User talk:Loriendrew

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

Think before you write.
If you want to talk with me, follow these simple rules:

  • Make sure I can understand the message you are trying to convey
  • Please link back to the article to which you are referring
  • English only please, my native tongue of "New Yorker" was forcibly removed by NYC Dept of Ed speech therapists
  • In the words of Winston Churchill: "short words are best, and the old words, when short, are best of all"

To start a new conversation create a new section at the end of the page, easily done by clicking "New section" along the top menu. Putting something in the middle will not be seen. aka JCama 2[edit]

I just want to tell you that the Information I put on Mary Ingalls and Carrie Ingalls are very true. Thank You— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2015‎-(talk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JCama 2 (talkcontribs) 11:30, 27 December 2015‎

July 2016[edit]

Hi Loriendrew, This link: Ashley Hinshaw Green tickY, can confirm the date of birth of the article Ashley Hinshaw. Rafaela17, Rafaela. 22:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC-3)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Loriendrew. 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)

New Page Review - newsletter[edit]

Hello Loriendrew,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 349 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Black Supremacy[edit]

It's a bit dramatic to suggest that my edits are "unconstructive". A cursory glance at the talk page (and its archive) suggests that the topic which relates to my edit keeps coming up. That fact would suggest that current position towards this topic is not suitable for wikipedia. Like most people who are interested in providing accurate information on Wikipedia, I'm happy to discuss this topic further. Brough87 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you have been warned numerous times about WP:BRD. Instead of participating in an WP:EDITWAR, participate in a discussion on the appropriate talk page. In this case, since there is an established consensus and discussion you should address any concerns and issues at Talk:Black supremacy.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 17:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

re: Steve Scott article and Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hi Loriendrew, thanks so much for taking the time to write me a message on 19 October 2016. Regarding the article on Steve Scott, I understand your concern and I want to assure you that I had read the wiki guidelines back in 2014 before deciding to write the article. With those guidelines in mind I initiated the article which was approved by wiki in March 2014. While I appreciate your contribution at the same time it feels abusive. You took it upon yourself to decide what was notable and what was not. The charts I posted may not be as famous as the billboard but they are relevant to the people that follow "Americana" and "Roots Music" artists that is the same for the chart published by Relix magazine. I did my best in writing the article which also has gone through many other reviewers before you and none of them contacted me for violating wiki rules or for self-promoting language or for questionable notability. I wrote the article and not the artist. I also took the time to read many other articles before starting to write. I am certainly open to and appreciate any constructive recommendation you might have to improve the quality of the article. You've removed most of the pictures I posted on the article but left all the other images I posted in other artists' articles. It feels like you have something personal against this particular artist. Most of the other reviewers welcomed the images I posted on artists' wiki. Wiki pages look so much better when there are images embed in the article. Don't you agree? I'd appreciate if you could remove the tag you've placed on the article and restore the images, charts and text. I look forward to your reply.User:Stefanianj 14:01, 6 December 2016 UTC

For an overall outlook please take a look at the Manual of style for biographies. To get into more specific details let me go over them one by one:
  1. There are notability guidelines for almost everything, in this case WP:MUSICBIO.
  2. There are verifiability guidelines, where sources and citations need to come from reliable sources.
  3. There are guidelines for lists and tables. One good place to look is WP:LISTCRITERIA. A basic rule of thumb is that a notable award will have an article.
  4. Tracklists belong on the article of the album, not under the artist. See both Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines and MOS:DISCOGRAPHY.
  5. Don't overload the article with images. See Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images
  6. Too many WP:REDLINKs.
  7. The overall tone of the article resembled advertising rather than encyclopedic content. See WP:NOTPROMOTION, also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NAMEDROP.
  8. I have no personal involvement or knowledge of the artist. Often that is a good thing as it allows for a neutral point of view, one not clouded by fandom or hatred.
The large culling that was performed was done to improve the article and have it fall within the respective guidelines and policies as listed above. The article was more What Wikipedia is not than what it is.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 23:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Loreindrew, Since you've improved the article what else needs to be done to remove the tags? I initiated the article because I wanted to write one; I do not think I have a conflict of interest that could prevent me from writing the article. I am simply a photographer and have no personal relationship with the artist. thank you for your assistance. Stefanianj 12:33,22 December 2016(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanianj (talkcontribs)

Out of 342 edits to the article, you have made 259 (or 75.7%) of them. It may be a simple case of advocacy, but seeing the long term connection between the subject and you (photographic claims ranging from 1995 to 2014), it seems there is a more formal relationship in place.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 03:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Loriendrew, I am the main writer and I understand your concern; regarding the photographs I personally took those on the movies set in Italy, the country where I reside and work. The music photographs were given to me from the artist's management after I requested them. They provided images that were not copyrighted and did not provide the photographer so I loaded them with their permission as my own. I did not know how else to do it. There is not a formal relationship between me and the artist beside that I have met him on a few movie sets in Italy. Regards,Stefanianj (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi loriendrew, Please help me address the issues with this article; I am a newbie but I aim to do a good job. I am not in a formal relationship with the artist. what do I need to do to improve it. I'd like to contribute to other articles as well. Thanks so much. Stefanianj 13:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you from editing that article nor of any other article. Just use caution and follow the general editing guidelines as listed above. Just use caution on editing articles in which you might have a personal connection.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

One Thousand Ninjas[edit]

hello loriendrew, i created a wikipedia account just to inquire about how on this page you deleted an entry about something called "One Thousand Ninjas" with a predicted release date of 2076. im not the person who contributed this but i am extremely curious as i cannot find evidence of this anywhere else on the internet... how did this person know? are they a time traveller trying to warn us about One Thousand Ninjas? does this sort of thing happen often? perhaps i can brush it off as just Trolling and not something to be legitimately thinking about? or are you mystified too and we'll just have to wait until 2076 to see? thanks for your time and keep up the good work, it looks like you do a lot of it here on the ol' free encyclopedia!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingbabe (talkcontribs) 09:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 18:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

mysterious as ever!! thank you for clarifying though! i suppose we will indeed have to wait and see! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingbabe (talkcontribs) 06:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Seminole Heights[edit]

Hi, you removed my edit to the Seminole Heights article showing that the two-headed gator seal is a hoax saying that I didn't provide a source. But I did provide a source—images of the original unaltered 1912 Hillsborough High School yearbook pages that were used to fake the Seminole Heights ad with the "two-headed gator seal." That proves that the seal is a hoax, because the source for the seal is credited as the 1912 Hillsborough High School yearbook which does have those ads in it, without a graphic image. I undid your edit and cited the source to the image. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thgenTPA (talkcontribs) 13:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Image use policy: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", not to be used as a reference. A reliable source should be found to support claims.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 23:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

George Lakey (response to your ring)[edit]

Hi Lorien,

I do not understand how this happened. I am morally certain that there was an article on George Lakey when I posted that addition to the List of peace activists article. I would not have deliberately posted something that did not meet the specs, and furthermore, I do not know where I would have gotten his date of birth or the link to the Movement for a New Society unless I had found them in that article on WikiPedia.

But I also see that the edit history of the George Lakey article begins in December this year, so I am mystified. I was not involved in any way with that article.

I cannot guess why I have a clear recollection of that article actually existing when I made that addition, given in addition the information about DOB and Movement for a New Society that I put in my addition. Was the original article deleted? (Unlikely as you reverted within a few hours of my addition). Or is my aging memory (I am 76) just playing tricks on me?

Anyhow, my edit summary to my re-addition was made in good faith.

Best, and please know, we all appreciate the work that our editors such as you do.

Bill Jefferys Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The science of silver obviously predates US english and therefore needs to be written in proper english.[edit]

The science of silver obviously predates US english and therefore needs to be written in proper english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim colhern (talkcontribs) 01:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The "proper english" to use in your edits of Silver is detailed at MOS:RETAIN. You have been warned numerous times regarding the change in language. Follow the links in those messages on your talk page for details.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 02:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep Matheus Soares (DJ)[edit]

This page can not be deleted because it is not the same subject, because it is another subject Matheus Soares (DJ) this page must be maintained, it has been deleted because it was moved ideally! RobertCaldwell (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The proper place to contest a deletion is on the article's talk page, which is where you have already responded.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 03:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))


Hiya! So I raised this issue a while ago, and it seems to be the same one you were having here. You said you inserted code in some template to resolve it, at least until the issue is fixed. Which template would that be and what is the code? Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I added the following to my common.js subpage: fix at phabricator. Good luck!--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: RevDel request[edit]

Re your message: The multiple musical notes are rather strange and a bit annoying, but not RevDel material. Strange edit summaries are not sufficient for RevDel unless the summary is disruptive. This is is just a bit weird/annoying. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Zakrice Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hi Loriendrew, I removed the speedy deletion template from Zakrice. I could be wrong, but I think the article makes a credible claim of significance. This is because the article indicates the subject was featured on an album with its own article by an artist with its own article as well. It appears to be "reasonably plausible" and "plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance".  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I tend to not place db:hoax on BLPs, as technically this should have received one instead of the db:band. Credible claims should come with an attempt at proof, and given the author's previous hijack attempt at Zachg diff it just appears wrong.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 14:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Why Don't you want the FG picture changed?[edit]

Why can't we use the Picture I uploaded? It's rarer than white.. Only 101 built — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whincup12345 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see MOS:IMAGES and what not to do if if an edit is undone. The lead image should be a common representation of the subject. There are plenty of images in the article, or space for a new one, where a "rare" (if such claims can be cited) could be placed.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) :) you were saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whincup12345 (talkcontribs) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Gyazo appears to be an image capture system, not a reliable source.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 22:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject![edit]

Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together instead of disagreeing. Have a great day! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


I vant to created new page Albanian Referendum for political and teritorial autonomy in Macedonia maintained 11 and 12 january 1992 ILIRIDAproud (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That is fine, but before you start linking it to other articles you need to write the article first.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 01:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieve and send text[edit]

Please send the text that was deleted from ¨Cat Ball¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lach05 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted, the article was redirected to an existing article. The original version can be found in the "View history" tab of the Cat Ball article.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 01:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Billy Crystal[edit]

Just accept it the way it is, it's not that big of a deal to everyone online. But to u it is, no offense by the way. I was the original person that made it from "{{Infobox comedian" to "{{Infobox person" in the past. As of then, I didn't like the way it looked when I made it like that before. And as of now I was changing it back to it's original Infobox setting that was accepted before in the past. So I'm ask kindly, please just accepted it the way it is please. I'm not trying to give u trouble, I was just explaining how it was before. 2600:1000:B00C:A259:A56C:E45E:4A7D:BD5D (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

if you revert it back one more time!, I will report you for vandalism! 2600:1000:B076:6A87:C9A8:67ED:39AC:FE10 (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Why'd you remove my edit on the 1997 page?[edit]

I tried to fix the Date unknown thing at the bottom of the page. Fleenstones (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @Fleenstones: The cited source only says "in October 1997"; why did you select the 24th? Wikipedia cannot make assertions without reliable sources for verification. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

2001 Birth images[edit]

When will images on births section on 2001 be allowed? -- (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images should be contained within a section without pushing into another. Also make sure the images chosen are of such quality where the person can be clearly identified.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 02:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2[edit]

Hello Loriendrew,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
A HUGE backlog

We now have 349 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.


This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections[edit]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Producer of the year Grammy[edit]

Hi! Sorry but 21 won 7 Grammy!! Paul Hepworth wins for producer for album of the Year e producer non classical !! And 25 also!! I don't understand why You don't do this: change the Numbers of the most honored albums !! Norah, U2, Amy , Dixie and more have one more Grammy for this award!!: Producer of the Year NonClassical!!! So hear me please.. bye bye and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocco'78 (talkcontribs) 22:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be introducing factual errors. As stated on your talk page, the Producer of the Year award is not for albums/songs/track, but is an award given for overall production. Record/Album of the year are given to producers for their work on that entity and are included.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3[edit]

Hello Loriendrew,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 349 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)