User talk:Rhododendrites

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

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.

Contents

Your GA nomination of Destruction of ivory[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destruction of ivory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, to see the review in motion. :) I'll hover at the page and see if I can pitch in as well. Cheers, cart-Talk 07:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Great! Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft article about Clive Barda[edit]

Dear Ryan, Face-smile.svg
I hope you are keeping well, and that you enjoyed your (partial) wiki-break. Face-wink.svg
Whenever you might have a few spare minutes, I would be most grateful if you would be so kind as to review the subject draft and to point out areas needing improvements. I am particularly interested in your views concerning my use of flat lists and collapsible tables, which I thought proved appropriately useful in this case, but might be too outlandish for a GA-level quality article, which is the standard I aim to achieve.
Thank you very much for your considered comments, Ryan, which are always helpful and wise.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 11:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Hello there. I had a good couple months of wikibreak, but yeah, it pretty quickly turned "partial." :) I've only given it a very quick look, so I'll just give a few first impressions from its appearance now, and then take a closer look this weekend. Apologies if any of this is wrongheaded due to not having looked closely enough yet.
  • Ideally, content in the lead is also in the body somewhere, so the citations could be migrated down. Pretty minor thing, though.
Will do. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not terribly familiar with quote styles, but to me right-justified with small text (and no other differences) looks a little odd. My preference would be either just use {{quote}} or to use a border with the box (and reduce the width, putting it to the side of the text).
I've now added a border to the two quote boxes; does it look less odd to you now? Personally, I quite like the quotes as they were, but if they looked odd to you, then that's an important element of feedback which I'd want to take into account. Please let me know if it's better now and, if not, I'll change it again. Thanks very much, Ryan.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 14:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for identifying those photos! I have now added one in the Method section, and re-adjusted the quote box to occupy the page better. What do you think?
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "notable portraits" - seems like this means the portraits themselves would have received coverage? Or does this mean the collections/books are notable? Or the people? what criteria went into these lists of selected works?
The collapsible tables summarize the photographs of notable people that were selected for publication in both books. In turn, the names in the flat lists are of the most notable people and are a subset of names from those tables (and are therefore wikilinked in the flat lists but not further down in the tables). The reason for calling the section "notable portraits" is because all of the people in the books are notable artists. I could certainly rename the section title to "Selected works", because every photo published in the two books was selected by the author from his immense collection. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)  Done
  • I could be wrong, but I think the typical way to mix a bibliography with footnotes would be to use {{sfn}} instead of citing the book in the bibliography and in the references. So for example, removing the Performance! book in the references, and replacing each instance (along with the page number) with e.g. {{sfn|Barda|2000|p=17}} If you'd prefer to keep the citations as they are, it might make sense to rename "Bibliography" to "further reading".
That's all for now. More later :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ryan, Face-smile.svg
Very many thanks for your initial review, which seems to have been more than cursory. Face-wink.svg
I have made a mental note of your most helpful suggestions and will think about each of them carefully. I am going away tomorrow and will be back on Monday. I will wait for you to complete your review this weekend, as you indicated; then will reply to you in greater detail. For now, though, please know that I definitely intend to follow your advice, as well as the pointers you've already provided so helpfully. Thank you so much for your willingness to assist me in getting this right; as you gathered, I am a bit of a perfectionist, so all your input is of immense value to me, and I remain very grateful; thanks once again, Ryan.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. For now, I have replied to a couple of points, in your bulleted list above. Thank you.
@Pdebee: Thanks. I had a few things I wanted to finish today, and will follow up about this tomorrow. I'll leave a message with responses/feedback on the draft's talk page, in case it's useful for this discussion to stay with the article. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ryan, Face-smile.svg
Thank you for your latest message, and for finding the time, whenever convenient. As for copying the above exchanges, I had been thinking along the same lines, and have now done so here.  Done
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Pdebee: Sorry, wound up having more on my plate today than I thought. Will have to return to it tomorrow :/ — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ryan, Face-smile.svg
Please don't worry: I remain most thankful, as ever, to have the benefit of your advice in the first place, and am happy to wait until you have the time to complete your review; no rush.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive.is Browser Integration[edit]

With respect, while some trimming of Archive.is#Browser_Integration may have been warranted, your major revision to this section has made it into a jumbled incoherent mess. I'm going to try to find a happy middle ground. John Navas (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jnavas2: Fair enough. My major objections were about the how-to type of content and linking a non-notable piece of software with no independent sourcing. That said, it seemed harmless to include something brief in the context of "basic facts about the subject" (the sort of information that isn't promotional or controversial and can come directly from the subject itself). You're right that I didn't do a very good job of it, though. :) So thanks for working to fix it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Sounds good. Thank you. John Navas (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Destruction of ivory[edit]

The article Destruction of ivory you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Destruction of ivory for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

List of fake news websites[edit]

Rhodo, thank you for your helpful feedback about List of fake news websites and Fake news website.

I replied to you over at Talk:List of fake news websites. Let us know what you think over there. Sagecandor (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Quanta Live[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 21 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quanta Live, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gilberto Gil said his Grammy Award for Quanta Live was particularly meaningful because the album is a summary of his three decades in music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quanta Live. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Quanta Live), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What convinced you to stay here for such a long time?[edit]

Talk to me about your motivations--NetworkOP (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: Hi there. Context for this message please? :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
What do you enjoy most about editing Wikipedia?--NetworkOP (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@NetworkOP: I understand that part. :P I was asking for more context, though. (e.g. why are you asking me and what is this for). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake News Website reverted edit[edit]

Hi, I removed the mention of Russia from this article and you reverted my change. However I cannot find where this claim originates. You said that it was mentioned in the Business Insider article however clicking on that link takes you to the original source of the claim, Buzzfeed. I cannot find any mention of 'Russia' in the Buzzfeed article. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I misunderstood your original objection. Regardless, it looks like someone else has remedied the situation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive.is[edit]

Ok. I'm going to close this. I don't think anything positive can come out of it at this point and discussion is ongoing elsewhere.

You've removed all host information. I suggest you at least add back that it's served by Cloudflare.
John Navas (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jnavas2: I removed "It is hosted at [[Mir Telematiki Ltd]] which is in [[Eastern Europe]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://myip.ms/browse/sites_history/1/siteID/415548 |title=archive.is Sites - archive Address on |publisher=Myip.ms |date= |accessdate=2016-11-29}}</ref> The archive runs [[Apache Hadoop]] and [[Apache Accumulo]] software."
That source does not verify the statement, as far as I can see, nor the one that existed this morning (before being changed to Mir Telematiki). I didn't look for a replacement because I don't know what the best source for that information would be. You likely know better, so I'd welcome an addition of the correct information with a reliable source.
As an aside, what is your opinion of how to improve this article? You seem to be more knowledgeable than I am. My concerns are that it doesn't seem like it's written for a general encyclopedia audience, tends towards the technical, and relies too often on primary sources (sources connected to archive.is, data/databases, etc. as opposed to, say, books and articles in journals/magazines/newspapers... or even decent quality blogs). There are some non-primary, sure, but I'm curious if you have thoughts about a big picture for the article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
See https://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=archive.is&x=0&y=0
Hostkey is the primary host, distributed by Cloudflare.
I don't think it makes sense to duplicate information in Archive site and Web archiving.
I think this page should be reserved for information unique to this service.
Would you not agree?
John Navas (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

In the future, please discuss with me before removing my contributions. Thank you.
John Navas (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jnavas2: While I can appreciate the frustration of having edits reverted, that's not how this works. The burden is on those looking to add content to justify its inclusion via reliable sources such that it does not conflict with e.g. NPOV, WP:NOT, etc. With unsourced statements in particular, there's WP:BURDEN. Sites going up/down is a very common thing that people add to articles about websites/services, and there's broad consensus per a basic interpretation of editing policies that it's not something to include except when particularly noteworthy (as determined by coverage in reliable sources). That an editor finds something useful or even important is not itself reason to include it. That seems to be a thread throughout these additions we seem to disagree on. Wikipedia isn't here to have all useful information and doesn't base what's important on what editors say is important; it's here to summarize what other reliable sources have already designated as important. There's an exception for basic facts about a subject, so maybe where it's hosted could be viewed along those lines, but status updates most certainly are not. There are many resources out there that are not encyclopedias for that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. While I do respect your point of view, I don't like your tone, and I do think the issue of reliability is both relevant and appropriate to the article.
In the future, when you disagree and don't care to discuss it with me first directly, then you should open the topic on the article Talk page. Just starting an edit war is the sort of thing that has driven away so many contributors like me. Wikipedia claims to have turned over a new leaf. I'm hoping that's true.
John Navas (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jnavas2: I apologize if my frustration is coming through in the language I'm using. The frustration is not all in response to you, to be clear. As you may imagine, people add things they think are important with no sources all the time. It's not something we can "agree to disagree" about, because it's a basic policy of Wikipedia: the content is based on what reliable sources say are important, not editors. "Starting an edit war" -- please do familiarize yourself with basic editing norms like those linked above and WP:BRD (summary: one editor adds content; another editor disagrees with the content and reverts; it's then a matter for discussion before restoring it again... not time to restore it and demand discussion prior to removal). I'm happy to continue talking with you if you're indeed interested to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia, but welcoming new editors doesn't mean throwing the policies and guidelines out the window in order to be nice. There is value in those policies like the ones we're talking about. It's why Wikipedia doesn't just devolve into the web in general, with anybody adding whatever they think is important. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to add, however, I'm not claiming that the buck stops with me. The buck stops with anyone who has basic editing principles on their side. If you think I'm wrong, you could, for example, start an WP:RFC to get opinions from people who aren't me. Or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet. Or if you're think I'm being a jerk, you could take me to an administrator's noticeboard (I am not an admin, to be clear -- that's just where behavioral issues go). There are options. Repeatedly adding what you think is important is not a good way to go, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Please don't presume to lecture me. As I wrote, I don't like your tone.
John Navas (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jnavas2: Sigh. Ok. If you're going to dismiss my attempt to discuss the problem and explain how things work as a "lecture" and don't like my tone, I won't ping you after this. But then likewise do not tell me to discuss if you're unwilling to discuss and disinterested in basic editing policies. If you wish to take "please do not add content without reliable sources independent of the subject justifying its inclusion" as some sort of negative tone, I don't know what to tell you. Know that if you restore content to an article three times, there is a bright line rule called WP:3RR which results in a block (I will not be the one to block, fyi, so don't take that as a threat -- it's just, again, basic editing). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You're not "discussing". You're lecturing from presumed superiority.
I invited you to discuss in the appropriate place, the Article Talk page, but you ignored that, so I've now created such a section. Please use it to explain your rationale (without gratuitous lectures on Wikipedia), and resist the urge to delete my contribution before such discussion. Thank you.
John Navas (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello John Navas. The opinions expressed by User:Rhododendrites are widely shared. See WP:NOT for a better explanation of which facts are encyclopedic and which are not. If you do open a WP:Request for comment or take it to a noticeboard, you may discover that others don't agree with you. --EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Instead of engaging in civil substantive discussion on the Talk page, User:Rhododendrites has chosen escalation and accusation. I think that makes my point. But since I see that Wikipedia hasn't really changed for the better, I'll probably not bother with further contributions in any event. --John Navas (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
.. sigh .. Ok. I'm going to close this. I don't think anything positive can come out of it at this point and discussion is ongoing elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
@Northamerica1000: Thanks. Your effort to foster community with little mass messages like this one is recognized. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Enjoy the holiday season. North America1000 16:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

500px-Xmas tree animated.gif Season's Greetings, Rhododendrites!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Candy stick icon.png
@MarnetteD: Thanks! Happy days to you! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Happy Holidays text.png
Wishing you a very happy holiday season and a fulfilling 2017. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Thank you! And likewise to you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg
Merry Christmas Rhododendrites!!
Hi Rhododendrites, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Face-smile.svg

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Thanks. :) Merry days to you, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

your post at the RfC at VPP[edit]

Thank you for your post at WP:VPP#RfC2 on Miss America and Miss USA entrants

At this time, it is the only reply I have received to my request for comment, and the RfC has been closed.  The answer to your first question is still visible in the rationale at WP:VPP#RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants, i.e.,

Associated state-level pageants are notable: All of these entrants are winners of notable state-level pageants, see Category:Miss USA state pageants and Category:Miss America state pageants.

As for your second question, I have been trained for both personal and business communication to limit the use of questions, nor is there any requirement for an RfC to be presented as a question, nor do I see that a question improves the RfC.  Reading your response as meaning that you "don't support" the statement as a "ground for action" can you further explain your viewpoint?  What is it that you don't support?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: Thanks for the follow up. My intention with my second question wasn't to give you a hard time for no reason. Indeed, a question is not required. Sometimes it's helpful, though, for clarity's sake. I don't think it was clear what you were asking for comment on. Or, more in line with how I read it, it seemed like you went way out of your way to omit the conclusion, instead asking for comment on less controversial statements from which a consensus claim could be extracted later -- so I opposed because I wasn't sure what my support would be used for. To be clear, I don't think you were trying to pull something sneaky; it's just a style of presentation that I would have a hard time supporting. There's too much room for messiness when the point of the RfC isn't explicit, is all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
A comment of yours at VPP was, "The second is just quoting common practice.", but I don't assume that ATD will survive this RfC.  I want to know, because I don't like supporting WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion if it lacks community support. 

If we can agree that our readers want reliably sourced information, as available, about these specific pageant entrants, and that merger of non-notable pageant entrants to suitable targets is accepted policy; what more do you want to know about what this means?  Is this not then a normal content issue?

I've created a draft for a new RfC at my sandbox, [1].  Your comments would be appreciated.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I may not have properly articulated my concern. It may be that, per part one of the hypothesis, contestants in these larger pageants have all won state-level pageants which were also notable (whether readers want it is a fine point to make, but rarely justification in itself). It may also be that, as a matter of general principle, non-notable subjects can be merged into suitable targets. The problem is that the crucial intersection is omitted. We have some context and something that is allowed according to existing rules. That something is allowed, however, doesn't mean it applies to all cases, of course. Non-notable pageant winners can be merged into a suitable target... if there's consensus to do so. :) So the real ask isn't whether such a thing could possibly occur but whether it should happen that non-notable pageant winners of notable pageants be merged [rather than deleted?]. I'm starting work at the moment, so haven't looked at the draft RfC, but will likely do so later. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
You've used the word "deleted" as if it is something apart from WP:Deletion policy.  The hypothesis specifically references two sections from WP:Deletion policy.  If those two sections don't have community support, I hope you'd agree that it is not acceptable that the policy says that it is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".

Another point that occurs to me in response to your post is that there are no examples of a merged bio in the RfC.  The only one that comes quickly to mind is Thomas MantellUnscintillating (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the draft RfC to User:Unscintillating/Draft RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants, which provides a talk page for this issue if you want.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The J's with Jamie[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 28 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The J's with Jamie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Time magazine said The J's with Jamie "have probably been heard by more people more times than any other group in the history of sound. Yet next to nobody knows who they are"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The J's with Jamie. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The J's with Jamie), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

J's with Jamie[edit]

I was interested to see that the group released a record Hey, Look us Over!, and together with its 1963 date and the fact that they did political ads sometimes, I'm now really curious. Do we know if they ever did work with the Chicago firm of Bob Long Associates? See [2]; Indiana legislator Birch Bayh reached the U.S. Senate in 1963 with a Long-created campaign advertisement featuring a modified version of "Hey, Look Me Over". Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I'm afraid I don't have good answers for you. I came across them when I was looking at one of the Grammy Award lists and noticed a redlinked award winner. Curious, I looked into them and found their story interesting enough to start the article. Online sources are scarce, though. I did a pretty extensive search of what's freely available on the web (i.e. not behind paywalls or tucked away in a library), and what's in the article is about all I came up with. Someone on the WFMU blog took enough interest to reach out to ask questions directly, but still didn't seem to get a great deal of backstory/information (or at least didn't publish it). Very strange. Actually, not that strange. They may have had a good reputation in the industry at the time and their output may have been ubiquitous in American culture, but like ghostwriters and anyone else who produces content for someone else (i.e. advertising firms, companies' marketing departments), they wouldn't get the kind of recognition one would expect for that level of visibility... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I was guessing that you'd have included this information if you had it, but I figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks for the detailed explanation! Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
PS, what are the numbers following the names of the albums, e.g. "CS-8805" following Hey, Look us Over! Am I correct in guessing it to be some sort of identification number (it appears other places, e.g. [3])? Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Catalog numbers. Labels give a [more or less] unique one to each release. Not necessarily something I'd think to include in most Wikipedia articles, but they can come in handy when, say, there are are multiple ways an album's title has been written, multiple releases, international variations, different album art, weird sales figures, etc. In this case I can't remember precisely what I got from it but it was useful for searching/finding information on the more obscure releases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
That's what I was guessing, but someone tagged them as uncited, so I wanted to be sure before removing the facttag and saying "that is the citation". Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hook Windmill[edit]

Old Hook Mill in East Hampton 1.jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Old Hook Mill in East Hampton 1.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 00:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atomic chess capture[edit]

Atomic capture.gif
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Atomic capture.gif, 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 21:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rhododendrites![edit]

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

Wikipedia:WikiCup[edit]

Hi! Am not sure if you have notice it or not, but the annual editing competition Wikipedia:WikiCup has started and the signup is open till 5 February 2017. The cup encourages content improvement and tries to make editing on Wikipedia more fun; and it did that for me last year. I have hence decided to drop this friendly note hoping that you would take part. Although the signup ends on 5th Feb, the earlier you sign in the earlier you start scoring. Happy New Year and Happy Editing! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Pink Guy[edit]

FYI: Filthy Frank/George Miller is back as Pink Guy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). While charting meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2, MUSICBIO only indicates that the subject may be notable. Since you've reviewed the subject before, do you think WP:GNG is satisfied? — JJMC89(T·C) 21:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Charting on iTunes doesn't meet C2 (see WP:BADCHARTS -- specific retailers don't qualify, because they may have special advertising/promotion agreements with artists, etc. that may cause one's position to be inflated, etc.). That said, it's a decent indicator of notability. From what I recall, the main issue was that most of the coverage was related to the Harlem Shake (one event, and one which we already have an article for). Adding this, while I don't know what would happen at AfD, I'm inclined to think he would have a decent shot. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to Billboard 200, not iTunes. Thanks. — JJMC89(T·C) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Thanks for clarifying. I didn't notice the Billboard figure. That typically brings a pretty strong case for notability. I'll take a closer look if it's nominated but I'm inclined to think he's notable. No response needed -- I know I'm late with my reply. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thx[edit]

It was very kind of you to leave that barnstar on my talkpage! Tony (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

re plurals[edit]

IMO this sort of thing is archaic now. In 1950 it was usual to write "Charles's pajamas", as Strunk & White suggested. By now this has passed by and people generally write "Charles' pajamas". It might be mirroring a a change in speech, dunno. Herostratus (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I don't think it's archaic. I know the AP decided to omit the s in many cases, but that most recommend it (Oxford Dictionaries, Chicago Manual of Style, Purdue OWL, etc.). (Yes, "most" needs a cn tag). Our MOS just points to Apostrophe, which has this section that looks to make the case that 's is more or less the "traditional" way while various organizations have devised various exceptions/rules or, like the AP, mostly done away with it. If the foremost goal is clarity rather than saving an extra character, then as I see it, including the s is not going to make a sentence less clear, while omitting it might (albeit not often). Also, given how badly people abuse/misuse the apostrophe in cases of plurals and possessives, my preference is to err on the side of simple, predictable rules (singular possessive='s). But granted, it's not a grammatical absolute. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, these are fair points. I looked for an internal style guide on this and didn't find one; guess we don't have one. The Apostrophe article doesn't bind us, but it's a data point. Here's my take: on the merits, I can see the point of "Charles's" being clearer than "Charles'", but on the hand people tend to say "Charles" rather than "Charleses" nowadays, and it seems to me that this being reflected more and more in the typography nowadays -- I think (not sure).
But merits aside, since we don't seem to have WP:MOS guidance on this, and since common usage seems to be split, I would tend not to favor changing existing instances. It's different if one is putting in new material that one wrote oneself, but changing existing instances is just roiling the text to change one person's opinion for another. My guess is that if a person were to go on a general crusade of changing sibilant-ending-singular possessives from apostrophe to apostrophe-s, there would be a discussion and the result would probably be "don't do that, leave them be". That's my guess. Since a general crusade would fail, it seems that doing it occasionally also is not called for. It's not a big deal either way. Herostratus (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus: Ultimately this was a revert of a user whose only change was to remove the s from one of several instances on the page. Realistically, I would've reverted if they changed all of them, too, because, well, at very least it's not an improvement (a la ENGVAR/CITEVAR). Perhaps I worded my edit summary too unequivocally. I wouldn't be/haven't been inclined to change it where it's the established style/editorial decision by someone writing the article, as much as it may cause my eye to twitch a little. I'd be curious about how apostrophe use affects people whose first language is not English, and if one way makes more sense to them than another. Again, my preference is to simplify the rules of punctuation, but meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, OK, well that's different, nevermind. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate your concern for my wiki future.[4] It is my intention to clean up a disrupted area while not causing a larger one. I do not issue the bans you are correct. Aspersions without evidence are indeed a bad thing. My warning to him will stand. Your edit here [5] is a violation off her topic ban. I assume WP:goodfaith on your part so I will leave your revert. I assure you I am here to build an encyclopedia. again thank you for effort because I can not build one by myself. I work pretty slowly. There are others I will talk to in the next few days (no one on either side is completely innocent) but I hope that we can come together and end the disruption. J8079s (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@J8079s: Cleaning up problems is a good thing. :) This sentence: "As a self declared [links] meatpuppet of a banned user you are topic banned from gun related articles" does sound as though you're issuing a topic ban. By all means if Felsic2 edited inappropriately, warn away, but the diffs you linked only showed that Felsic2 liked some of Lightbreather's work, not that he/she is a meatpuppet. So with regard to that sentence, as well as "Your edit here is a violation of her topic ban" -- one person's topic ban affects absolutely nobody else. I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of wikijargon. "Block" is when an account can no longer edit at all. Lightbreather is indefinitely blocked. A "topic ban" is when a person's technical editing ability is unchanged but they are prohibited from editing particular subjects (or in a particular way) under penalty of being blocked. I don't know if Lightbreather has an active topic ban -- it's certainly possible, though that's like someone being on probation while in jail (in case they're released, I suppose?). Leaving a message for Lightbreather has no connection to her blocks/bans. It can be bad form to leave a message for a blocked user, especially if it's a negative one as they cannot respond, but at the same time nobody alleges that Lightbreather didn't also make good contributions in addition to the sorts of things that got her blocked, so a message simply saying as much does not seem inappropriate (and, again, is irrelevant to any blocks/bans she may have). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kitty Joyner[edit]

Kitty Joyner - Electrical Engineer - GPN-2000-001933.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Kitty Joyner - Electrical Engineer - GPN-2000-001933.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Rossa Matilda Richter[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 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.svg On 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: [6] 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)

Category:Animal user templates has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Animal user templates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Since this category contains only two pet-related templates, I think the merger makes sense. However, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping them separate. Waz8:T-C-E 02:28, 16 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.svg On 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.svg On 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.svg On 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)

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 [7]: 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)

This Month in GLAM: September 2017[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
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 03:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sunday October 15: Wikipedia @ Open House New York / Weekend Photo Competition[edit]

Sunday October 15: Wikipedia @ Open House New York / Weekend Photo Competition
NYC-2017-WIKIPEDIA DAY-90.jpg
Roofs of New Work.jpg

This event is the concluding "upload party" to the Wikipedia @ Open House New York Weekend photo scavenger hunt, and an accompanying Wikimedia Commons tutorial and multimedia hackathon,

Learn how to work with your photos to illustrate New York City articles!

Note that this is part of the larger Open House New York Weekend activities on Saturday and Sunday, when sites normally closed to the public are open for public visits and photography.

If you can, bring your camera/photos to the event, and a laptop if you'd like to engage in adding photos to articles. But this is not necessary.

For photos from last year's event, see the OHNY campaign 2016 on Wikimedia Commons.

  • Date: Sunday October 15
  • Time: 4:00 pm - 8:00 pm
  • Location: Ace Hotel New York. 20 West 29th Street, Manhattan.

Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

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)

October 18: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC[edit]

Wednesday October 18, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
Wikimedia NYC presentation - WikiPhotography at WikiWednesday July 2015 3 crop.jpg
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street
(note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot 15 October 2017

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
144 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Chess engine (talk) Add sources
1,019 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C BET Hip Hop Awards (talk) Add sources
67 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Logistics engineering (talk) Add sources
12 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Civil engineering database (talk) Add sources
994 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Carnivorous plant (talk) Add sources
6 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Rabbit Ears Range (talk) Add sources
52 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Punk zine (talk) Cleanup
113 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Near West Side, Chicago (talk) Cleanup
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Always for Pleasure (talk) Cleanup
4 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Cathedral Peak (Colorado) (talk) Expand
1,516 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Kmart (talk) Expand
5 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Mount Zirkel (talk) Expand
2,470 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: FA, Predicted class: FA Elliott Smith (talk) Unencyclopaedic
1,316 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Record producer (talk) Unencyclopaedic
67 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Commercial use of copyleft works (talk) Unencyclopaedic
311 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Young–Laplace equation (talk) Merge
653 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Pitcher plant (talk) Merge
19 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Lincoln Hall (Chicago) (talk) Merge
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Summit, Rhode Island (talk) Wikify
1,294 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C First Boer War (talk) Wikify
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Cultural Institutions Group (talk) Wikify
8 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C A Whole Nother Story (talk) Orphan
4 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Cindy Cruz (talk) Orphan
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Clip-Share (talk) Orphan
6 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Snowmass Peak (talk) Stub
20 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sarracenia psittacina (talk) Stub
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Flat Tops (Colorado) (talk) Stub
30 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Aspen Mountain (Colorado) (talk) Stub
6 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Elkhead Mountains (talk) Stub
8 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C El Diente Peak (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
  • Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
  • Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017[edit]

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]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot 29 October 2017

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
188 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (talk) Add sources
12 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Crystal River (Colorado) (talk) Add sources
814 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B ExFAT (talk) Add sources
9 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Wolf Tracks and Peter and the Wolf (talk) Add sources
23 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Stretched grid method (talk) Add sources
16 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Aeridinae (talk) Add sources
150 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The Difference Engine (talk) Cleanup
30 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Feminism in culture (talk) Cleanup
91 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The Shunned House (talk) Cleanup
12 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Archaeophyte (talk) Expand
62 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Rosa gallica (talk) Expand
1,779 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Micronesia (talk) Expand
273 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Dov Charney (talk) Unencyclopaedic
746 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Shōjo manga (talk) Unencyclopaedic
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Perzine (talk) Unencyclopaedic
420 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: GA, Predicted class: GA Ashland, Oregon (talk) Merge
130 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Zantedeschia (talk) Merge
36 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Landfill liner (talk) Merge
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Spring Lake, Rhode Island (talk) Wikify
104 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Marin Headlands (talk) Wikify
87 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The Hound (talk) Wikify
10 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Jewett City Vampires (talk) Orphan
4 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Harald Holz (talk) Orphan
15 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Rahel Jaeggi (talk) Orphan
57 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Mirrorshades (talk) Stub
5 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: B Upiga (talk) Stub
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub That's Shanghai (talk) Stub
4 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Hopkins Hollow Village (talk) Stub
6 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ascoglossum (talk) Stub
8 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: B Samea multiplicalis (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 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)

Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon (Nov 19) and global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month (Nov 1-30)[edit]

Sunday November 19, 10:30 am - 4:00pm: Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon
Metropolitan Museum of Art entrance NYC.JPG
Damascus Room MET DP240367.jpg

The Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ The Met will be the Metropolitan Museum of Art's second edit-a-thon, hosted on Sunday November 19, 2017 in the Bonnie Sacerdote Classroom, Ruth and Harold D. Uris Center for Education (81st Street entrance) at The Met Fifth Avenue in New York City.

Following the first Met edit-a-thon in May 2017, the museum is excited to work with Wikipedia Asian Month for the potential to seed new articles about Asian artworks, artwork types, and art traditions, from any part of Asia. These can be illustrated with thousands of its recently-released images of public domain artworks available for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from the museum’s collection spanning 5,000 years of art. The event is an opportunity for Wikimedia communities to engage The Met's diverse Asian collections onsite and remotely.

10:30 am - 4:00 pm in Bonnie Sacerdote Classroom, Uris Center for Education
81st Street entrance, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1000 Fifth Avenue

Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Light snacks, drinks and cake will be provided.

We also welcome remote participation for the global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month, running November 1-30.

Thanks, and hope to see you at the museum, and/or as part of the online Wikipedia Asian Month contest!--Pharos (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

This Month in GLAM: October 2017[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
  • Australia and New Zealand report: Adding Australian women in research to Wikipedia
  • Brazil report: Integrating Wikimedia projects into the Brazilian National Archives GLAM
  • Bulgaria report: Botevgrad became the first wikitown in Bulgaria
  • France report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Opérations Libres
  • Germany report: GLAMorous activities in October
  • Italy report: Experts training on GLAM projects
  • Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence at Historical Archives of Subotica; Model of a grain of wheat exlusivly digitized for Wikimedia Commons; Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Information and Wikimedia Serbia - GLAM presentations and workshops for museums, archives and libraries
  • Spain report: Women Writers Day
  • Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Connected Open Heritage; Internetmuseum; More Working life museums
  • UK report: Scotland's Libraries & Hidden Gems
  • Ukraine report: Wikitraining for Librarians; Library Donation
  • USA report: trick or treat
  • Wikidata report: WikidataCon & Birthday
  • WMF GLAM report: News about Structured Commons!
  • Calendar: November'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 02:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

November 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC @ NYU ITP[edit]

Wednesday November 15, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC @ NYU ITP
1.28.12WikiNYCMeetupByLuigiNovi9.jpg
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at NYU ITP Tisch School of the Arts (4th floor) at 721 Broadway in Manhattan.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at NYU ITP Tisch School of the Arts (4th floor), 721 Broadway
(note that we are not at Babycastles this month)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) ~~~~~

P.S. You are also invited to Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on Sunday November 19!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
484 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Prediction (talk) Add sources
9 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Scouting in Kentucky (talk) Add sources
5 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Camp Ramah in Wisconsin (talk) Add sources
381 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Summer camp (talk) Add sources
84 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Valley Cottage, New York (talk) Add sources
16 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Scouting in New Jersey (talk) Add sources
20 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Northern Tier National High Adventure Bases (talk) Cleanup
5 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Congregation B'nai Amoona (talk) Cleanup
20 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Hillfield Strathallan College (talk) Cleanup
13 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Camp Ondessonk (talk) Expand
6 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Patriots' Path Council (talk) Expand
11 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Northern Star Council (talk) Expand
655 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Camping (talk) Unencyclopaedic
218 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Boy Scouts of America membership controversies (talk) Unencyclopaedic
32 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Scouting controversy and conflict (talk) Unencyclopaedic
280 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Reverse discrimination (talk) Merge
4 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Southern Sierra Council (talk) Merge
766 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Okinawa Prefecture (talk) Merge
15 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Greater St. Louis Area Council (talk) Wikify
328 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C AeroPress (talk) Wikify
16 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA Westchester-Putnam Council (talk) Wikify
3 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Camp Anokijig (talk) Orphan
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Camp Tousey (talk) Orphan
5 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock (talk) Orphan
57 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Raingutter regatta (talk) Stub
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Oskaloosa Monthly Meeting of Friends Parsonage (talk) Stub
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Greenwich Council (Boy Scouts of America) (talk) Stub
16 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Vaad (talk) Stub
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Introduction to Leadership Skills for Troops (talk) Stub
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Ros Saboeut (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)