User talk:Choor monster

Thanks for adding to Sandburg template

Thanks for adding Remembrance Rock to Template:Carl Sandburg - I was surprised that there weren't more Sandburg works with their own WP articles. KConWiki (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just created the RR article itself! I haven't read it yet, and I'm reluctant to repeat the summaries from the two NYT reviews. Also, it would be nice if someone in the Chicago area could photograph the rock and so on. There are several websites with a picture of the rock, but I found none that offered a WP-compatible license. Choor monster (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the recentness of the RR article, what a nice coincidence! The template itself is only a couple hours older than the article. Any other work you do or ideas you have on Sandburg's works in WP, please of course feel free to contribute to the template. KConWiki (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a coincidence. I created the RR article because I've made improving List of longest novels one of my little projects, and today was the day I found a first edition RR and decided the list should have a link. When I looked at the CS page, there was no template for his works whatsoever, but then I noticed there was one on the CS works page, edited it there, thought about adding the template to the CS page, and there it was. I thought I was having a senior moment before my time or something. Way cool.

As for CS works in general, I probably don't have much to contribute, but I'll keep it mind. I've been going after seriously ignored significant modern literature. Choor monster (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detour (novel) help request

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I recently moved Detour (novel) to Detour (1939 novel) and redid the former as a disambiguation page. But the Talk:Detour (novel) is still the Talk:Detour (1939 novel) page. Trying to edit the former talk page (through the Talk button or the link takes one to the latter talk page. Presumably fixing this will create an uncreated talk page, but if not, a blank page is appropriate. Choor monster (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the talk page. I will give you some information for future reference, in case you come across a similar situation again. If you tried to go to Talk:Detour (novel) you would be taken to Talk:Detour (1939 novel) as you know. However, just below the page title "Talk:Detour (1939 novel)", it said "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", and just underneath that it said "(Redirected from Talk:Detour (novel))", where Talk:Detour (novel) was a blue link. If you had clicked on the link, you would have been taken to the page Talk:Detour (novel), where the only content was a redirect link, and you could have edited that page and removed the redirect. If that's not clear, click on this link: User:JamesBWatson/Example. You will be redirected to User:JamesBWatson/Example2, but you can click on the link from there back to User:JamesBWatson/Example and edit that page. Try it, if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually, I've edited redirects before, for example, Detour (novel), after I made the move was turned into a redirect. It simply never occurred to me I was looking at a redirect on the talk pages. I assumed I made the move itself in a slightly incompetent manner, as opposed to following up in a slightly incompetent manner. Choor monster (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another help request

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello--I'd like feedback on both of these issues. The first one below has a very short discussion preceeding on Talk:***, while the other one is a new question and can proceed here.

I'm answering the second, and will leave the help request open, but you should probably move your help request to the relevant talkpage, rather than keeping it here, as it's a bit confusing for helpers to work out exactly what you're asking. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the *** question is on its Talk page. As for Michael Brodsky the digital media artist, where would I put the discussion if he didn't have the same name as somebody else? That is, I browsed around for general help on a notability question, drew a blank, and went for the generic. Choor monster (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible requesting more attention by either requesting help at WP:HD or requesting a "Move" at WP:RM. Regards, mabdul 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Michael Brodsky notable?

In researching information about Michael Brodsky, the writer, I've come across two other people with the same name. One is a Ukranian politician with his own page, Mykhailo Brodskyy, so for him I added hatnotes. But another Michael Brodsky is this fellow, a digital media artist/photographer. I have absolutely no idea if he qualifies as notable.

The question, to me, is whether the existing Michael Brodsky page should be moved to Michael Brodsky (writer) and then the page replaced with disambiguation. Choor monster (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one, but basically, whether the digital media person is notable or not, we don't need to do anything until such a time as someone decides to write an article about him. At that time (which could be tomorrow or in five years or never), then yes, we would probably move the existing page to (writer), have the new page as (artist) or somesuch, and have a disambig page. But there's no point in doing it right now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I'm certainly happy with leaving things as is, and I'm not expecting Michael Brodsky links to grow very large. It's just every so often I come across a link to an existing page, when actually the person is somebody not on WP, and the like, and I believe a teensy-weensy bit of defensive planning helps. For example, in wikifying the numerous book reviewers I've been quoting, I discovered that Jim Dwyer, who seems to have been a prolific book reviewer, is probably not notable but his name is: there are several James Dwyers, but as none were him, I added a non-linked line with a comment explaining why. But I can't do really do that with a hatnote. Choor monster (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toomer

Hi Choor, I suspect your Toomer image File:Jean Toomer, Margery Latimer.jpg isn't going to stick and will shortly deleted as the license isn't right. As it was published by Time after 1923, I assume it's still under copyright. It's a shame though as it is a good addition to the article.Span (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. I was careful to give the rationale that the photo illustrates the miscegenation scandal, and not "we need a photo of the happy couple here", since that's never acceptable. Note that TIME is not the copyright holder, the photo credit is given to "Wide World". Humorously, Wide World is not a source of information about what might be going on here.

I took the liberty of replacing your nowiki here with an extra colon in front of "File". Choor monster (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Children's Books by Carl Sandburg, Choor monster!

Wikipedia editor Gareth E Kegg just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This was better served as a redirect.

To reply, leave a comment on Gareth E Kegg's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Category:Dr. Seuss parodies

Category:Dr. Seuss parodies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Pichpich (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Joseph McElroy, NYUFASP, 2012.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph McElroy, NYUFASP, 2012.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Choor monster. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dr. Seuss parodies

Category:Dr. Seuss parodies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brownout

Choor monster, you are right that the MOS permits red links but only if a non Disambig page contains a link. This is an orphan redlink. If orphan red links were allowed on Disambig pages those pages could clutter up with all kinds of non notable whims and fancies of anybody. The purpose of the Disambig is to disambiguate between wiki pages that exist or are already referred to and should contain no information other than just enough to assist in selecting the right page. Adding red links adds information, in fact it forces a definition in the disambig page itself ext because it is not covered anywhere else. If the topic is real and noteworthy I encourage you to create the article first; it is hard work getting a new page up but worth it if you can do it. Good luck. E x nihil ^(talk) 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Choor monster (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dissident Gardens may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

for the forthcoming New York City [[Continental League]] team, to be known as the Sunnyside Pros (short for "Proletariats". His mission ends in abject failure when Shea breaks the news to Lenny

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 15

Hi, the procedure for nominating redirects is at WP:RFD#HOWTO which includes the format for the nomination, tagging the page and notifying the author. I have now carried out the necessar actions. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Choor monster (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Leviant

Hi, I was trying to correct some mistakes that were on the page. What should I do to make the appropriate corrections? Thanks Francescabigapple —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only mistake I am aware of is the correct publication year for The Yemenite Girl. After I reverted your edit, I put that one in. I have no idea of why you were changing the lede. Since you supplied absolutely no references, let alone reliable references, and offered absolutely no explanations, I reverted it automatically.

Edit correctly. Include the "Edit summary". Use the "Preview" button before saving every single time. For example, had you done so on my talk page here, you would have discovered that you did not add a new section header correctly. Do not delete references without explanation. Use the Curt Leviant talk page. If you need practice, use your private Sandbox. In addition, someone gave you a list of links for beginners on your talk page. Use them, you'll find lots of people willing to explain fine details.

And always sign your talk page edits. Choor monster (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the changes I was trying to make (such as date and place of birth) are based on a recent interview that the writer gave to the Italian weekly magazine 'Sette'. I have also instered references to this interview to justify the editing but these have been reverted as well. Therefore, what type of references should I provide to edit the page? Thank you Francescabigapple —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss things on Talk:Curt Leviant, after reading what you've missed out on over the past 12 days. Choor monster (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

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

Pennsylvania Attorney General (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Frederick Smith, James Campbell, James Cooper, John C. Bell and James Todd

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Bell

Can you please put in a better citation for Bert Bell's father being selected as the PA AG. Your edit implies that a citation is required. The source I use for my citation is one that I view as generally kind of sloppy. I do not think I miscomprehended what my source wrote, but rather I think my source is sloppy and you correction is more factual. However, you have hijacked my citation - my source is no longer valid if your statement is correct. Can you please correct that in the article. Please do not use my citations to edit the article. Please challenge my statement and my source in the article so I can fix it, or better yet provide a better source to substantiate your edit. I believe your edit is a correction so I hope you will follow through with a proper citation. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are less active than me, so I will move it to the talk page as a TODO. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Sir Orfeo, first page, Auchinleck.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sir Orfeo, first page, Auchinleck.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DAB

The guideline allows for common sense exceptions. I'm aware of MOS:DAB, but since that item on the dab is equally covered in two distinct articles there is a reason for giving both. re (Reverted, please follow MOS:DAB, 601268340 by In ictu oculi (talk)) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively one could follow the letter of MOS:DAB and simply delink the second article while retaining the information. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the dab page was violating all sorts of MOS:DAB advice.

Remember: dab pages are not articles, and the information should be kept as brief as possible to enable searchers to figure out which page is the one they want. Songs tend to accumulate covers, so usually mentioning them is just trivia, which is extraneous cruft on a dab page.

Note that I left multiple artists alone: they are almost never cruft. I left two blue links on the line with two artists.

While you're here, is there any good reason why Give Me Your Love is a redirect to the Swedish duo's version? I removed it from first place by itself on the dab page. Choor monster (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits.

Re Mason, there's an exception for the Curtis Mayfield song in that the Barbara Mason 1972 recording is more notable than the original. Anyone coming to the dab looking for it may not realise it is the same as the Curtis Mayfield song, that is why "covered by Barbara Mason 1972" should be left.

Re Give Me Your Love, it's simply that the Swedish duo Fame's 2003 song is linked in a lot of Eurovision articles. It evidently is nowhere near WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to Curtis Mayfield etc, but all the same it will take time to fix the incoming links. Hence leaving it till I have fixed those links. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's all good. I put Mason 1972 back in and unwatched the page. Two suggestions: (1) Song information for non-article songs is often crappy around here, and there ought to be more in-article links, at least with footnotes, and (2) although there might not be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, perhaps Mayfield's stands above the rest and deserves to be by itself up top? I wouldn't know. Well, OK, I know Waterloo should not be a redirect to a different Swedish Eurovision song's article. Choor monster (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly side note

I just thought this was relevant and might amuse you: [1]. I won't say who's playing which role, of course!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Personally, I consider the linguistics of reference and meaning a fascinating subject. Go ahead, wrap your head around Cappelen and Lepore Language Turned on Itself. Required reading for all (wiki-)lawyers.

(And I can't actually care if you snark me or not.) Choor monster (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-gate

I wasn't clear enough. My point was that it was slightly confusing to have two words next to each other at a place of possible line break when the hyphens were consecutive. The part I found distracting was the fact that we had a hyphen at the end of one line and also at the beginning of another; I momentarily thought it was the same word, truncated due to word length, and that someone had accidentally placed two hyphens instead of one. With the words switched, this problem is alleviated, since it's hyphen/word/word/hyphen, regardless of where the line is actually broken. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yank Barry

Your recent editing history at Yank Barry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. R3ap3R (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Comeback (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*"[[Come Back (The J. Geils Band song)|Come Back]]", by The J. Geils Band from ''Love Stinks]''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yank Barry and significance

Hey,

I think things went off the rails at the YB discussion when you cited WP:BLP1E for its use of "significance" as a term of art, and you were promptly and widely misunderstood as citing that for something else. I understand how frustrating it can be when you make your point carefully and with cites, only to have multiple people (myself included) persistently misunderstand. If you're still interested, could you explain here (small words, please) what you'd like to have changed in the article and why? I think I see your point (but perhaps don't agree with it), but I'd rather hear it from you.

If you'd rather not bother, no worries, I understand.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't believe the lawsuit deserves any mention whatsoever. However, so long as it meets various WP criteria for conclusion, including all possible BLP issues, I accept the consensus to include. I also accept the inclusion of the fate of the lawsuit, and prefer the minimal wording "dismissed", as it is last time I checked. Although PR is acceptable as a source, with restrictions, it seems in this case to likely involving spin and puffery. I'm perfectly happy to read WP:BLPPRIMARY with its harsh restriction on court documents to "augment" other RS as allowing for the statement of the conclusion of a RS-documented filing of a lawsuit, just like I'm perfectly happy that we read "John Does 1-50" correctly and not as screwed up by some RS. I didn't comment on these last details since it seemed normal WP discussion.

But the other discussion! Egads.

It's my firm belief that this lawsuit has attracted attention on WP all out of proportion to any objective evaluation of what its actual significance is in the life of YB, and pretty much none of the editors are even trying to consider that possibility. Just read WP:BLP, top to bottom, not trying to actually apply any particular sentence. There's an overall tone, a we-sincerely-request-that-you-don't-write-about-everything-just-because-you-can imperative, only some aspects of which are then spelled out, simply because they come up repeatedly. In particular, "significant" is only defined in BLP1E because it nailed down that particular The first time I mentioned this Rich responded, oh no, all lawsuits are inherently significant, they involve time and money and all that, and besides, it's a lawsuit against WP editors, and boy, that's like finding a four-leaf clover, ergo, its inherently significant twice over. I can't see how we are allowed on WP to go around making our own judgment calls regarding what is or is not significant. In particular, since absolutely nothing happened except a bunch of WP editors ran around having an editing party and then a talkfest, well, that to me caps it.

I think it was John who explained that it was significant because it was part of YB's behavior regarding using the courts. Again, my reaction is, what on earth does that have to do with WP policy? Nothing. He also mentioned that YB is promising to refile. Again, I don't see how that can possibly matter. This is 100% obvious, yet when I mentioned it, the various editors go nuts. I don't get it. They're experienced editors. This is newbie justification, borderline WP:TRUTH-level of cluelessness.

Well, thanks for coming over here. Choor monster (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see your point. I do think this comes down to a judgment call on significance, and while I think the slashdot coverage (and subsequent traffic) makes the lawsuit worth mentioning, I also understand that reasonable people could come to a different conclusion. (I also agree with you that the other arguments you were given were not particularly on point.) You raise a larger point, though, that I think is worth addressing: I can't see how we are allowed on WP to go around making our own judgment calls regarding what is or is not significant. I'd argue that this is all we can do, and those choices, combined with the conversations about them, are what maps out consensus (with the written policies being a static, fuzzy sketch of a consensus that continues to evolve). That's certainly not the accepted view (and might be a little too close to the philosophy of legal realism for your taste), but I find it leads to a less stressful way of working here. Anyway, thanks for your past (and hopefully, future) contributions to Mr. Barry's article. I appreciate the care you take in your editing, even (and especially) when I don't agree with you. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that at some point judgment calls are made, and that's where consensus comes in. I'm perfectly willing to accept intelligent consensus, even if it's not my preference. However, in this case, I don't see people making judgment calls in the right place. Not even close, not even trying, and not able to even think of such an idea. Choor monster (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for creating the John Milton Oskison page! Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on "five"

Please see my entry on the talk page. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for identifying and reverting punctuation vandalism DocumentError (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Helen Hooven Santmyer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

''“… And Ladies of the Club,”'' by Helen Hooven Santmyer|work=CLA Journal|volume=29|date=June 1986)|pages=486-89}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Rinehart

Choor monster,

Actually, consensus has not been established yet, and you're involved. No, I won't revert you, but obviously, I disagree that there is a consensus other than BLP , which if followed , demands she not be addressed or identified as "Chairman". (PS: Just so you know I'm aware, I'm also involved and therefore, can't say consensus is..... either, a neutral admin will have to call this one ) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been achieved, it just has not been officially declared. Your claims about BLP are pure imagination. If it did apply, you'd be specific. Choor monster (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling errors

Thanks for making those spelling corrections. I was using my tablet to edit, and at time, fat fingers get in the way. :-)-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Hey, i commented at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 30, partly in response there to what I perceive to be too strongly personally-directed comments by you about me. But maybe you are not specifically focused on me. I see your participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success as a Mediator for Dummies also as a bit problematic, with directions towards other editors besides me too. Could you maybe please consider chilling out a bit, and browsing a bit in Wikipedia policy/guidelines on wp:NPA and related areas. I am sure you have plenty to contribute to Wikipedia, and I think you can be more effective if you tone it down a notch or two. Comment on the content/policies, not the editors, is good advice that has been conveyed to me too. Hope you don't mind this coming from me. If you want to talk further I am open to it, but maybe offline would be best (feel free to email me). Either way, I hope for the best for you. --do ncr am 00:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are overreacting. In the AFD-VP, I only participated to comment on a technical issue regarding WorldCat and suggesting SAAMFD was up next for discussion. On the Talk after closure I snarked somebody while announcing the PROD, was rebuked by an admin, admitted my error and apologized. In the AFD-SAAMFD, there was an editor that was frankly off the rails, and I tried to be patient with him, but he wasn't seeing the light, just making up new completely bogus arguments. Totally not acceptable and I called it what it was: trolling.

Identifying your actions earlier, and now again since you posted here, as gaming, is not a personal attack. Period. All you have been doing is smearing as much lipstick on a pig as you can, and calling this an argument that the pig is actually quite kissable.

I have had numerous disagreements, sometimes quite strong and extended, without any complaints, and others where experienced editors have indeed gone off the rails and I ignored them. The only reason you're finding an extended pattern, so far as I can tell, is because you are baselessly overcommitted to VP on WP. Choor monster (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your saying that you've had "numerous disagreements, sometimes quite strong and extended", and ones "where experienced editors have indeed gone off the rails" says a lot. I for one am complaining; I am not wanting to have a strong and extended disagreement, especially not one involving personal attacks or personally-directed comments that might or might not exactly meet Wikipedia's wp:NPA definitions.

At the AFD, and here, you have asserted that I am "gaming"; I don't know why, what motivation you think I have, what on earth you think that I am trying to get out of any game. Your suggestion that I am "committed to VP on WP", meaning Victoria Pynchon on Wikipedia, strikes me as absurd. Multiple accusations you have made seem absurd to me.

I knew a person, outside of Wikipedia, who interacted with me and others by making insulting accusations against them, as a strange way of communicating, perhaps as an alternative to asking questions and expressing concerns. It, and this, seemed bizarre to me. It doesn't seem like a productive way of communicating.

There is probably a cultural difference involved, but your references to lipstick and kissing pigs seem offensive to me. I'd appreciate if you would drop that, not repeat that.

I offered my suggestion that you chill a bit, and I take it that you decline that suggestion. Okay, fine. Good luck. --do ncr am 21:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have great difficulty reading English. As such, communication with you seems impossible. Choor monster (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

negative editing on XfD target

Hi Choor monster -- As exemplified in discussion above, you and I are not seeing eye-to-eye. I thought we were done. But I am here now to express disagreement to you with what seems like battleground-type behavior, about the not-very-important redirect at RFD. First you changed the list-section in question, i.e. the list of notable books in the For Dummies article, then opened the RFD itself. That caused confusion, is in fact disruptive; you should not yourself edit the target of the redirect as if to win the RFD; the one editor who seemed at first to agree with the deletion then disagreed, once they understood that you had messed with the target of the redirect. Now, further, you are messing with the redirect in place, i.e. this diff in which you remove the category in place at the redirect. You did that a day or so ago and I reverted it, and you have just now re-done it, with your edit summary expressing your view that there is no list. I view this as disruptive and confusing in the RFD. Whether you meant it or not to be that way, it is confusing and disruptive in AFD/RFD processes if an editor advocating for an AFD/RFD deletion edits the article/redirect towards making it seem useless. You should refrain from gutting an article at AFD; your expression of "Delete" vote in an AFD should suffice. And you should let editors who are trying to support "Keep" decision go ahead and edit the AFD article in positive ways which might or might not suffice. But you should not battle them and tear out their attempts to improve an article. Likewise you should refrain from diminishing the usefulness of the redirect in question at RFD. In the RFD you have argued that the redirect serves no purpose. One purpose that I have pointed out is that it allows for proper use of the category Category:Lists of books by imprint or publisher. Your removing the category does diminish the usefulness of the redirect, and appears as if you are seeking to "win" the RFD. (Also I simply disagree with you that there is no list; there is a list; you have expressed your view that the list is a list but not a wp:list, whatever that is supposed to mean, but that is not working for me. Your stating that view in an edit summary is not helpful; I would appreciate you state your view in the RFD and/or the discussion at Wikiproject Books or elsewhere in meaningful Talk situation, rather than in edit summaries.)

On the content type issue of the usefulness/appropriateness of a category on a redirect, I would suggest that you express your view at the Wikiproject Books discussion that I invited you to, and/or at the still-ongoing RFD.

I have taken some time to reach out to you above and to explain myself again here now. On this behavior=type point now, I consider this to be meant in an educational way for you, but given previous discussion I tend to expect you to dismiss my view. It is a basic Wikipedia editor behavior practice, though, not to edit negatively on XfD targets. I believe that is a basic practice though I cannot right now point to expression of it in a policy or guideline. So, can I ask you please to either A) simply revert yourself, if you can basically understand and accept what I am saying, or at least accept that the RFD process can resolve the question, or B) agree to some mediation-like process, e.g. can we get a respected editor or two to consider the situation and advise you and me both. I guess a further alternative is to take this to some administrative noticeboard, which I would rather not do, in part as the dispute resolution processes all seem to be broken. What some editors I respect have been saying at wp:AN or wp:ANI or User talk:Jimbo Wales or other central places, is that editors should talk to each other more at their user talk pages, one to one, and I am trying to do that again now. Maybe a request at one or two respected editors pages to comment here, less than raising a dispute resolution, would be better. I do think there is a pretty basic behavior principle here -- don't mess negatively with XfD targets while the XfD is going on--and I actually think I would be remiss if I did not try to work through something here with you, positively. --do ncr am 21:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one with an unhelpful anti-WP mentality, starting with this edit summary: "rm prod. Prod seems to be follow-on to recently concluded AFD on author Victoria Pynchon (concluded delete). I prefer restoration of author article instead of this, but one should survive.)". For your information there is no MUST KEEP VP AROUND SOMEWHERE NO MATTER WHAT rule on WP, and your stating it is a sign of someone clearly not interested in what's good for WP. I have not gutted any article on an AFD, you are just making things up. I do not believe that the section edit on For Dummies was the least bit disruptive, you are again exaggerating. There was a moment of confusion, but it was cleared up. No one forced you to introduce a bad mis-named "List" section and redirect, and if you don't like having the former improved and the latter RFD'ed, well, make good edits for the sake of what's good for WP, not for the sake of your MUST KEEP VP AROUND SOMEWHERE NO MATTER WHAT rule or similar garbage.

I do not see you making any sincere effort at "reaching out". I see you simply incapable of trying to engage in an understanding of WP policy, and howling when your gaming and similar nonsense gets identified. I patiently explained what gaming you were engaged in, why it stunk, and you simply responded with huffiness as if I hadn't said anything. You seem dead-set on maintaining the fiction that your little "list" on For Dummies was something like a WP:LIST, when it obviously is not. There is no point on annoying anyone on your RFC with this worthless discussion. Feel free to take it to ANI.

In fact, any chance that I might think you have an ounce of sincerity was erased by your incompetent revert on Romeo and Juliet (disambiguation). Please read WP:DAB: these are not "topic" pages, but "dab"s. You are now edging into WP:HOUNDing territory.

And on top of everything else, I can't even begin to speculate what could be offensive about the metaphor "lipstick on a pig". By bringing it up, you only reinforce the impression you give of taking everything way too personally. Choor monster (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cedarville University faculty

Created and populated. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean Rhys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Good Morning, Midnight. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Ladies of the Club

You're completely right. It's my fault. I just added this novel to the exception list, thank you for letting me know about this problem. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "fault", any textually-funny entry is going to cause troubles. May I recommend, assuming it's not too difficult, that your Bot check an oddly punctuated link to see if it's an article, and not just a redirect? Choor monster (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are only few articles with quotes. I have a list of them. The previous list was older than nov 2014‎. Now I updated all the scripts with the updated list. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Sandburg

Hello Choor Monster: I appreciate your work on the Carl Sandburg article, especially your recent edits to recognize and attribute a RS for CS and Congress in 1959. This did cause a couple of easily remediable problems, though. I used Heitman's essay in Humanities to expand the lede, not noticing that the editor who included the "bristling" passage that quotes Epsetin in the Biography had taken the passage from Heitman's article. The problem is that the two last quotations in the lede are from Heitman, not Epstein, and this necessitates the re-introduction of a specific citation to Heitman for the lede and not simple as an external link. I hope that's clear. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, haha. I noticed that your named reference wasn't used anywhere else, so I assumed it had no other purposes, and I just moved it down to the external links, because I was sure it was good for something. All good. Choor monster (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was just dropping by for further explanation. As you can see, I now have separate sources for each quotation, including Heitman once, another source for LBJ, and what I hope is proper format for Epstein in Commentary with the correct quotation in his own words. This may be rv'd again by the other editor, whose objections are not completely clear to me. Anyway and as you say - for now, all good. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out the other editor's objection either. The only guess that makes sense is Heitman did not source Epstein, so it's as if WP policies apply to sources too. As it is, the Epstein quotation is probably WP:COPYVIO. Rather than deleting it up front, I recommend working in the details and then deleting it. I'll leave that to you if you prefer. Choor monster (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've got me wondering. I'm quoting short bits of Heitman, Epstein, and Callahan, all from copyrighted works. However, as I understand Fair Use, such quotations employed in reviews or for educational purposes are acceptable use. We'll see - and that passage is probably longer than it needs to be anyway. And I directed a query to said editor along the lines that you mention - it seems that Epstein needed a footnote in the editor's estimation. Seems to me a different understanding of the uses of RSs than is common here, but I hope we may get a clarification. regardsSensei48 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Reed (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning vandals

Please don't place multiple warnings on user talk pages all at once, like you did here and here. Start with a level 1 warning, and then wait and see of they edit again, and then place a level 2 warning, and so on. Please do it this way for all but the most egregious vandalism such as racial slurs, death threats, and the like. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I now see it's part of policy, but I'll note that I don't patrol for vandals, I come across them in articles on my watchlist and then check their contribs, and often find no one's bothered to warn them. How should I proceed to "retroactively" escalate their warning level? Choor monster (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't try to retroactively or artificially escalate the warning level. The point of warnings is not to get people blocked as quickly as possible, but rather to warn people and hopefully convince them to edit productively rather than doing test edits or vandalism. If they have received no warnings, place a level 1. If there's a level 2 on their page, place a level 3.

Admins have access to the page history, and will study it before blocking. Your multiple warnings placed simultaneously will be treated as one warning, not three/four. Look at admin Excrial's actions on page User talk:Dannyboy268, for example. Your multiple warnings were ignored completely by that admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I warn to get people blocked as fast as possible. I'm dubious about reforming most vandals, and I expect I'll be less involved in reporting vandals as a result. Choor monster (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your succinct comments on Girl Meets Ghost. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Girl Meets Ghost: Thank you for your work on this article. And just so you know, the book series is actually worth it. :) HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I will go for a kitten or cookie. I seem to be in a valiant mood. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting a little carried away! I may end up reading the books, that sometimes happens when I put effort into defending something on WP on purely technical grounds, so thank you for the recommendation. Choor monster (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20st-century British novels

Category:20st-century British novels, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi

I think that you used the wrong template to refer to the editor about whom you are complaining. Please check whether I have corrected the reference properly. (You used an article template rather than a user template, but your complaint was clearly about a user.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the fix. Choor monster (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Enough

I see your point. I'll stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Liao Sax (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You were just wasting everyone's time, including your own. Choor monster (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choor monster, wrt your comments to and about User:Michael Liao Sax, you might want to start a user page so you can proudly display this userbox:

This user enjoys biting newbies and vandals.

Seriously, please notice how differently Ryan (Wiki Ed) and Smokefoot approached him, and emulate that behavior in the future. You were ungracious here even in accepting his apology. Also, please take to heart the advice Diannaa gave you on 30 January. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "good cop, bad cop" and it worked. Choor monster (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:WikiPolice for another userbox you might like, then.

In fact, WP doesn't operate that way; we don't arrest and interrogate suspects.

We don't know that "it worked"; I assume the way others addressed the student worked.

I suggest you review WP:CIVIL, aka the 4th pillar, for instructions on how to interact with people at Wikipedia, including clueless students. Ryan and Smokefoot modeled it perfectly for you. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:CIVIL, I'd say I scored about 7 or 8 out of 10: I'm normally brusque and I don't do sweetness. So save the clownish snark for the real clowns. As for what worked, MLS responded to me and the threat of getting blocked. Choor monster (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In re: The Blue Flower

I'm in no mood to edit war, so I'll defer to you on this subject. However, your assertion that I "simply don't know what [I'm] talking about" strikes me as uncivil. I would refer you to WP:CIVIL. We can debate the merits of certain edits, even vigorously if necessary, without personalizing it. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call me "ungrammatical", and I won't return in kind: it is grammatical. I'm up for a friendly discussion on Talk:The Blue Flower, I've started one. If you think my phrasing is unnecessarily harsh or prickly, you have my explicit permission to rephrase my words (so long as you don't change the meaning!), but I recommend you mention the permission in the Talk edit summary. Choor monster (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. Prickly, Tiger didn't call you "ungrammatical"; s/he called your edit ungrammatical.

A pointless exercise in nitpicking. Exactly one of us, Tiger or me, engaged in synecdoche. Choor monster (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except at Wikipedia, where policy states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." WP:NPA I've seen many examples where it really matters whether an editor addresses an edit or an editor. YoPienso (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, point conceded. I was using synecdoche. Choor monster (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always eager to learn something new--can you please point me to a handbook that models your "Author Book" style? Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm a monkey-see-monkey-do kind of guy for most of this stuff. It's a "citation style", one I've seen used, but I have no idea what the various handbooks say. I believe that for non-citation purposes, it is almost universal to use "Author's Title". Choor monster (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see the usage at The Blue Flower as part of the article's prose, not as a citation. But I didn't come here to argue about that; just wanted to find out when the style you insisted on is correct. I appreciate your reply even though it doesn't answer my question. YoPienso (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around, author-title is listed in The Chicago Manual of Style as an acceptable short form of citation, parallel to author-date. Choor monster (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Vandalism

Please read the vandalism page on wikipedia for further information. But "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." My deletions served to clean-up the page and remove insubstantial pages/entries. Anonymous032 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Dunn

I've left you a reply at the noticeboard where you opened a discussion. I'm not sure it was the right venue, as I have said there. At WP:AFC we see a disproportionally high number of self publicists. They don't matter. Indeed, all that matters is whether we can squeeze a decent article out of them, which we do with relentless politeness and reviewing the bejasus out of their contributions. I sent this one to MfD because I believe it unfair to prolong any creature's agony.

What would be useful is if you wish to contribute a policy based comment to the MfD, please. I don't mind whether we keep the draft if it can be shown to be notable or delete it if not. At present I think it has reached the end of the road.

Have you thought of joining the volunteer reviewers at WP:AFC? There's a steep learning curve, but new reviewers are wise and usually choose the easy ones to start with. Fiddle Faddle 15:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:USER. Choor monster (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have. With precision, and with regard to the user's sandbox, especially once submitted as a draft article, what do you wish me to see, please? Fiddle Faddle 16:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been resolved. I referred you to WP:USER because I was talking about a User page, not a User's sandbox. Choor monster (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would look, please, at your initial paragraph, where you refer to the sandbox at MfD. I'm not trying to argue with you. I suspect we are arguing very similar things, but in subtly different ways. I may have misunderstood your opening para there. Forgive me if that is the case. Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my opening paragraph was crap. I mentioned the problem first (his User page is promotional) and then mentioned other facts about him, intended as helpful information, not as requests for something to be acted on. Mr. Dunn (or anyone else) is welcome to try and find RS to justify his sandbox draft and all that. I am totally uninvolved in the MFD you brought up. We are actually arguing totally different things, concerning the exact same content in two similar-looking locations. Choor monster (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a surprise that confusion arose with identical content. Let's award each other a gold star and move on :) Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your very much appreciated support at WP:AN, during user:Doublefrog's spree of mayhem. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. I was almost disappointed he turned out to be a sock, I was waiting for the block for his atrocious behavior. What is it about socks that go out of their way to call attention to themselves? Choor monster (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Charles Joseph Margiotti, 1891-1929.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Charles Joseph Margiotti, 1891-1929.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

essay/memoir/confession
Thank you for quality articles such as the novels by Joseph McElroy, including a "hastily written essay/memoir/confession", for providing page moves and extra-dabs, for uploading cover art and historic images, for reconsideration, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In fact it was the minimal and erroneous coverage of McElroy that got me to come back to WP after a previous spell as an anon about ten years ago. Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 1236 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (F. Carroll Brewster) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating F. Carroll Brewster, Choor monster!

Wikipedia editor Sulfurboy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great, thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Sulfurboy's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DYK for the Massacre

I've nominated it. I think it's gonna fly, too! Template:Did you know nominations/Kelayres massacre KDS4444^Talk 22:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Hebrew calendar, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. WP:COMMONNAME is Heshvan/Cheshvan, without Mar-. If you want to change things, discuss on a talk page, preferably on Talk:Cheshvan. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments above are completely irrelevant. Cheshvan is the name of some article, how we link to it in Hebrew calendar has nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Choor monster (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken, and apologized at Talk:Hebrew calendar. However, understand that I will try to establish a consensus for the table to read Cheshvan. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good. But please, in the future, don't try to scattershoot the Talk page discussion! My page, your page, Cheshvan, and Hebrew calendar? Now that's narishkeit. Choor monster (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect: (1) You are right that the talk could appropriately happen in any event at Talk:Hebrew calendar. But if status quo ante had been in the other direction, there would have been a very strong presumption that "Cheshvan" should stay "Cheshvan" until/unless that page itself had been moved. So that was not an inappropriate suggestion, given that I misunderstood status quo ante. (2) As for "your page", I reverted you with Twinkle, which normally wants me to notify you at your talk page that I have reverted you. That wasn't "scattershooting"; that was polite. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By scattershooting, I meant you invited me to follow up on your talk page or on Cheshvan. If Twinkle is putting your message on my Talk page, you should normally expect to look for my reply here. The status quo ante remains irrelevant to "scattershooting", since Twinkle isn't smart enough to check out an edit history and figure out who's being Bold and who isn't. As it is, I would not have gotten involved except for the bad misstatements of WP guidelines that got me to check out what's actually going on, at which point I reverted with confidence.

I'm happy you are now discussing things. May I recommend you reformat/rewrite your last reply on T:HC as the start of a new section with no indentation, since the expected future discussion has nothing to do with the just-concluded (I hope) back-and-forth. Or I'll do it myself, with your permission. Choor monster (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when I fixed up the article la:Calendarium Hebraicum (after a fairly long effort to determine the appropriate transliterations for Latin, I'll add), I finessed this particular question. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, my only contributations to HC have mostly been to give suitable references to the calendar algorithm and a few other minor bits, but I have some other minor fixes in mind. Considering that "Cheshvan" is a late invention, it would seem "Marcheshvan" would be the way to go, but I'm just guessing what style Latin is used over there. Choor monster (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the question, of course. Classical sources always use "Mar-" (as Marchesuan, usually). Today, though, "Cheshvan" is the common name. On lawiki, the general practice is to be respectful of classical usage without necessarily being utterly locked into it. So that's what I tried to accomplish.

I just took a random tour of about a dozen other wikis whose languages I can hope to make out to some extent. Nearly always Cheshvan (spelled however it needs to be spelled) is taken as the primary name today, and Marcheshvan as an alternative and/or predecessor. So however it plays out in Talk:Hebrew calendar, I feel I was on solid ground to handle lawiki that way. And people over there were very comfortable with that, including people with some background on the subject. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes

I'm trying to tidy up some navboxes, but you seem to have issues with my edits. Regarding {{Edgardo Vega Yunqué}}, there is no point in having unlinked text in a navbox as this does not aid navigation in any way. With the new guideline for redlinks, if the articles are truly notable, they should be redlinked, but there is no support for unlinked text. As these articles are not even redlinked at Edgardo Vega Yunqué, then it is unlikely they meet the notability guidelines. If they are not redlinked there, then they shouldn't be in the navbox. Especially the short story collections. Also, with regard to duplicating links (see {{Penelope Fitzgerald}}), this adds no navigational value whatsoever, and actually can confound a reader, as they keep ending up at the same article. Again, these individual works have not been deemed notable enough to have received redlinks in the bibliography, so likewise they shouldn't be in the navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following on, I'd rather see the redlinks at {{Penelope Fitzgerald}} than the redirects, but when you start getting entire sections redlinked in navboxes, you have to question the navigational worth of those sections - the whole sections should be excised until at least some of the articles are there (provided they meet notability). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I found this on my travels. It's much more extreme than what I found at {{Edgardo Vega Yunqué}}, but the principle is the same. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check my User:Choor monster/sandbox#Ed Vega, I've accumulated some links to reviews and such regarding notability of Vega Yunque's books that do not yet have articles. I also have some off-line material. Blood Fugue and Mendoza's Dreams definitely pass WP:NBOOK, I'd have to doublecheck ~my off-line notes on Casualty Report. As an ironic note, when I created the template, I left out the short story collections, since I felt they were not notable, and when someone insisted they belong there, I didn't dispute them, but instead spent time eventually finding sources.
- The same issues regarding notability is also true for the miscellaneous works of Penelope Fitzgerald. In her case she's highly major award-winning prominent, and there is a full-length academic biography/critical study even. Finding the sources that support their notability is not difficult.
- The Vega Yunque article is a mess, by the way. Some fans have pressed hard to POV-push what a stunning success-to-success his fame was. I figured the best solution rather than fight them is to finish with the book articles, then the POV-pushing can just be summarily deleted. I started about a year ago, and don't mind being reminded that I've been a good-for-almost-nothing lazybones about some of my promises to myself.
- So yes, clean-up is good, but I think my approach, although much much slower, is better.
- And again, thank you for discussion! And for sharing your travelogue!! Choor monster (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your response. Are you happy if we change the duplicate links at {{Penelope Fitzgerald}} to redlinks? I think this is more in the spirit of the change to the redlink guideline (promoting article creation) than a load of links all pointing to the same place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I changed those links, and made some more promises to myself for the greater good of WP. It's possible I'll create something that is not worth being a separate article, but belongs as a section somewhere, and in that case, section linking will be a good thing, not the current worthless thing. Choor monster (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Translations by Michael Brodsky

Category:Translations by Michael Brodsky, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kelayres massacre

On 25 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kelayres massacre, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1934, participants in a political rally in Kelayres, Pennsylvania, were gunned down as they marched past the house of the local opposition party boss? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kelayres massacre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! We did it! [Place Symbolic Internet Handshake thingy here]. Hope the article gets a thousand hits today! KDS4444^Talk 14:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I missed it all—I was away and off-line for the entire weekend. It looks like it was a dud, though. Choor monster (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This had partly to do with it being dead LAST on the list for the day, and not having a flashy photo to lure the viewer in. But nearly 3,000 page views in a single day is more than I've ever gotten on any article I've ever written! So let's not call it a "dud" (one of the DYK articles from last month got fewer than 500 page views), let's call it respectably viewed given its treatment, and be comforted that a couple thousand more people now know about it. I think that's worth a great deal. KDS4444^Talk 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM

Thanks for calling out Nonamesleft on his behavior at AN/I. I just left this message at Floquenbeam's talk page. It gives the chain of events from where and how I entered onto that editor's radar. Frankly, I didn't think anyone would catch on to his purpose for quite a while, but glad it happened so quickly (some editors take WP:AGF too far, in my opinion). Again, my sincere thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll just comment, here, where almost nobody will read it, that your use of "vandalism" is much more inclusive than everyone else's. Unlike Chase, I won't argue with you about it, but I suspect the admins on AIV treat you as "crying wolf". They have very strict standards there, and are deliberately over the top with AGF and ROPE. See #Warning vandals above. (On the other hand, your report there was what got my attention.) ANI is usually the proper venue for reporting persistent trolls. I think Nonamesleft should have been blocked for the Jimmy Carter redirect alone.

And as for becoming numb to the run-of-the-mill personal attacks, it's everybody. It took me three days, and a kick in the face from following the Malik WP:ARC mess, to wake up and realize Nonamesleft really really crossed the line when attacking you. I was kind of disappointed that Floquenbeam didn't even mention that detail in his block, but as he says on his talk page, it all added up. Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's just me (the crying wolf thing), I have noticed a trend toward a "kinder and gentler Wikipedia" in regard to new editors that look like they could pose problems later. While I won't go into detail, my profession involves being able to immediately pick up on and appropriately deal with certain behaviors. I think it's why, when I see certain behaviors or a series of behaviors, that I identify those behaviors in a certain manner (e.g., "vandalism"). When it's more subjective (e.g., directed at me), I'm a little slower on the uptake OR I try to ignore it because I'm a person who is used to being picked on due to Aspergers. All my life. There are days when I'm more sensitive to it (for various reasons) and those are the days I'm likely to lash out inappropriately. As a side note: those who claim I use Aspergers as a "get out of jail free" card don't understand Aspergers or ASDs at all. And I don't expect them to. I have declared my "differntabilty" in my user space so people might read it and say, "Oh...okay" and have a better understanding, not so I can be given a pass for anything. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. And at times, it makes me the target of ridicule and cruel comments. I'd like to say I have gotten used to it, but I haven't. I just shrug it off a little quicker than I used to. Back to the subject: you're right, calling someone with a neurological difference "mentally ill" is a line that should never be crossed (just like racism, sexism, ageism, etc.) and admins should be quicker to jump on it. Takes time for that to happen, I guess.

But, overall, I think there is more attention being paid to editor retention. Some folks who can become productive editors may start off on the wrong foot here. Treating Wikipedia like other areas on the internet where trolling, flaming, hoaxing, etc. are allowed. Maybe the way of looking at them is that after they get it out of their system and understand our "rules" they will enjoy editing and the other will cease. Putting cuffs on them right away and hauling them off to the blocking jail may dissuade them from being productive or ever coming back at all. That's my take on it, anyway. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a mathematician/programmer, so I'm quite used to dealing with people far from the norm. The only person I've known whom I knew was mentally ill was John Forbes Nash, Jr., who was recovering at the time I was in Princeton. My memories of Nash are so precious that I refused to read the book or see the movie when they came out many years later.

Along the way I've also been fascinated by neurology and neurobiology. So I've learned that color blindness is really color difference. I've seen deaf people sign across a crowded noisy room. I recall the Oliver Sacks chapter about the stroke victims who couldn't understand language but could instantly spot liars. And so on. I've long ago gotten the message that normality and typicality are way overrated, especially by the normal and the typical (who else?).

So you're a cool hunter in reverse?

The bad guys here sometimes do reform: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Disclosure. But I'll note he was blocked, stayed away, and came back clean. Choor monster (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool hunter in reverse, yes, you could say that. ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wickstrom's Identity and your comments

Hi Choor monster, and thank you for your intervention as a mathematician on this article. But I think describing previous reviewers' comments as: "rather tame form letter rejections" on the author's talk page was a tad harsh and not necessarily the best place for such comments. In point of fact, I failed the article on the very obvious lack of sources, which was solid reasoning that didn't require special subject knowledge. I also left a personal note to the author pointing out that she or he needed to avoid circular referencing and support the article with sources that supported claims made in the article. Thanks. Libby norman (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a rather tame form letter rejection on your part. You successfully checked off the obvious box "no sources", and what happened was the poor guy thought that was the essential part of what was wrong with his submission, and not the fact that it's stuff he himself has made up, nor the fact that it's totally trivial stuff of no interest to anyone. He gave sources to things like "e is a number" and "i is a number" and so on, following your instructions.

I also pointed out the other form letter rejection had the consequence that the guy tried to get it on Wiktionary.

Where should I point this out? I wasn't mentioning these details to criticize you, but to point out that the editor didn't get the deeper message: this stuff has absolutely no place on Wikipedia whatsoever, and rather than let him continue to work on it, wasting his time and ours, we should kill it off right now. Choor monster (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deeper message was gathered quite succinctly in the MfD itself. While I agree with you that Libby norman and I could have put this for deletion when we first encountered it, we didn't, because there are a ton of pages to review and easy declines are much less hassle to deal with than complicated ones (especially when it's only been declined once or twice); we simply don't have time to give an in-depth review of every page that crosses our monitors. Implying that we're just mindless slaves pressing pre-set decline buttons doesn't really help anybody. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm still not clear. I'm definitely not criticizing either of you. I have no objection to push-button form rejections. I only submitted it for MfD because the editor kept working on it. Normally the push-button system works just fine and dandy. I'm just pointing out that this time there was failure to communicate. It's happened before, and it will happen again. Nobody is to blame, and nothing needs fixing, except maybe the US educational system. Choor monster (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications. No lasting damage done, although it's good to clear up that no criticism was intended. I've done a lot of Afc work and this is an unusual one. Rather than a communication problem, it appears to me to be a misunderstanding of some fundamental underlying principles of Wikipedia on the new editor's part. As the original decliner, I think it might be a good idea if I send a belated welcome message with some links to useful stuff, and a note to suggest places to look for guidance, if required, on future drafts. Libby norman (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No harm no foul. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I was going to restore one of the two quotes you removed from the VD article, but then I misclicked and you got rolled back. Sorry! DS (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll wait. But remember, we're not here to give a forum for or against VD. Choor monster (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Martinson

Excellent research! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link to his obituary takes you to the paywall, you see it because you have an account there, so I hid the link. I am seeking clarification of the rule. WP:Paywall no longer has any rule showing on displaying paywall login screens. I just wrote his son who may have access to other published obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That apparently was the only obituary (see the American Furies book if you can). Note most accounts get the year and season of his death wrong, and claim he was "denied tenure", which seems dubious for the former Chairman.
- Paywalls are completely acceptable for references, completely unacceptable for external links. If you want a copy of any article I cite, leave me a message or send me e-mail, note that I'm returning to real life shortly and won't respond for awhile. Choor monster (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the obituary mention his place of death? How did you get interested in him? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! That is pretty grim to read. Are you going to add him to Wikidata or should I? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary simply said "New York" regarding place of death. Very discreet, there was no mention of cause or other personal details. FWIW, he was divorced around 1970. I have come across his name before, but it never really stuck. I will be reviewing past decisions regarding RS, and may move some material to the Talk page. (In case you have this section on speed-dial, note that I've wl-ed the section title.) Choor monster (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can send me the text or jpg for the obituary, I will pass it to his son. He doesn't have it in his Ancestry account. I couldn't find it from my newspaper.com or genealogy bank account. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Choor monster (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call

You've got some. Worm^TT(talk) 11:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh. Choor monster (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh? Guilty conscience? Worm^TT(talk) 12:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Selichot week, leading up to Rosh Hashanah and the Day of Judgment. I've got the dial on my guiltyconsciencemeter turned up to 11! Choor monster (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC) I don't believe in pointing out that I'm being humorous, however, cross-cultural confusions may be at issue here.[reply]

Hebrew year template (redux)

Hi. One last thing before I publish. (Not needed before Shabbat if you don't have time.) I added the shmitta cycle data, as you suggested. but I don't really know how far back the current reckoning of shmitta years goes. With machzor gadol/machzor katan I simply deal with them proleptically, as that's pretty traditional—and in the case of the astronomically inaccurate machzor gadol, kind of the point anyway. But for shmitta I don't think I can really do that. There are machlokiot on how yovel fit in, and in any event I don't have time for the more involved coding something like that would entail. So as an interim solution at this point, I've suppressed the display of shmitta for pre-1948. I think I can actually go back pretty accurately to about 1880 or so, but I just don't know where to find any information for periods before that. Do you? שבת שלום וגמר חתימה טובה. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and asked around. So far as I can tell, everyone paskens like Rambam, Hilchos Shmittah Chapter 10:1-6. If you want a knowledgeable easy to find modern English source, see ArtScroll Mishnayos Sheviit. Its first footnote clarifies what "every seven years" means in practice, and cites Rambam. In particular, Yovel does not apply post-Churban-Sheni, and you can display shmittah way way back. (ArtScroll makes no further reference to the contemporary calendar.)

You may think that shmittah is something that disappeared and after a thousand years rabbaim have been scrambling to figure out how to re-introduce it. Perhaps so for many of the finest details, but because prozbul has always applied in golus, the count has been kept going all along. גמר חתימה טובה Choor monster (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's very helpful. So it appears I can safely go back to Churban Sheni. If I want to go farther back than that, at minimum the programming starts getting much more involved, so I'm not going to do that at present. גמר חתימה טובה StevenJ81 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done ... But I'm still missing something. Standard chronologies give churban as 70 CE, which is 3760+70=AM 3830 by our standard anno mundi dating. But 3830 was not a shmitta year, 3829 was. My reading of the excerpt from Rambam suggests that the year starting two months after the churban would have been the year after shmitta. If so, churban had to be in 69 CE, not 70. I'll look in ArtScroll Shevi'it over Yom Kippur, if I think of it. גמר חתימה טובה StevenJ81 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81:: There is no "standard" chronology, certainly not in the traditional sources. One has to be cautious at interpreting secular documents from back then even. People simply had not idea of chronology the way we do today, and both the Romans and Jews counted years as they felt like it, both nationally and individually. On top of all that, there is an ambiguity about counting years. For example, Russians refer to someone in their 20th year of life as 20 years old, whereas in English we say they are 19 years old. And Hebrew has both! Choor monster (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair point. Anyway, please have one more look: I created a documentation page. And thanks for all your help. מועד טוב. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffee

I know all the parties involved, and the family is appalled. That book is wrong and verges on libel. I suggest you let it be...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very doubtful that a long-time friend of Jaffee got something that basic so entirely wrong. Perhaps the family is appalled that their dirty laundry is being aired?

PS, it's very bad form to respond in two places. Full response and further discussion is at Talk:Al Jaffee. Choor monster (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEWSORG

Hi Choor monster, regarding your comment at Talk:Riemann hypothesis, I've started a discussion at WT:RS regarding the reliability of news sources for science that you might want to drop in on. Best, Sławomir
Biały 14:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I saw the thread, and generally agree with those stating that the existing rules (when coupled with related policies/guidelines/essays/common sense are sufficient as is. In particular, Riemann hypothesis has worked out just fine, no NEWSORG tweaking needed.

As another example, somebody created a stub a month or so ago, a one-liner regarding a mathematician who had apparently solved the Poincaré conjecture back in the 1980s, as reported in the NYT. A week later somebody asked about it on Talk:Poincaré conjecture. I knew what the real story was, and knew the sources, and improved the bio to something reasonable. It's a good thing nobody PRODed the article. (As you know, it wasn't proven in the 1980s.)

We obviously don't want the blind leading the blind, but more rules aren't going to help anyone see better! If you see questionable material outside your comfort zone, ask around. Choor monster (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Sławomir
Biały 15:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carter review

Thanks for writing. Yes, I'm still looking for it and would be very grateful for a copy. Just to be clear though, the link works for me as well but only the first four paragraphs of the review - the rest is paywalled. If you have the whole thing, I'd be very grateful for a copy. Many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 19:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I didn't get it. I have Wikipedia email enabled so I don't know what is up with that. In the meantime, I've sent you an email. Thanks very much, --Viennese Waltz 08:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got your e-mail and I replied directly. Choor monster (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sławomir
Biały 11:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A greeting from an IP editor

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:CAC6:1800:203D:E821:B4C0:7CE9 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

File:Sir Orfeo, first page, Auchinleck.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sir Orfeo, first page, Auchinleck.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Spring, Penelope Fitzgerald, cover.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:At Freddie's, Penelope Fitzgerald, cover.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Innocence, Penelope Fitzgerald, cover.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Marguerite Young with manuscript.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Michael Romanoff and dogs.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 20:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Genevieve Blatt, 1913-1996.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Genevieve Blatt, 1913-1996.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Margery Latimer, FWA snip.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tess Slesinger.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —holly {chat} 19:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]