User talk:Rhododendrites

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

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.

Contents

DYK for Rossa Matilda Richter[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 1 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rossa Matilda Richter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first recorded human cannonball act was an 1877 London performance by 14-year-old Rossa Matilda Richter (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rossa Matilda Richter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rossa Matilda Richter), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pangolin trade[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Pangolin trade 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! — AJDS talk 11:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pangolin trade[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 11 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pangolin trade, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pangolins (example pictured) are believed to be the world's most trafficked mammal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pangolin trade. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pangolin trade), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the Cape Spear talk page. They offer a different viewpoint than mine in a considered and considerate manner that helps my understanding of the subject. Jghampton (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jghampton: Thanks for the barnstar/note! I'm glad it was helpful. Happy to talk more about it sometime. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Reply to AfD question[edit]

Hi Rhododendrites, Thank you for your query on my talk page. I posted a blurb on my user page, which you will find here: user:Oskinet. Cheers! --Oskinet (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Edna Webster Collection of Undiscovered Writings[edit]

A tag has been placed on Draft:The Edna Webster Collection of Undiscovered Writings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Possible G1 (no meaningful content or history) and G13 (has not been edited since 14:18, 6 September 2016‎)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Eh. Don't see any reason to delete it, but don't have a strong opinion (obviously there's not much there). The existence reminds me that I still need to come back to it, but I can appreciate that it's kind of goofy sitting in drafts. I've moved it to my userspace without redirect and removed the csd tag fyi. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I tagged it as it did not have any real meaningful content (just the title again with word 'is' if I recall correctly) and had not been edited in nearly 7 months. Of course, as cliche as it might be, nothing personal was meant in tagging it and I am glad to hear that you will work on it. I just hop through the drafts namespace using Special:Random/Draft looking for attack pages (they are rare in my limited experience, but have found a couple), G13 drafts, user pages created in wrong namespace (moving to proper username in user namespace if/when appropriate), expanding sports related drafts and moving when appropriate, fixing template errors, etc.
Hope all is well!
TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: When tagging it, I did not see the sidebar that was on the page and only saw the main draft content for some reason. If I had seen it I may not have tagged it in the first place. I am glad that good came out of it though in that I ended up reminding you to work on it :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Prophecy[edit]

In case you would like to keep a souvenir: [1] Face-smile.svg. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Ha. Thanks. I hate to admit when vandalism, mainspace jokes, etc. make me laugh. :) I'll keep this link handy in case I ever need to impress people with my soothsaying abilities (at an RfA, say). If you ever need a prophecy in the future, I'll get you a great deal. At the Rhododendrites Prophesy and Big Screen TV Emporium we know you'll never find a better price. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg although knowing that pastebin, it may eventually be lost, unless you also save the image. Although this was a mainspace joke, I only risked it because I knew the article was only hours or days away from deletion, and already had many unsourced claims already. Noone seems to have complained about it so far. Have a good day, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your userbox contributions to Wikipedia. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

New RfC at Plummer v. State[edit]

There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mia Borders[edit]

Have done suggested work, would you please go back to Template:Did you know nominations/Mia Borders to revisit? Many thanks. Moonraker (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Moonraker (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD nomination[edit]

Hi. I just saw your CSD nomination for Androphobia. What do you think of the new (sourced section) about historic usage of the term? Do you not think this constitutes enough material for discussion in an article? There is a sourced ICD classification now as well. Do you think another AfD might be more appropriate? Regards Basalisk inspect damageberate 10:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Basalisk: As I'm not an admin I don't have access to the deleted text, so they will have to evaluate whether it's sufficiently different to merit a separate discussion (it's been long enough that I remember the discussion and the problems, but not the text itself). The issue with it was that it conflated two meanings of the word, when neither meaning was particularly independently notable. One sense was, basically, misandry. The new version does generally leave that out. The other is the psychological phobia. There have been a lot of discussions about the various [prefix] + phobia formulations that find their way into listicles, with sometimes brief mentions in reliable sources. Looking at this version, the major issue is that it's a dictionary definition, about a word and its use over time, which is Wiktionary domain rather than Wikipedia. This is the case for several such -phobias simply because there's little else that can be said about them without relying on poor sources (pop culture sites, "fear of" sites, books of curiosities, pop psychology magazines, etc.). If there are reliable sources that talk about the subject (vs. the word) in depth and allow for a good article to be written about it, I'd certainly support keeping it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, you are the reviewing admin. Didn't check. Thought you were the article creator, sorry. Well, consider what I wrote above to be through that frame. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Youtube Project[edit]

Hi Rhododendrites,

My name’s Alex. I’m a student at American University, and I’m working on a project on Wikipedia and Youtube. I noticed you made a relatively large amount of edits to the List of Youtubers Wikipedia page and I was wondering if I could get your input on a few questions.

1. After talking to a few Wikipedians and doing some research, it seems as though Youtubers have a harder time obtaining a Wikipedia page and/or higher quality pages than other “traditional” professions. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, why do you think this is?

2. What could Wikipedia change to better accommodate notable figures from newer platforms like Youtube? What could Youtube do to better live up to Wikipedia standards?

3. If you could change the guidelines on Notability in any way, what changes would you make and why? If not, why do you think they’re stable enough that future societal progression could still be covered equally?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Ah2681a (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ah2681a: My response will reference or be informed by these policies and guidelines (rules the editing community has developed over the years): Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is NOT, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
Notability is the most relevant thing. It's a way of determining what should have an article, and with extremely rare exception comes down to what subjects have received "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". That's required for two reasons: first is because, as an encyclopedia and tertiary source, Wikipedia wants other publications to have declared a subject worthy of notice before it's covered here. Second is because without significant coverage in reliable sources, we have nothing to base an article on. Wikipedia is not a database, place for promotion, place for original research, etc., so any article that exists should be able to exist with an in-depth article based only on good sources. Someone can have a million subscribers, but if they haven't been written about by a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, there's nothing more we can say about them.
It's possible to perceive YouTubers, other social media celebrities, Internet memes, bands, etc. as having a harder time securing an article because anybody or anything with a couple dedicated fans can create articles and write about the subject on Wikipedia to the point of disruption, recreating articles when deleted, spamming other articles repeatedly, etc. So if there's a way that YouTubers may be treated unfairly, it's because disruption by YouTuber fans (sometimes egged on by the YouTuber themselves) is one area (one of many) where disruption is particularly common. Wikipedians are constantly dealing with people who want things they like on Wikipedia irrespective of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and other people who use Wikipedia for marketing/promotion/advertising purposes. YouTube is far from the worst for this, but happens a lot. It takes the time of other Wikipedians to clean it up, and so while I don't think I've seen people intentionally apply stricter standards, it seems likely that it may happen unconsciously when people come across an article, created for the sixth time, with a bunch of jokes strewn throughout and little-to-no claim to notability (in the Wikipedia sense). One example that came to mind was Filthy Frank. At this point, I don't think anyone disagrees he's notable, but for a while the only decent sources there were were brief mentions of his Harlem Shake video. The article was deleted repeatedly, and deleted repeatedly at his real name, and deleted repeatedly at all sorts of variations, and removed from dozens of other articles -- and those are just the ones that weren't created as a goof (i.e. adding a joke/reference to an unrelated article). It used up so much of people's time that there were still deletion discussions after it was more clear he was notable (but he was kept).
That said, notability criteria are definitely not biased against YouTubers. If anything, they're biased towards YouTubers. "Significant coverage" is easier for newer subjects than old, easier for subjects in the developed world than for the developing world, easier for subjects active on the Internet than those that aren't, easier for subjects whose activities are based on visibility than for those that don't do their work in front of a camera, etc. The important questions aren't how do we make Wikipedia even more disproportionate in terms of that coverage by applying special treatment to people who already have a huge advantage, but how we recognize the cultural or historical significance of people and subjects important in Papua New Guinea, Ghana, Cambodia, Latvia, or Benin, where it's harder to point to coverage in digital media to support notability. Even subjects that are ubiquitous in those countries (to the extent that's possible) can have a hard time receiving coverage here. Or we could talk about subjects in the US whose work is typically considered important but who don't receive significant coverage about them, like a lot of economists, anthropologists, historians, engineers, etc. Then there are the subjects that have been historically discriminated against, and far less likely to receive recognition in reliable sources of the day. There's a ton of research written on gaps in coverage, unequal coverage, etc. A lot of it comes down to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. All this said, I don't actually think there's anything we should be doing about this. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia to a large degree reflects the status quo, and thus reflects the social, political, and technological problems inherent in the production of "reliable sources" at any place/time in history. Nothing we can do about that. Certainly we should not try to create articles on subjects that don't have such coverage (hence collaborative efforts focusing on, say, African history or women in science). We can try our best to track down all of the notable subjects we can, but if there's no significant coverage in reliable sources, that's sort of the end of the line for Wikipedia.
Hope this rambling helps. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your quick reply Rhododendrites, I really appreciate all your feedback! Ah2681a (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Thanks for spotting the account impersonating me!

Deku-shrub (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Aww what a cute impersonator. :) Maybe you should take it as a sign of respect -- one wouldn't impersonate some random editor, but rather an authority/experienced user whose edits will be accepted. Or something. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Page you previously commented at[edit]

I see you recently previously commented at this page, maybe you can give your thoughts on Template_talk:Alt-right_sidebar#People_section. Sagecandor (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Eh. If I were to return to that template it would be to TfD it. At least last I checked, it was entirely the product of OR. Unclear to me that there are clean enough borders around "alt-right" topics such that a navigation template makes sense. I haven't sent it to TfD because I'm not sure and would rather not get sucked into those articles :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Why don't you do that? You'd be a strong voice to start the discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Because it's possible I'm wrong -- not about the OR, etc., but about the underlying idea of the template (i.e. it might be possible to do right, and figuring it out isn't a high priority for me). I'll participate if it's there, but I feel too much of an obligation to dig before I nominate for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the talk page, there have been fights in the past by multiple users about who to include in the "People" section. This template seems rife for conflict by its very nature of WP:BLP issues. I think you'd be better skilled to nominate it, than I. What do you say? Sagecandor (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I see you also previously raised concerns about its use at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Alt-right_sidebar and got no response. Sagecandor (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I changed it to a footer template. And also removed entries that did not mention the topic "alt right", at all, in their article's body text. Sagecandor (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Thanks. Made a few more edits, removing a few more that don't explicitly mention alt-right (other than in a category or headline). I suppose it's reasonable enough now that deletion isn't necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's better now. Alhough it will forever attract irrelevant junk. Sagecandor (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This is for researching and writing Sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States, for creating an elegant third option to the rape tree debate, and for immediately following up with the selective merge. Gorgeous work all around! ♠PMC(talk) 18:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: Thanks! Article still needs a lot of work, of course, and I hope to come back to it soon. I have to say, though... after reading through those sources, it's the only time I can think of that I worked on an article while wishing it weren't notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification[edit]

Information.svg

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:List of massacres by country[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Draft:List of massacres by country, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of massacres by country and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:List of massacres by country during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Crimetown[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 20 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crimetown, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The New York Times said the podcast Crimetown "advances the [true crime] genre" and called it one of the "Best New Podcasts of 2016"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crimetown. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Crimetown), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - TheMagnificentist 13:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Rhode Island banking crisis[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 22 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rhode Island banking crisis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Rhode Island banking crisis of the early 1990s, hundreds of thousands of people lost access to their money? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rhode Island banking crisis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rhode Island banking crisis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment March[edit]

Hello! You participated in a discussion about merging the Not My Presidents Day article. I was wondering if you'd be interested in sharing your thoughts on the proposed merge of Impeachment March into the Efforts to impeach Donald Trump article? If you're not interested, no problem. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bonded Vault heist[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 29 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bonded Vault heist, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1975, eight men stole $30 million from the Providence Mafia and associates in the Bonded Vault heist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bonded Vault heist. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bonded Vault heist), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 00:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

false accusation of rape[edit]

Who gave you the right to delete my contribution to the "False Accusations of Rape" page. The story was properly cited! February, 1987, Penthouse, page 18. What more do you need?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.97 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

on wikipedia, everyone has that right. if I didn't, I assure you someone else would. for such a controversial topic we need sources of the highest possible quality, and all of the content added needs to be supported by the cited source. penthouse is not reliable for such a subject. The person you quoted may be, but ideally we'd be citing research published in a peer reviewed journal or something of similar authority. But don't get me wrong, I'm just an editor here. you're welcome to follow the next step in the WP:BRD process (basically means the status quo rules until there's consensus to change) by opening a discussion of the material on the article talk page. if there's a consensus to add it, then no problem. As you may imagine, this article is subject to a ton of poor sources, opinion, and plain old vandalism, so any non minor change would probably need to go through the talk page first. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:AADD[edit]

I have added more content to provide a more balanced perspective at WP:PRONLY. North America1000 05:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Thanks, but it still doesn't seem to me like it fits at AADD. The argument is still a perfectly valid one when it's accurate, but any inaccurate statement should be something to avoid (without specifying each). I do appreciate that it is perhaps an argument too commonly used as an overgeneralization, but don't know that that means it needs to be included.. But I'd rather not start a parallel discussion here -- I opened a talk page discussion there that would benefit from your input/contextualization. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivory destruction[edit]

So, are you going to photograph the destruction of ivory in Central Park today? cart-Talk 13:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@W.carter: ah! No. thanks for the heads up but I'm in Colorado at the moment (adding to my growing backlog of pictures to edit/upload). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I can relate. Face-smile.svg --cart-Talk 16:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Drive Ins[edit]

Sorry about that. I did review & my thinking was that if it was never going to be notable, which seemed to be the case, it shouldn't remain a redlink. StarM 17:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: The MOS guidelines for such a scenario aren't clearly defined, to be sure, but the typical guidance for delinking redlinks when found to not be notable is most applicable to redlinks in prose. With a list, the blue/red/black distinction is more significant than simply linking to a page or not -- it's a way to determine if it fits the most common kinds of inclusion criteria. Most (though certainly not all) lists require notability for inclusion (WP:CSC, etc.). When an entry in such a list is deleted, delinking it makes that now-inappropriate entry harder to find. I commonly watch AfDs and, if deleted, look at the "what links here" to remove it from lists for which it no longer meets the inclusion criteria. If it's delinked before I do that, there's no way to find it outside of a text search (which can be difficult). In this case, it's a list that several people watch, but when it's not those non-notable entries pile up and signal to potential contributors that anything can be added. There are also scripts to highlight redlinks and redlinks stand out more than black text when scanning a list. Some people skip lists altogether when delinking a deleted page, but IMO the best way to go would be to just look for the inclusion criteria for the list (hopefully on the talk page or evident from the list itself, e.g. all blue links). Anyway, sorry for the rant. It's not a great big deal. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No worries, it's not a rant and is super helpful to me. I've found that each content area (project, type, whatever) has general practices that may sometimes differ from the MOS, even at times when the MOS is more clear. TBH, I hate closing AFDs, but if I do get active there again I'll certainly follow your tip re: looking for criteria. I had to go find that script since the one I used when I used to be active no longer worked and was afraid I'd miss a st ep if I tried to close manually. But will keep it in mind too should it come up with speedies or other situations. Thanks! StarM 19:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: Sounds good. Thanks for your efforts with maintenance tasks. If it makes it easier to forego the looking for the inclusion criteria step, you can ping me or leave a message here with a list of, er, lists. I go on fairly frequent list cleanup-a-thons. :) Whatever's easiest, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Will do, thanks again StarM 02:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Octopus Frontier[edit]

Hello, Rhododendrites. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Octopus Frontier".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Women's rights in 2013[edit]

Hello, Rhododendrites. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Women's rights in 2013".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
personalities pictured
... you were recipient
no. 1468 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Grams phish[edit]

Hi Rhododentrites, thanks for the barnstar. :D

I wanted to ask your opinion on Grams (search) article. I just added a sentence about a newsworthy phish scam. Should we include the correct onion address? I listed reasons+references on the talk page. I just want to be totally sure about it and you seem to have longer experience with the Tor articles. --Nanite (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nanite: looks fine to me (it seems within the bounds of current practice to include given the sources available). The big issue with that page was the repeated addition of sketchy clearnet urls -- if there's one that has the backing of decent sources, I don't see that there would be any more problem adding it to this one than any other article?
BTW I saw that article about the phishing site. Ran a linksearch to find that it was linked from one article (Agora), added by a single edit account more than 2 years ago :/ — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, it looks like the site didn't start as a scam, but got taken over: compare this archive from 2 years ago to what you see on the page now. --Nanite (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input[edit]

Thanks for your input into the 'task force' discussion; you're right-on, and I think we're seeing the same things. The utter GAME-craftiness of some is just amazing, sometimes, and I had one 'low numbers' case that took ten years to overcome. I'll give you an answer in the RfC when I have more time, but in the meantime, you can look at the case I have in mind if you're interested [2]: if I hadn't done some sleuthing and caught them red-handed, it would still be ongoing, no doubt. Cheers. TP   20:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi Rhododendrites, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! And I've definitely started using edit summaries, feel free to call me out if you see me forget. ansh666 22:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Have a thought at your split-second reverts[edit]

After careful scrutiny of rubbish and poorly sourced content added on B. Dolan, I reverted it and marked the edit minor in compliance with the use of minor edits by Sysops and Rollbackers: (Minor edits#Exceptions). In a jiffy, without any study of the content I removed you reverted me and restored the rubbish. Then you left a chilly accusation that I don't leave ES, which is false; I did marked it minor, and definition of minor edit is known to every autoconfirmed user at least. You also claimed I didn't leave YOU a talk page message, that I made a revert at certain page!! I don't know how to comment on this. Later, you understand your mistake. Then you silently reverted back to my revision. Hence you made a useless revert and re-revert which wouldn't have happened if you studied the text for 30 seconds. You kept mute because you can't eat the humble pie and apologize for wrongly reverting me. Anyway I don't need that, for there is more important that that. What is important, is for you to review how you use revert and rollback privileges, because you are reverting people blindly without given recourse to due process of examining what was removed or contacting the revertee. I said this because this is not the first time you hurriedly reverted editor without knowing what you're reverting; In this exchange: User talk:Rhododendrites#Fake News Website reverted edit, you equally hurriedly reverted editor who removed unsourced content, later you apologized claiming you misunderstood his revert, after someone reverted your re-introduction of unsourced content. I don't used to engage for long chats here (because that is not what I am here for) but your penchant for split-second reverts without reading and temerity of realizing you grave mistake and keeping mute is particularly worth noting –Ammarpad (talk) 08:32, 8 October 20

@Ammarpad: The point of my initial revert wasn't so much about the content. I looked to see it wasn't vandalism, blatant spam, etc., saw a couple not-the-worst sources in the wikitext, and felt it was a problematic revert. Looking a bit closer, though I think some of it could be salvaged, the sources are problematic enough that reverting isn't unreasonable. So, to be clear, you were right that it should probably be removed. To anyone with experience on Wikipedia, that will become apparent, so yes, you were right about that, and I should've looked closer before my initial revert. Complication mea culpa.
Instead, I should've left the edit alone and left a message on your talk page to raise the issues I mentioned in the edit summary. You reverted someone who is not an experienced editor, but a new user, who added 2,722 bytes of easy-to-AGF content. You used the edit summary "Reverted edits by JoanOfArcadia (talk) to last version by Deoli1" (i.e. a semi-automated description of your action with no information by way of explanation/reasoning/intention/motivation). Even if it's vandalism, it's helpful to others to say even something as short as "rvv" or to otherwise add a word or two more than "reverted". If it's only a vague description of actions, it's typically taken as equivalent to an empty edit summary because it provides no information about intentions/reasons.
When I said in my edit summary "revert with no meaningful edit summary, no reasoning, no user talk page message, and no article talk page message" I was not talking about my talk page (?), but the user whom you reverted. (I was complicit in this too last night, as it looks like I forgot to save before going to bed).
If you don't use an edit summary that gives an actual reason, if you don't leave a talk page message, if you don't leave a user talk message, etc. then how is the new user going to have any idea why the content was removed or, more importantly, what was wrong with it or how to do better next time? That's the whole point.
So TL;DR I'll accept the criticism of my hasty revert, and add a request to use more descriptive edit summaries when not leaving a talk page message. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Maroon Bells[edit]

Maroon Bells (11553)a.jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Maroon Bells (11553)a.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 06:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

AWB adding orpan tag in error[edit]

Thank you for noting and correcting the mistake in my edit of Climate Hustle. The orphan tag was indeed incorrect. Any idea why AWB is placing orphan tag in error? I noticed it was seeming to come up quite frequently on my most recent use. Thank you for your contributions. MrBill3 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@MrBill3: No problem. I'm afraid I don't know why it would place that tag. Perhaps it considers an article to be an orphan if it has two or fewer incoming links? Not sure. IMO the orphan tag is best skipped unless accompanied by other tags/edits to an article, since it's usually a really easy issue to fix rather than tag. It's been a while since I've done a lot of AWB use, but I do remember the orphan tag being occasionally a sensitive issue with some people. FWIW. That doesn't actually have anything to do with the error. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think restarting AWB cleared up the problem. I appreciate your opinion and to some extent agree that it would be better to do a little work and link the article. I do bits and pieces as well as in depth editing so in some cases I think the tag can call others to the task. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 10 years ago...[edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy First Edit Day, Rhododendrites, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Happy Anniversary R. Cheers to the next ten as well!! Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Slightlymad, MarnetteD, and Chris troutman: Thanks! And what an excellent first edit it was. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I wish I could remember what I edited as an IP. I'm fairly sure there are some more test edits/breaching experiments sorts of nonsense when a professor introduced me to editing Wikipedia in class a yearish before registering... meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Rhododendrites,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Your edit on Comparison of wiki hosting services[edit]

It’s fine, but, I feel like if you remove that one than you should remove some of the others because Miraheze has a better Alexa ranking than some of the ones listed. It s a very popular wiki host. Thanks. MacFan4000 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@MacFan4000: Thanks for the note. Just to be clear, "notable" on Wikipedia is wikijargon. See WP:N. It's about being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. For the purpose of most lists, since Wikipedia is not a web directory, etc., it usually means that an entry should have its own stand-alone article citing sufficient sources to show notability. Alexa rating alone doesn't count for much in terms of notability -- it's sort of how we defer judgment of what's important to other publications rather than make the determination ourselves. If there's a good amount of coverage, you may want to consider starting an article or a draft (e.g. Draft:Miraheze). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh I didn't even realize Draft:Miraheze already existed. Looks like it ran into some trouble with notability. If you know of more publications about it, you may want to contribute them there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion of Miraheze[edit]

I seen you recently deleted the Miraheze entry on the Comparison of wiki hosting services page. This deletion, I believe was totally unneeded and another example of the rancid deletionist policy which has infected Wikipedia seriously. Miraheze is notable. It has a better Alexa rank than 6 of the listed sites and there is full citations provided. I have reverted your edits. CnocBride (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@CnocBride: I've left a message on your talk page - create the article first before adding it to that page. See Draft:Miraheze. On another note, you have a conflict of interest from your volunteering with Miraheze -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@CnocBride: Please see two sections up on this page someone else made nearly the same comment. Notability and Alexa rank are not related to each other (except that, I suppose, something with a particularly high Alexa rank is likely to be notable, but the fact doesn't make it notable). I have no idea if it's notable; what matters is that notability be demonstrated before being added to the list (typically by citing a bunch of good sources in an article about the subject). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Rhododendrites.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

List of Android devices[edit]

Hi, I'm messaging you because you participated in the creation of or contributed significantly to the article List of Android devices. I have reviewed the page and made a note of some issues at the top of the article. You may wish to participate in the discussion at Talk:List of Android devices and your help addressing any of these issues would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and have a great day! Edaham (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chess.com logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chess.com 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) 18:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

CFP for academic conference on Wikipedia and Academia[edit]

I'm sure this will be of interest to you: https://networks.h-net.org/node/14775/discussions/1077907/call-papers-academia-and-wikipedia-critical-perspectives. - kosboot (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kosboot: of interest, indeed. Unfortunately a conference in Ireland isn't likely this summer, but thanks for sharing it -- I'd certainly welcome the ping if you come across this sort of thing again. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Snowflake macro (Unsplash).jpg Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <tt> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

— <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ : — Rhododendrites talk \\

to

— <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ : — Rhododendrites talk \\

Anomalocaris (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature. Sorry for not escaping the ampersand in &mdash;, which needlessly made more work for you. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Cambodian Rock Stuff[edit]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that there has been some more chitchat of interest over at Talk:Ros Serey Sothea. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Firewheel[edit]

Gaillardia in Aspen (91273).jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Gaillardia in Aspen (91273).jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 16:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor[edit]

FYI, when you placed this tag, you probably didn't notice that a different editor made that edit. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: Ah! I did notice, but then I wrote the wrong name anyway. :) Thanks for the note. Fixed now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem, all good... AzureCitizen (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Two of my favorite editors under the same header! I hope all is well with you both. (Rwaytz = Ruth666, by the way.) Rhodo, I haven't been ignoring your effort to re-focus the discussion on how to describe TST; I've just been hesitant to disrupt the relative calm there. I'll be returning my attention to it shortly, it seems. I'm going to stalk your edits to a DRV-in-progress first, and comment. I noticed Jobas has been active at the AfD and the article under discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar![edit]

'nuff said! DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Bend in the Road Through the Forest has a new comment[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bend in the Road Through the Forest. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Liev Tuk[edit]

Hey, last month we were in a discussion elsewhere about the folks on Cambodian Rocks and you mentioned trying and failing to find anything on Liev Tuk. Romanization of his name has been all over the place and I have seen references to Liv Tuk, Lieu Thaert, Ly Tek, and Leav Tek in various places, and there are probably more names out there but I believe they're all the same guy. Anyway I found a little bit of research on him. See this: [3]. Scroll down and you will see a description of the guy (as Leav Tek) at the bottom of page 8. Not enough for an article but it might soothe your curiosity a bit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: Thanks. FYI I'm not ignoring this; just waiting for a free evening to jump into the multiple searches. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: While we're at it, I would like to do some serious work to clean up the Sinn Sisamouth article. If you have a minute, please see Talk:Sinn Sisamouth#Citations and Verifiability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.[edit]

Hello Rhododendrites,

I followed your advice and the fake page has now disappeared. So, all done successfully, great thanks to you. All the best. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: Good news. Thanks for following up on that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarity on discussion[edit]

Hi Rhododendrites! I was typing up a reply over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concerning image changes on animal articles when it was closed. I just wanted to clarify that, while my initial comment focused on the image changes the user was making, I was not, at all disregarding their ability to choose lead images which feature the animal's full body. Rather, I should have been more explicit in pointing out their continued attempts to replace images which were obviously better than their pick – against MOS:LEADIMAGE, despite being told many, many times about the guideline and others related to images. (Such as multiple instances of moving the previous lead image they replaced to another position against WP:PERTINENCE.) I also did mention BRD in edit summaries and on an article talk page, but no actual conversation occurred on talk pages.

Without the ability to understand our image-related guidelines, I don't see how will they ever be able to contribute positively. I simply aimed to find a way to convey this to them, so I needed a more experienced editor who has more extensively dealt with new user behavior such as this. I have little doubt the user is acting in good faith (despite the rapid rate at which they swap images) but their insistence on obviously poor choices were disruptive in absence of discussion, not a content dispute. (e.g. this pick over the previous in November and still in place, this pick over the previous which I mentioned took way too much effort to fix, and this one multiple times (and others) over this featured picture). I'm just becoming impatient and annoyed, having attempted to communicate with them at least eight separate times since November. :[ Rhinopias (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: My comment was mainly to say that it's a debate I've seen multiple times, with no clear guidance, and that he/she should really consider BRD before it does result in sanctions. Of course, it looks like Swarm indeffed the account anyway, so my prediction about likely admin action was incorrect. :) FWIW if someone changes the picture for the worse, you would be right to just revert. If they keep doing it (as I know he/she has in this case), it is a problem, but an easily solved one that doesn't really need to have anything to do with image guidelines. I wonder if the best approach in the future might be to ping a wikiproject or other editors of the page for a third opinion. I'm generally happy to give a third opinion in matters for which my opinion isn't a given (i.e. where it would be canvassing), and I feel pretty neutral on the subject of animal pictures, so would be happy to jump in if that would be helpful (not that I know what I'm talking about -- it can just help to have even one other person involved sometimes). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Noted! The only other situation I've encountered long-term with an editor that didn't collaborate I posted on ANI successfully, so that's why I brought it there. But a WikiProject may be a good venue (if there's a) next time. I will say though that I think "an easily solved one" doesn't really account for this user's particular activity, which was especially significant in October/November (here). Many of the user's earlier image changes (which may or may not be beneficial) had misrepresenting edit summaries (like the anole one, "That's better.", or the various "Updating image"/"Image maintenance" or whatever) or didn't have one, so the edits that have followed are simple fixes or bot edits and the image change may have not been seen on many of the articles. It'd be different I think if a user is continually making a poor image change less often each day on higher profile species. Rhinopias (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thank you[edit]

Dragon dance meets bird at NYC Lunar New Year parade (52336)e.jpg

Most of the time I assume that no one notices my editing, but your thank you is very rewarding and appreciated. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)   06:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): I just happened across SandyGeorgia's thread at WTMED and was happy to see you dove right into one of the articles. In addition to just being good Wikipediaing, it's an important subject that I would've had no idea was problematic if I read it for my own edification (the sort of thing I should do more of). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): By the way, you should check out the Visiting Scholars Slack channel. It's only just getting started, but if you don't already use a Wikipedia-related chat service, it might be up your alley as an easy way to connect with other Wikipedians. (it's in an email I sent a few weeks ago, though the invitation should've come separately). I'm hoping that it'll become a useful way to share sources, share topic ideas, ask questions, or anything else. No problem if you don't think it would be a good fit for you, though. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sandy was right in insisting that articles on screening should rise to the top of the ProjectMed to-do list. I just roll my eyes when I take a look at the recent changes log and see so many edits related to pop-culture med/health articles. I'll take a look chat service, but I am already quite gifted in chatting and others might be better served by silence from my side of the peanut gallery. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   06:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): Ha. Just thought of it because of the "assume that no one notices" comment. :) If it's not of use to you, that's fine. A few of us are logged into Slack all the time regardless (Wiki Ed and Wiki NYC both maintain active Slack channels). I think Women in Red has a channel that I've been meaning to look into a for a while, too. I like that it functions both synchronously (like normal chat) and asynchronously (like posting a message for someone whenever they log in), but I appreciate that it could be redundant/unnecessary for others. :) Thanks again for all your work on that article. I'll leave you with this unrelated picture I just uploaded. At the Chinese New Year parade on Sunday, a brief encounter between a tiny colorful bird and a large colorful dragon. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC[edit]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dirt Candy[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 6 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dirt Candy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Manhattan vegetarian restaurant Dirt Candy is "waging war on the 'eat your vegetables' mind-set"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dirt Candy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dirt Candy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

100% RT[edit]

The list isn't just films with a Critic Consensus though. It's films with that OR with 20 or more reviews. You can still have films with no Critic Consensus as long as they have 20 or more reviews, I believe. Only if a film has less than 20 reviews and no Critic Consensus will they not be added. I've been making sure the films I add are 20 or more reviews.

@KidsAndTheirGadgets: I know there was talk of number of reviews and critics' consensus as ways to restrict the list, but I do see that in this section, Talk:List_of_films_with_a_100%_rating_on_Rotten_Tomatoes#After_third_AfD, the top line/closing statement seems pretty unequivocal about the critics consensus being required (presumably because CC presumes some minimum number of reviews?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey look, a barnstar for you![edit]

Art+Feminism Barnstar.svg The Art+Feminism Barnstar
Thank you for your support for Art+Feminism!
this WikiAward was given to Rhododendrites by Theredproject (talk) on 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

More Cambodian Rock Stuff[edit]

Hey, you might be interested in some more developments in our coverage of Cambodian rock. ------ Today I created the new article Drakkar (band). They're the hard rock group near the end of the story in Don't Think I've Forgotten. I decided to seek their tunes online and found that their long-lost 1974 album has been unearthed and rereleased, and the band has reformed for some concerts. That in turn inspired some news coverage that gave me material to create a WP article. Please check it out! ------ Also, I recently did a massive overhaul of the Sinn Sisamouth article, which had been an unsourced and unverifiable disaster for many years. I have grown fatigued from rereading my own work again and again, so the article might need a typo check if you're so inclined. Thanks! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Gowanus Batcave[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 1 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gowanus Batcave, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after many years battling the forces of darkness, the Batcave became a popular venue for underground parties and concerts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gowanus Batcave. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gowanus Batcave), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey Invite[edit]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_6FOEwDKP5vjULLT&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

List of cryptids[edit]

If you're interested in this topic, please weigh in over at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#What_to_do_about_List_of_cryptids?. As I see it, this article has no scope, cannot be referenced with anything resembling a reliable source, and serves as nothing more than a magnet for fringe additions. I'd like to know if I'm somehow wrong. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Done. Though not in the sense I think you're looking for. You sent this page to AfD. It was closed snow keep. You've been trying to remove the content for years, sometimes with pushback, and sometimes with consensus (or at least consent) -- and sometimes for very good reason -- but now you're claiming that because of a discussion on WP:FTN you have consensus to redirect it, without even posting so much as a notice on the article's talk page ... and then you edit war to restore that redirect??? That's just disruptive. Take it to the talk page. I don't see a point in getting into more subject-specific discussions anywhere else. — Rhododendrites talk \\
Please see my response at the fringe theory talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers[edit]

The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: Thanks. I commented on this since I would have anyway, being on my watchlist, but for the future you'll probably want to take care to word notices like this a bit more neutrally (otherwise those you leave messages for could have their opinions colored by WP:CANVAS). I.e. "The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. Leaving this message for you as you participated in the previous AfD." FWIW — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I usually do. Sometimes it gets the best of us. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GreenMeansGo[edit]

Did you intend to remove my reaffirmed support from the page? If you did, may I ask why? Best, OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra: Yikes! Very bizarre that I didn't even get an edit conflict error. Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it (and also sorry to Javert2113, whose comment I somehow removed at the same time, and thanks to Pawnkingthree for fixing that one). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries! I thought that it might have been a mistake, but I wanted to be sure. Face-grin.svg Stranger things have happened on this site. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we even have an article about it, though I haven't seen it yet. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Eh, things happen. — Javert2113 (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

N[edit]

Sorry that you feel like I was misrepresenting you: that wasn’t the intent. I simply disagree with your view that sourcing is required throughout N separate from the GNG, which I suspect is why we were talking past each other. FWIW, I find the ARS comparison a bit funny, as they are the main reason I hate the GNG and want to move as far as possible away from it. My point is that a merit-based system would work so long as WP:V is met. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the message. While you were leaving it, I was removing my last comment there, which doesn't really further the discussion. I don't know how you can possibly read WP:N that way, without skipping over the nutshell and several of the sections, but hey,(can't help myself) we can resume the discussion when it actually matters. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Wiki Loves Food[edit]

Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Any input?[edit]

Hey, didn't know if this would be something you'd be interested in or not: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Student_welcome. (This is Shalor, btw) ReaderofthePack (。◕‿◕。) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: I agree it needs updating. It has for quite some time, really. Wiki Ed tends to prefer the community edit the education program pages that aren't only relevant to the US/Canada, so I've not felt comfortable doing so. I'd be happy to help on the talk page if someone else wants to rework it, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Data base Horizon pleins textes[edit]

I dont understand why you reverted my edit. I was mentionning as an academic database that is also a repository known world wide of a French research institute called IRD-Institut de recherche pour le développement You can verify the existence of the database. http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/ I am not knowledgeable enough to revert your revert. Rigas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigas (talkcontribs) 19:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rigas: Hi there. Thanks for adding to Wikipedia. Most lists on Wikipedia do not aim to be exhaustive, including everything that exists. There are some examples, but they're usually things like "list of states in the United States", "discography of the Rolling Stones," "list of prime ministers of australia," etc. -- lists that can definitively include everything in a set rather than examples of a type. The way we typically restrict inclusion is to include only notable examples. "Notable" is Wikipedia jargon (see WP:N) for a threshold of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that would justify having an encyclopedia article on that subject. For simplicity, many lists just say "only include examples with Wikipedia articles" (with the presumption that the article shows notability via its citations, and that if it does not the article will be deleted). That's why I removed what you added here. Note that all the rest of the databases/search engines in that list are blue links, pointing to a Wikipedia article. You may want to consider writing the article about it if it is a notable example. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Event coordinator granted[edit]

Wikipedia Event coordinator.svg

After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

  • The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
  • The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "confirmed" permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
  • The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
  • Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there...[edit]

...a tutorial on using AWB? I saw you were a user and it has been very difficult for me to figure out how to use it. Is there a youtube video or something? Best Regards, Barbara   23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): I'm not sure about a tutorial, but there is a user manual.
I remember being a little overwhelmed by it myself -- it's a surprisingly powerful tool. If there's something specific you want to use it for, I may be able to help with steps. That's presuming nothing major has changed in the last few years (I used it a lot a few years ago, but not much since).
Once you get permission to use it, install it, and log in, the first step is to make a list of articles in the bottom-left panel. I usually just use my user contributions, but you could use anything. Use the "source" drop-down. One of the most common people use is a category. The "recurse" options are how many subdirectories to look in. "Category" is just that category. "Category (recurse 1 level)" is that category and its subcategories. If you select "Category (recurse user defined levels)" it will prompt you for a number. Each number adds all of the subdirectories of all of the subdirectories (adds up quickly). For the sake of example, let's try Category:American women film producers with recurse 1 level. That yields a list of 191 pages.
Once you have a list, click "filter". Select "sort alphabetically" and "remove duplicates". Make sure nothing is checked in the first two columns aside from "Main/Article" (AWB works in any namespace, but you should get used to articles before messing with talk pages IMO). Then click "apply". That brings the list down to 186 pages for me.
Next step are those tabs in the bottom-middle panel.
Options tab: Auto changes are a big reason people use AWB. I tend to keep auto tag, apply general fixes, and unicodify whole page checked. I also check regex typo fixing. Find and replace is powerful, and I have a bunch of things that I keep stored in there (remember to save your settings btw), but I'd skip it while you're learning the program.
To keep it simple, I'd skip the "more" tab. In the "disambig" tab, again, to keep it simple at first I'd turn off "enable disambiguation".
"Skip" tab: the only things I have checked here are to skip if the "page is in use", "no changes are made", "only whitespace", "only casing", "only minor genfixes". A pet peeve for a lot of people is AWB use to make changes that don't really do anything. If you don't pay attention to what it's doing, it'll make an edit just to remove an extra space at the end of a paragraph (i.e. a space that nobody can see because there's no text after it) and all sorts of other pointless edits. If you're making a bunch of other edits that are more substantial, then it doesn't hurt to do that too, but you want to make sure there's some noticeable improvement. "genfixes" are those sorts of minor details. It'll reorder references, add or remove line breaks, make formatting changes, etc. of various significance. I automatically skip it if it only changes whitespace, only changes casing (this isn't just article text but templates, etc. casing that nobody can see unless you edit the page), and only minor genfixes.
Finally, under the start tab, you can change the edit summary you use, and mark it as a minor edit, which is a good idea. When you're ready, click "start".
Once you start, it'll show you a diff of the proposed changes. It doesn't save automatically. You need to decide whether to "skip" or "save" in that start panel. If it looks like a useful edit, save it. If it doesn't look useful, skip it. If it's partially useful, you can either save and then go back manually, or you can use the bottom-right "edit box" to edit manually through AWB. The different tabs of that panel show you different aspects of what it has noticed and/or wants to change about that page in particular.
If you used my example category above, Category:American women film producers, the first one to pop up is probably Angela Robinson, where AWB wants to change "award winning" to "award-winning". That seems like a useful enough change to me, so I'd save it (I'm skipping for now so you can use that as an example if you want). It also noticed multiple wikilinks (look in the start tab towards the bottom). Since each link should only be linked in its first instance, you can remove the others (as with anything AWB-related, though, it requires some care, since it's ok to link to something more than once if doing so in the lead, caption, infobox, tables, lists, etc.).
The next one is Adriadne Getty. It wants to make several changes. Whether changing "September 30th" to "September 30" is a significant change is debatable, but it also moves a comma from after to before a reference, which is useful, so I'd save that one too.
And so on. This is perhaps more than you asked for. Let me know if it's not the sort of help you were looking for. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much! You put in a lot of time to explain this to me and you didn't have to do it. You cut right through the parts I didn't understand in the users manual. Thank you. Aren't you supposed be studying or writing or something? Best Regards, Barbara   19:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dark purple Trichoglottis[edit]

Sorry for the late response. I think it's worth renominating after the fix. Tomer T (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tomer T: Thanks. Not sure if I'll renominate sooner or later, but at some point. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible AfD[edit]

Hello. I see you posted the AfD for Ideological bias on Wikipedia and I wonder whether you think that this article, Metropolitan bias, should also be deleted. To me it looks like POV OR cobbled together with some SYNTH misappropriation of unrelated sources that are not addressing the topic stated in the lede. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm not sure. It does seem like it pulls together a few different topics nominally related to "urban areas are different from rural areas". Would probably require some additional research before I felt comfortable opining in any "official" capacity. To the extent it's about media bias, it would likely make a sensible addition to the media bias article. It's the media bias plus the other elements of the article that makes it possibly problematic in pulling together various things that are just, again, differences in statistics, coverage, etc. of urban vs. rural areas. Not sure. I'll watch the article, but won't be nominating it for deletion. I'd want to do more research first. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I commented on the WP bias AfD talk page with some of my concern. I think it's cherrypicking statements about "bias" in diverse meanings to support a narrative of political or ideological bias. I started to do an AfD but got confused with all the templates and gave up. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: FYI WP:TW makes XfD really really easy. Just use the XfD tab, type in the reason, and it takes care of the rest. That's not an endorsement of deletion of this page, necessarily, but technical reasons shouldn't be cause not to. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Book Expo[edit]

Barnstar-camera.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Thank you for braving the crowds at Javits/BookCon to take author photos for Wikimedia Commons! The pictures of John Kerry and Sally Fields are my favorites. Jaldous1 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jaldous1: Thanks! Just finished uploading/adding the last batch of them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:RRTF[edit]

Trident logo.svgHello, Rhododendrites! I'd like to invite you to join the Rick Riordan Task Force (formerly the "Percy Jackson" Task Force) of WikiProject Novels. We work to improve articles related to Rick Riordan and his books. We appreciated the new image and are always looking for new supporters. Even if you're only tangentially interested, look us up! We have very few requirements. Please, check out our project page or contact me to learn more! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
*Please note that membership is open only to full users. If you currently edit with an IP address, please consider creating an account today! We would love to have you.

@2ReinreB2: Thanks for the invite, and I'm glad you you found the pic useful. I confess I've not read anything by Riordan, though. :) I'm familiar enough with his work that he was on my shortlist of people I wanted to get a picture of at the BookExpo this past weekend (other pics here), but a task force about his work is not a particularly good fit for me. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I understand, thanks for replying. We've been trying to branch out and recruit members with interests outside the books (technical editors, copyeditors, etc.) but with very little success. I appreciate you taking the time to read our message! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dark purple Trichoglottis/2[edit]

Dark purple Trichoglottis (70213s)c.jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Dark purple Trichoglottis (70213s)c.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

29 June 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rape in Germany. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Please observe you have reverted the same content twice already in less than 24 hours, which, should you persist, could lead to the consequences outlined on the previous paragraph.

Thank you. — XavierItzm (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Context for posterity. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for voting! Heathart (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Malayalam Britannica listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malayalam Britannica. Since you had some involvement with the Malayalam Britannica redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gotitbro (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

External Link Removal[edit]

Your Message- Hello, I'm Rhododendrites. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Tor (anonymity network) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply- Sir I had provided a relevant link, I took that material from the provided source. Please reconsider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmohan23 (talkcontribs) 14:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lakshmohan23: Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia. There is a page which outlines what's considered a reliable source on Wikipedia here: WP:RS. It looks like that's a blog with only a couple posts, which falls short of that guideline in a couple different ways. Most obviously it does not have a demonstrable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That doesn't mean it's not accurate or good -- just that that's not enough. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for this. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Meas Samon.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Liev Tuk.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Licem u lice.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new list[edit]

I saw you're a member of WP:WPLISTS, and I was wondering if you had any time or interest in helping me create a list of Honeywell products and services. In the interest of transparency, I have a paid COI, but it was recommended to me by another user that a list article would be a better space for this content than the Honeywell article itself. I created a draft from the content I initially proposed for the article here. Do you have and advice or suggestions on how I could further improve it?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: Hi. Can't say I know much (anything) about Honeywell, aside from it being a very large company, but you're right that I do look at a lot of lists. One type of list that I don't come across often -- but which is a type we have in some cases -- is the list of products by a given company. There are different kinds of list categories. When it's a list of notable products (specifically, products that each have their own stand-alone Wikipedia article), then it makes sense (as long as there's more than a handful of them) to justify a navigational aid. Another category of list are those that act as an extension of a parent article. If a list of products would make sense in the company article (and I would argue that it does not make sense in most company articles), but would be too long there, it can be spun out to a separate list page. Most of the time, however, a list article is notable topic in its own right. So most of the time, I think a list of all or most products is going to be a problem for WP:NOT (the idea that Wikipedia is not a product catalog or an extension of a company website) except when those products are highly notable, historically significant, or culturally important in some unusual way. Companies like Xerox, Ford, IBM, or Kodak come to mind because their historical product line is closely tied to the histories of different media/technology, for example (and in Ford's case, basically every product they've made is independently notable). If everything that isn't an article about a Honeywell product (not a product category) is removed, it might make for a fine navigational aid, if the editors at the Honeywell article think it would make sense to consider a "spin-out" from that article, then that would be fine, too. If it's a notable list in its own right, I'd want to see reliable third party coverage that treats Honeywell products as a group. Including product categories in that case doesn't make sense to me, because you're not talking about specific products anymore, but product categories that really only belong on the company page (or on this page if treated as a spin-out).
I feel like I may be overcomplicating things and don't know if this is helpful at all. :) I brought up this question elsewhere and will ping those editors here in case they have better advice. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You're not overcomplicating things at all! On the contrary, I really appreciate such a thorough response. Part of what I've found challenging about creating this list is that Honeywell makes hundreds, if not thousands of different products across its different business groups. I can see that using notability would be a great tool to help determine what's worthy of inclusion. I think it took me a little while to realize that it should be the guiding principle, as I was initially spurred on by the 3 year old flag for expansion, and an potential misinterpretation of another editor's request for references as meaning sources to demonstrate that Honeywell does in fact sell those products. I think I've got a lot to work with here, so I'll get to it. Would you mind if I reach back out to you to review a more refined version?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@FacultiesIntact: Sounds good. I'll be here. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Hello again! Based on some feedback I got from another editor, I pared down the proposed list article to some introductory prose alongside a list based on the existing section and supplemented with links to other existing articles. The thought is that by migrating all of the content to the separate list article it will reduce bloat on the existing Honeywell article, as well as consolidate all of the information in one place, helping to avoid discrepancies and redundancies when one article gets updated but not the other. Do you have any additional feedback on this iteration, or do you think this is ready to be published? Thanks again for all the help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming[edit]

that the redirect-target at your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possession of Power was an error and that it conformed to the one mentioned at my closure:) WBGconverse 10:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Hmmm. This made me curious what sort of error would be created if a page redirected to itself. After testing it, I can say with relief that it does not create an infinite loop that consumes and deletes all of Wikipedia. So there's that. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Baksey Cham Krong / Pou Vannary[edit]

Sorry for screwing up the references at Baksey Cham Krong. Something went wrong with the "/ref" function when I re-used some of the existing sources, so I sorta fixed it by repeating the necessary info. I tried to fix it with the exact same method you used, but to no avail for some reason. Oh well. (In happier news, I will have an article up for Pou Vannary pretty soon.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: Oh, no problem. Thanks for adding to those articles. Out of curiosity, do you use the Visual Editor or source editor? I almost always use the latter, and use a reference style that minimizes the amount of space references take up in the article body (i.e. putting all of them in the references section, with names). I find it challenging to edit articles that break up paragraph prose with a bunch of references that take up as much or more space as the text itself. Just a matter of preference though. That doesn't speak to why the NYTimes ref didn't work, but because you cited it in the same way (copy/pasting maybe), it didn't create an error that a duplicate ref name typically would. :)
FWIW the Baksey Cham Krong pic is another example of an image that probably does not meet WP:NFCC, as they are still alive and reunited as recently as a couple years ago (rule of thumb is that there's rarely a sufficient reason to use a non-free image of a person that's still alive). Copyright rules for media from that era are kind of confusing, but when I checked a couple years ago it was the case that copyright could be claimed if authorship could be proven (something we assume, typically). Do with that what you will. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I use the source editor and the drop-down templates for "cite web", "cite book", etc. That works very well for short articles in which I am adding a few new references, but it indeed gets confusing when re-using refs that were already there. Meanwhile, you are probably correct about the photo, but I've assumed (for better or worse) that the BCK photo falls under the Fair Use rules for album covers and images within album packages (DTIF soundtrack in this case). Per Fair Use there is no problem using a record cover since it is an official retail item, but I am admittedly stretching it in order to make our articles more attractive for the reader. As you've said, we'll see if anyone objects. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Your Thoughts...[edit]

We have discussed the possibility of expanding THIS... I am seriously considering the creation of a full genre article comparable to stuff like Swedish death metal or West Coast hip hop etc. It would essentially be the narrative of the Don't Think I've Forgotten film in expanded form with robust links and independent sources. I am confident that text and sources for such an article will come together rather easily from our existing artist articles plus Cambodian Rocks and related items on Cambodian history and the war. The problem is I cannot think of a GOOD TITLE!
Cambodian rock might be pretty good but the era of interest will be 1959-1975 and current Cambodian music will be excluded. Cambodian psychedelic rock might also be good because it's a label that is often used by modern fans like Dengue Fever (band) but it implies that psychedelic was the only genre practiced in that scene. Something like 1960-70s rock in Cambodia might be too long and unwieldy for WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Any thoughts? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've found myself thinking about this a few times now. The best I've come up with so far is "Music of/in/during pre-Khmer Rouge Cambodia", with honorable mentions for "Music of Sihanouk Era Cambodia and the Khmer Republic", "Music of Cambodia, 1960-1975", "Mid-20th century music in Cambodia" and the like. It seems hard to draw a clear line -- musically or politically. I haven't read anything that does much to contrast music under Sihanouk vs. the Khmer Republic. That is, I've read plenty about how Sihanouk fostered music/culture, but not much about what changed between 1970-75. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Wikirictor, who wrote most of History of Cambodia, and WilliamThweatt, who has provided some useful insight about related topics in the past. @Wikirictor, since I don't know if you know the context here, we've been working on 1960s-70s Cambodian pop/rock music articles like Sinn Sisamouth, Yol Aularong, Pen Ran, Baksey Cham Krong, Meas Samon, Ros Serey Sothea, etc. (and my gateway to the music, Cambodian Rocks). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
In the near future I'm ready to write a first draft of such an article on the scene/genre, but I'll take any ideas on what to call the dang thing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. As I've noted before, I don't have much time to dedicate to WP these days, so I won't say much. However, I will say that both by its title and in its content, such an article should make it clear that this was (to use Doomsdayer's terms) one specific scene in Cambodian popular music of the era. The "rock" music has been brought to the attention of the Western world in recent times and that may make it seem like it was something more than it really was. But rock music wasn't the only kind of pop music in Cambodia during that era, nor was it likely even the most popular. Among Khmer, Sisamouth and SereiSothea for example, are more well-known for slow ballads like this and this or their myriad rom vong and rom kbach songs. These types of songs were (and are) way more popular among all Cambodian demographic groups than any of the psychedelic or "garage band" type music, which although popular among college and international students at the time for its "western" sound, was/is viewed as not much more than a novelty by most Cambodians. On top of that, in addition to pop music, there were other genres including court music, traditional and folk music that also prospered during this era. And...I've rambled on more than I intended. Suffice to say that the title and the article should put the CambodiaRocks-type music in the proper Cambodian context (i.e. not at all representative of all Cambodian popular music of the time) in addition to noting its new-found, and rather incongruous, popularity among westerners.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful reminder, William. Documentaries like Don't Think I've Forgotten and the selection of music that's been imported to the US have definitely shaped my understanding such that I may be of the impression that it was more popular than it was, but I've listened to enough e.g. Sinn Sisamouth and Ros Serey Sothea that I know it's not all western-influenced rock/pop/garage/psych. I don't know specifically what Doomsdayer's article plan is, but I would assume incorporate material about all sorts of pop music if doing an article on that era. Perhaps that just gets too much overlap with the existing article, and perhaps we would run into trouble with two people who don't read Khmer searching for sources on the elements of Khmer music that haven't become popular in the west (I say popular, but it's even more of a niche here :) ). So maybe the most succinct title/scope (which doesn't read as very succinct, but oh well) might be "Rock music of pre-Khmer Rouge Cambodia". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
William's thoughts indicate why Music of Cambodia should remain the primary article in this area. Unfortunately that article has been in need of expansion for years, and international WP users do not have the expertise, and anyone who does have the expertise is probably not able to use international WP. In the history of the Sinn Sisamouth talk page you can see people popping up occasionally who really are Cambodian (as in an old dispute over how to spell his name), but otherwise we have a bunch of articles written by Americans with material that Americans know about. .......................... It's surely not perfect but the scene/genre has gained international notice that may very well transcend Cambodia itself. Or in other words, Klezmer is enjoyed and talked about worldwide by people who know little about its European Jewish originators and may not have to. "1960s-70s Cambodian Rock" (or whatever title) could survive WP's notability requirements thanks to its international recognition. Any article here must avoid implying that it represents ALL Cambodian popular music, which hopefully can be done with sensitive writing. I envision a tight genre-specific article; consider the article for Jazz fusion which does not imply that it's the only kind of jazz. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Bluelink vs redlink[edit]

I was thinking maybe the rally could also be notable enough for an article or section somewhere, but I'm not really familiar with the notability requirements for events. (will have to read them again sometime) But that's why I used the redlink. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for the message. It may be independently notable. I can't say I've been up on it. Probably the most sensible place to start with it is Timeline of protests against Donald Trump. There's also Reactions to Executive Order 13769, although I suppose that's outdated given the subsequent executive order. It looks like Antony-22 did a lot of the work on that page, so pinging him to see if he has a suggestion about the "No Muslim Ban Ever" protest.
The reason I swapped the redlink out for a bluelink at the Khizr and Ghazala Khan article is because I suspect it will make the most sense to incorporate that into another article rather than create a stand-alone article, and because the article is currently at WP:GAN. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, I wasn't even aware of the GAN nomination. The link can be changed if the protest gets an article or section somewhere. Antony-22: media can be found in c:Category:No Muslim Ban Ever (April 2018 protest). Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:EVENTCRIT is the relevant guideline. It looks like in order to have its own article, it should have coverage in reliable sources of a national or international scope, that lasts beyond a single news cycle. So to have a solid case for a standalone article, you'd have to show that reliable sources are still talking about it months later, which is a high bar to clear. I'd agree that Timeline of protests against Donald Trump is a good place to add a sentence or two. There isn't currently an article or section for reactions to Presidential Proclamation 9645, the current version of the travel ban, but there probably should be. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 04:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Antony-22: thanks for the update! Face-smile.svg
Half-related rant: the notability guidelines sometimes just make no sense to me. I think events like that are considerably more notable Trap Adventure 2, a game that everybody would have forgotten about in half a week. But that qualifies for an article while protests don't. You know what, instead of putting up posters everywhere around the protest that give Commons tons of work in terms of cropping and blurring, they should have made a video game! They could have done it in a couple of hours. No matter how crappy, it would have easily gotten enough coverage to warrant an article! I think I might know who to talk to. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Ha. Yeah, it can be frustrating what receives a lot of coverage. Video games, like tv shows, movies, anything to do with sports, etc. get a lot of popular press attention -- especially something that sort of goes viral like Trap Adventure 2 (I say that not because I had heard of it, but based on what I see in terms of coverage). Much of the coverage of video games becomes usable, too, because it's typically relatively in-depth coverage about that subject. And it's hard to frame the subject as part of something else (multiple protests about similar topics lend themselves to coverage together, but what would Trap Adventure 2 be part of?). Reminds me of all of the discussions about Pokemon on Wikipedia years ago (see e.g. Wikipedia:Pokémon test). A doctor working on cutting edge cancer treatments? Standard Congressional procedures? Editor-in-chief of a major South American magazine? Maybe not, but we've got Squirtle and Bulbasaur covered! It's a common frustration that notability corresponds more to where press coverage is strongest than to what is most important. Anyway... you may be onto something about protest organizers making a video game. There was a big trend of serious games some years back (and, to some extent, ongoing) for that sort of thing, for marketing, etc. A few even became notable. Look at all of these "advergames" for example.
As an aside, since it came up here, I've withdrawn the Khan article from GAN consideration. There are just too many academic sources that have popped up since I last heavily worked on the article, and I don't have time to really dive into them now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Another Sealioning RfC[edit]

Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning

(Notifying everyone who participated in the previous RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Continuing work on List of Honeywell products and services[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to repost this for visibility in case it got lost in the shuffle. Based on some feedback I got from another editor, I pared down the proposed list article to some introductory prose alongside a list based on the existing section and supplemented with links to other existing articles. The thought is that by migrating all of the content to the separate list article it will reduce bloat on the existing Honeywell article, as well as consolidate all of the information in one place, helping to avoid discrepancies and redundancies when one article gets updated but not the other. Do you have any additional feedback on this iteration, or do you think this is ready to be published? Thanks again for all the help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: Hi. I don't think I have much else to say about the article. As it stands, IMO its size probably puts it on the edge of what people would consider appropriate for a stand-alone article (as opposed to keeping it with the main Honeywell article). And then if it does have a separate article it's unclear what should happen with that section of the main article. My inclination would be to say it should link to the list and then have a prose summary rather than another list. The only other thing I'd say would be to tweak the wording. "Offers" and "offerings" sounds promotional. What does it manufacture/make/produce? The acronyms also aren't self-explanatory and the article should stand on its own, so best to spell out acronyms on first usage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites:I revised this draft further per your suggestions, which I thought were all sound. I've incorporated everything from the existing section of the main article, and the intent is to replace that content with a main article link to this newly-created standalone list article. Does that help clarify things?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bloodfox[edit]

This probably can't go anywhere good, and there's another thread about the underlying subject below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Which is what he wants, to exhaust users way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think there's an issue with my edits, please have the courage to simply take your concerns to my talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I was responding to this users comments, not you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Which I saw, and to which I responded. Again, if you have criticism regarding my edits, including conspiratorial ideas about wanting to "exhaust users away", please take them directly to me. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we please not discus him, me, you or that bloke in the loud shirt on article talk pages?Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?[edit]

Seriously? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "seriously" is about the comment, the undo, or the edit summary while undoing (or all three, or, most likely, the first and third). I made a kneejerk undo when I saved and then saw Matthew's name at the top, then reworded my comment and re!voted a little more on point. But yes, seriously. I don't think I've kept it a secret that I've found your approach to the list of cryptids page to be sub-ideal. In that very merge thread you canvassed other users who you knew would agree with you (please don't extend the wikilawyering to this page) and you're continuing to argue that sources that say something is a cryptid must come from outside of cryptozoology when we were both in the threads that found no consensus for specifically that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Please, a little WP:AGF would have both saved you from your 'I-hate-that-guy-so-I'm-gonna-vote-against-him-oops-he-didn't-propose-this' approach above, which certainly doesn't improve articles, and false accusations of canvasing. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Your pings at the merger request were perhaps the most transparent instance of canvassing I've seen from someone who isn't a new user in quite some time, and I'm not going to argue with you as though you don't know that.
Regardless, no, I don't hate you. I don't even really have a problem with you in general. To the contrary, I think you do a lot of good work here. What I do think is that you're on an anti-cryptozoology-on-Wikipedia mission and have adopted a WP:RGW/battleground approach to fight the stuff that shows up in certain articles. It is perhaps the also-frustrating "other side" that wants to include every bit of cryptozoology silliness from any source and/or OR that has made you feel that it is necessary to take such an approach, and that's somewhat understandable -- it's exhausting dealing with people who push a fringe POV and don't think it's a fringe POV (although my experience is more with things like creationism, climate change denial, political conspiracy theories, and other more "mainstream" fare).
But again, I feel like I've said most of this before, don't expect to change your mind, and don't have designs on escalation, so I'll just leave it there. I will still probably remove the pages from my watchlist because yes, it is exhausting. You're not the only one to blame, though. It's tiring to argue against one side without supporting the other side (i.e. I'm not a fan of cryptozoology and don't resent it, which I think makes for a useful opinion on talk pages, but makes it hard to persist with those who are fans and who do resent it). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You know I fell I could have posted this (though I am a fan of cryptozooology, but I mean FAN).Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
For the second time, enough with the false accusations of canvasing. Before pinging other users who regularly work on these topics, I reviewed WP:CANVAS. I suggest you do the same. Now either take your accusations to the appropriate channels, or this is little more than a personal attack.
Second, all that sounds dandy until one squares your comments with your edit record in these corners. Like the we-don't-need-no-references approach of Slatersteven, my experience has been that you relentlessly edit in favor of Wikipedia's cryptozoology bloc, echoing their talking points whenever they invoke you, complaining about cryptozoology sources receiving scrutiny, and eventually agreeing with whatever pretzel argument that comes out of those corners to avoid meeting WP:FRINGE.
Petty swipes and personal attacks disguised as votes like this only further cement my impression. Moving forward, find reliable sources that meet WP:FRIND or expect further commentary on their absence. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
sigh... Well as fun as this us vs. them, well-poisoning, "put up or shut up" business is, I don't have anything else to add. As I said, I don't have designs on escalation at this time. A single example of canvassing doesn't go anywhere, as we all know. Even if I were convinced that escalation were needed, which I'm not, I don't have the time or inclination to start compiling a heap of diffs. So I will just request to leave it there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiWoke[edit]

Hi. Thank you for being so WikiWoke. I really appreciate your analysis, conclusions, and words today.

For me, I slept through it. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: "WikiWoke" is a first for me. :) No problem. I get frustrated with how willing some people are to throw kerosene -- and how quickly -- on dedicated Wikipedians who find themselves the subject of a thread at ANI. Anyway. It was a good time to get some shut-eye. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I apologise if I inadvertently caused a lynch mob to turn up, simply by trying to follow due process :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Nobody expects the Wiki Inquisition! I do suspect characterizing it as libelous is precisely what led to someone else connecting it to "vindictive and retaliatory behavior" and to call it a "a borderline or passive-aggressive attack page" which is just utter nonsense (but, at ANI, early commenters color the discussion). That response isn't on you, of course, and there were some valid arguments elsewhere in the discussion but ... meh, I don't really want to belabor this. ANI just stinks sometimes and is best avoided if possible IMO. I imagine a message on Checkingfax's page rather than ANI would've resulted in something like "oh. jim requested it be deleted? fine with me." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Help with publishing Honeywell list[edit]

I'm reposting from here for visibility. I revised this draft further per your suggestions, which I thought were all sound. I've incorporated everything from the existing section of the main article, and the intent is to replace that content with a main article link to this newly-created standalone list article. Does that help clarify things? If you agree this is a suitable draft for an article, could you publish it?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: FYI any time you post to another user's talk page, it creates a notification/email, so pinging doesn't have any added functionality (the purpose of the ping template is to create a notification). Sorry to say I don't have time to give this a careful re-review/publish in the immediate future. My suggestion would be to send it through the WP:AFC process, through which you'll get some additional feedback from an experienced editor who will either move it for you or give an explicit go-ahead. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Creationism and NPOV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, funplussmart (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How exciting. First time named in an arbcom case request. :) Methinks it'll be speedily declined, though. Typically something like this only goes to ArbCom when the community has tried and failed to deal with it multiple times. There are still lots of things that can happen here, up to and including AE. Left a message there saying as much. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
This arbitration case request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You've Been Pinged![edit]

When you have the time, please see my humungous new meisterwork User:Doomsdayer520/Cambodian rock (1960s-70) and the associated talk page. Thanks! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2018[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png




Headlines
  • Albania report: Collections of Museums in Albania
  • Armenia report: GLAM+Wikidata
  • Australia report: WikiTour AU
  • Brazil report: Developing tGLAM: a landing-page generator for GLAM initiatives
  • France report: European Heritage Days; Linked data for archaeology; Paris: Edit-a-thon at Mobilier National
  • Germany report: History of Women and Democracy, Wikipedia-Culture-Ambassadors and two GLAM-on-Tour-stations in just four weeks
  • Macedonia report: Wiki camps in Macedonia
  • Malaysia report: Wikipedia for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museum
  • Mexico report: Open GLAM Mexico 2018
  • Netherlands report: >20,000 press photographs 1940-1990 uploaded, GLAM Wiki Meeting, Aerial Photographs, GLAM-Wiki Manual & Wikipedia Course for Historical Societies
  • Norway report: Women in Red; Researhers Days 2018; The 2019 edition of #wikinobel
  • Poland report: Archival photographs and literary knowledge enrich Polish Wikipedia
  • Serbia report: Impact of GLAM seminars: Decentralization of GLAM activities
  • Sweden report: Wikidata P3595 Biografiskt lexikon för Finland; Student Project at the Nordic Museum; Learning about sources on Swedish Wikipedia
  • UK report: Botanical illustrations and Wiki Loves Monuments in Scotland
  • USA report: Back to school
  • Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 30, August–September 2018
  • Wikidata report: Wikidata Tour Down Under
  • Calendar: October's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)