User talk:Airbornemihir/Archive 1

Sylvia Mathews Burwell
Hi. Can I ask why the name of the page was changed? From what I can tell, she is more commonly referred to as 'Sylvia Mathews Burwell' than 'Sylvia Burwell'. Even American University's recent announcement that she is the incoming University President referred to her as Sylvia Mathews Burwell. Knope7 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Feel free to change it back. Airbornemihir (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response. I moved it back. Knope7 (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I only knew her from Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., so I assumed "Sylvia Burwell" was the name most people would search for. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose vote
Hi, as regards your comment, I don't think it is necessarily true. I think to a certain extent Wikipedia is professionalizing, and I often wonder as to the motivation of people, in an environment that's driven by volunteers, why they behave in the manner they do. Even though it run by volunteers, there is my experience a level of professional expectation is a work. As you move about the environment, you see the same people, day in day for over a decade doing the same work, for all intents of purposes it is highly professionalized. It don't want to say it's some kind of priest cast with a calling, but it's similar in a lot of ways. I've was thinking of posting a similar questions a number of times on the previous RfA's but never got around to, and posted the oppose vote, which he obviously checked first, before I posted the question. The reason that people try for administration is simple. There is an absolutely a strong aspect of altruism that attracts people to Wikipedia and eventually administration but it is also about power and control. In my past career (although still going on in part), I must have recruited about 10 or more folk who were admins of one sort of another, or wanted to be administrators. The more people I would interview for the position, the more I would wonder, why they were wanting to do it. For those in the know, knew it is a really dirty job, hence the reason why here, the guideline are written to ensure every body keeps a level head, because in the commercial world, people get mad, absolutely livid, when things go wrong. Hence the question. scope_creep (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking, there is many large organizations like the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Médecins Sans Frontières which are run by volunteers, but in an exceedingly professional manner. To get into one of the two orgs. you need rigorous training. scope_creep (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It would absolutely be detrimental to the project if Wikipedia became professionalised to the extent where people were expected to behave on this website like salaried professionals. Moving around an environment and seeing the same people is as much a feature of volunteer organisations as it is of corporate environments. We can and should encourage people to edit respectfully and work for the encyclopaedia's common goals without forgetting that everyone's giving their time for free. Airbornemihir (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, but we are bounded by a set of guidelines and policies that what we can and can't do, as any corporate environment has. scope_creep (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the existence of ignore all rules as a policy is an important distinction between this place and a corporate environment. This was also cited by Kudpung in his rationale for his support vote. Basically, I feel that having a checklist for admin candidates, like one might do for a job candidate, is harmful given that this is a project run by volunteers who are serving here (and dealing with vandalism, harassment, and so on) without any expectation of reward. Airbornemihir (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is not a checklist, what is the RfA then, but a list of questions and a vetting process, as per an interview? ignore all rules is a catch all for folk, new editors, who are new to WP, to enable the editor to create an article without consequence. That is essentially what it is. That is the  true nature of it. If you were here for e.g. two years, created an article or two, did some other work at AN, or AFD possibly, a few edits and fixes and tried to use that policy at some point, created an article,  you would be either be blocked, topic banned, you would be involved in a discussion where you be instructed on use guidelines. scope_creep (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Two points to note. For one, you gave an example of the heedless use of ignore all rules, and while I agree that is common, I mentioned a specific instance where Kudpung used it, correctly in my opinion, on this very RfA. For the second, RfA does indeed superficially resemble a job interview, but it's fundamentally something different: an attempt by the community to reach consensus. The difference is pertinent since in a job interview, one is judged by one's superiors and in an RfA one is judged by one's peers. Airbornemihir (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree on point one regarding consensus as a fundamental difference, not on the second point. Gaming, the financial and fintech industries, the old boy network in the US/UK, there are several other examples; being judged by your peers is a regular occurrence. That is the fundamental dichotomy that lies at the heart of WP. scope_creep (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017 - Recent Edits to The Lego Batman Movie
Hi, my name is GUtt01, and I would like to inform you that I have reverted your recent edits to the article, The Lego Batman Movie. The reason for this is that the plot must be maintained to the preference that Wikipedia states, as per WP:FILMPLOT, in that it must stay between 400-700 words in length and, as the linked article states, should "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail". For example - yes, Barbara locks up Batman first, and then puts Robin in a cell soon after, but technically speaking, she locks up both, so the sentence should be a simple detail of this, hence why the plot states that she locks up both as a result. Take some time to read the linked article I showed you, to understand my reasoning behind my reversions of your edits.

You have made three attempts to set up the plot with that detail. Please do not make a fourth, as I will take it that you do not wish to be reasonable, in which case I may have to forward this matter to another to deal with. GUtt01 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts on behalf of article quality. I think you might be misunderstanding the reasons for my edit - the sentence "Annoyed at his recklessness, and suspecting his arch-rival wanted to be sent there, Barbara locks up the pair." was framed in a very confusing manner - among other things, "the pair" seems to refer to "him" and "his arch-rival", which is incorrect. I tried to explain this very briefly in my edit summary by noting that I was copy editing, but perhaps it wasn't clear to you. As for the other plot detail I added about the scene where Joker recruits the Phantom Zone denizens, well, I'm guessing you see it as a "scene-by-scene breakdown" which is discouraged in filmplot but I would argue it's an important plot detail. As for your other concern about summary length, I checked and the summary length was 655 words even after my edits. Furthermore, with each edit I have been shortening the length as much as possible in order to address your concerns. Please assume good faith in your future interactions with editors, since I for one do not enjoy having to justify my edits to individual sentences. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA

 * The pleasure was mine. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Mihir, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh 666 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The pleasure was mine. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your recent reviews - reviews of redirects used to take forever and I'm glad you folks are working on them. Airbornemihir (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Page patrolling
Although you are acting in good faith, I don't think that you yet have the experience to review articles. I refer to your move of page Rajesh sharma producer to Draft:Rajesh sharma producer.
 * The capitalisation of his name and formatting is still wrong, it should be Draft:Rajesh Sharma (producer), producer isn't part of his name.
 * You need to read the article. The article was self-written, and did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that he meets the notability guidelines, just a spamlink to his own website. It was highly promotional in tone. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. The article should have at the very least have been tagged as an unsourced BLP or as an advertisement. I've speedy deleted as spam.
 * You may not have noticed the numerous warnings on this editor's talk page about writing about himself. I've now blocked him for three months initially.

I'm sorry if this seems unduly critical, but there is a real risk of very poor articles slipping through if they are dealt with inappropriately, if you're not sure, better to leave it be and let someone else deal with it

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jimfbleak I agree with you in substance, if not in degree - it was very definitely an unsuitable article. Thank you for the quick deletion - I was maybe unduly cautious while trying to assume good faith. I did notice the multiple self-promotion warnings on the user's talk page and that should have been a red flag. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Reste avec moi moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Reste avec moi, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. King And God 19:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Senator Russell listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Senator Russell. Since you had some involvement with the Senator Russell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MB 01:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

About Draft:Avengers 4: Register to Vote
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Avengers 4: Register to Vote a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the draft talk page. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to note for the record, now that the draft page and the draft talk page are gone, that it was wrongly tagged as a "copy-and-paste page move". I do not plan to pursue deletion review or a request for undeletion, though - it's not that important. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

People from Edinburgh
As demonym says, there are many suffixes to choose from, all denoting agency, -er (Londoner, Hamburger), -ist, -ian, -ite, -ster, -ant, etc., I doubt there is a normative (grammatical) rule for this in English, but some forms may appear more frequently than others, depending on where you look. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man Far From Home talk page
Please note that Does anyone know if Tiffany Espensen is going to be reprising her role? is the very definition of a forum style post. Please read WP:TPG for acceptable use of a talk page, specifically WP:TPNO last bullet, which says: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it. Many active editors work on the Far From Home article, so if Espensen was confirmed by a reliable source to be in the article, she would be there. So far, there are no such references to support including her in the article at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Favre1fan93 I made it clear, more than once, that I was looking for a reliable source to support such an addition to the article. What you're telling me, that you don't know of a reliable source, could have been stated on the article talk page, for the benefit of other editors. Please look at the WP:TPO guidelines and note that the practice of removing talk page sections on WP:NOTFORUM grounds is not encouraged, for good reason. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Forum-style posting is "behavior that is unacceptable", thus editors can remove such posting. And again I was looking for a reliable source to support such an addition to the article is forum-style posting. Other editors are not here to search the internet or offline media to find answers for you. An alternate acceptable version of starting this discussion could have been finding a source for Espensen and then coming to the talk page to ask others if it was reliable. But once again, simply being curious if an actor is in a film is a forum post and will be removed every time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Favre1fan93 If you still think I was "simply being curious", after I've clarified multiple times, them you're not listening to what I'm saying. Airbornemihir (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's normal, though, for two editors to fail to understand each other - but usually that's followed by other editors joining the discussion and clearing up the situation. But, you have prevented that from happening by removing my comments from the talk page and instead pursuing a discussion here. That's not how any of this is supposed to work, nor is it in the spirit of the WP:TPO or WP:NOTFORUM guidelines. Airbornemihir (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE
I reverted your move of Arch Cape, Oregon on account of this naming convention. Please take note. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I see the same naming convention is applied to Senatobia, Mississippi and North Little Rock, Arkansas (uniquely named cities where no disambiguation is needed). However, the naming convention seems to be different for cities like Detroit and Indianapolis. Do you happen to know why this is so? Airbornemihir (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * H'm, it turns out the AP Stylebook is the authority for deciding these things, according to the naming convention. All right then. Airbornemihir (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, USPLACE lists those 30 exceptions from the AP. I'm in favor of doing away with those, but that's the compromise that's been in place for many years. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 United States elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Little ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2018_United_States_elections check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2018_United_States_elections?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zaisho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Omolon ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Zaisho check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Zaisho?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Wray ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 United States Senate elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doug Jones ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2018_United_States_Senate_elections check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2018_United_States_Senate_elections?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)