there is a 24 hour waiting period which we are now in" is duly noted. Perhaps Barkeep meant that your email had been "retrieved" on January 3.

As of 2 January 22:23 (UTC), the ArbCom vote stood at 0/6/0 to deny your request, although it had not then been officially rejected.

Yet, on Jan. 5, not only was it officially declined 0/7/0 but you and I both got official notices that it had been declined. I do not dispute that you withdrew your request earlier than Jan. 5, and I do not understand why you continue to dispute that the committee on Jan. 5 sent out an official notice that your request was declined.

Also, I do not understand or agree with your claim that I was implying something by stating, simply, that your request was declined.

Also, from your email, which editor was making Attacks against scientists and who were these plural scientists someone attacked? Truly curious about that claim by you. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni, I would note that an arbitrator has changed it back to declined in the index of declined cases. Also, regardless of whether you withdrew the case request, the case request received majority decline so in effect can be seen as also declined. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't really the point, Dreamy Jazz. There's a context and history here. Besides, I'm still waiting for decent answers to the reasons I gave for withdrawing the request. I don't think I was treated very respectfully. Saflieni (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni: I quite look forward to your ANI against ArbCom, claiming disrespect. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, because I keep starting all these ANIs and ANEWs instead of you and your chums. Go baiting someone else, I'm off. Saflieni (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)