User talk:Alyo/Archive 13

Your input is requested . . ..
Nolelover, I'd like to get your opinion on this revised infobox template for college football players:. After determining what data points to include, we'll recruit a template editor to handle the coding for us. Once we determine what fields we're adding and what we're deleting, then we'll work on the modified graphics. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Myron Orfield


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Color graphics for Infobox college football player
Nolebuddy, here's a sneak peel at how the revamped infobox is going: Template:Infobox college football player/testcases. What do you think of the colors, graphics, and layout and design? In particular, how do you like the "college varsity stripe graphics?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Dirtlawyer1 I'm extremely late, but this is some fantastic work...I really like what you've done. Apologies that I can't contribute more; real life pretty much has taken me out completely. I hope to come back to the wiki one day though.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  04:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

 * I'm terribly late, but thank you :)  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  04:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Heyo!
Saw your name somewhere. I see you are not that active anymore but it has literally been years! So, how have you been? &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 10:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey @User:Yash! Yeah, unfortunately I don't really do much around here anymore...I still pop in now and again. Log in whenever I'm on wikipedia and such; I'm generally only making edits on pages I happen to be on, as opposed to any watchlist, but at least I see messages on here...eventually, haha. Last couple years have all been uni. Lots of work, and not much time to spend checking dozens of AfC creations, ya know? Life is good though...how are you? How's the 'pedia doing? Still chugging along, it seems. I've never been able to use it the same way, once I saw how the sausage was made.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  04:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) &#34;A wiki of beauty is a joy forever.&#34; Seriously. That&#39;s how long it&#39;d take to read! (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

FSU football controversies: please join talk page discussion
NoleLover, please join the article talk page discussion here: Talk:Florida State Seminoles football. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Nolelover
And may your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! And of course a happy new year to you as well. I hope you're doing well.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  11:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1947-1975
Cake (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Overflow is back !
Dear User:Nolelover, once again, your user page has jumped over the template overflow limit. But this time, I know why ! You are using template User:TFOWR/Dashboard that uses Admin dashboard that itself uses many sub-templates. Perhaps should you consider using Admin dashboard/light that provides the same functionality while being less resources consuming (and also remains inside it's box when minimized). Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that makes sense! Thanks for letting me know, and I'll get on that.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  15:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiknic 2018
Please join us for a Wiknic at Tribble Mill Park in Lawrenceville, GA on Sunday, August 26, 2018 between 11:00 am - 2:00 pm. Sign up here. — Ganeshk ( talk ) 03:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Vyeh has returned to Indiggo
I just want to let you know I've come back to Wikipedia. I'm focusing all of my efforts on Indiggo. When I came back, I went to your page and noted that you were semi-retired. It only occurred to me to check your contributions.

I remember our collaboration on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. If you ever need my opinion on an article you are editing, let me know.

In any event, hello! Vyeh (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Vyeh, welcome back! Yup, unfortunately I've never really had the same amount of time in the last few years, and it's probably not going to get any better--I'm starting law school later this month and I've heard there's a little bit of work involved in that... Much as I wish I could contribute to a few topics I enjoy, I think I'll have to just continue my string of once-a-month minor edits on something I'm reading. Glad to see you're back though, and I hope life is treating you well. If I can ever find the time to commit to WP again I'll be sure to see what you're up to! Nolelover (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Good luck in law school! Put your time and energy into a student law journal rather than WP.


 * There is nothing much to see. I wrote a new section. Then I summarized the new section for the summary. I cleaned up the infobox. I started expanding an old section. In the process, I've been going through the references and cleaning them out. Other than a couple of edits for an existing spelling error and a formatting error in one of my references, I've done all the editing. I've even organized the talk page Talk:Indiggo! It is very peaceful, not having to seek consensus ... Vyeh (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes that's exactly the plan! I wouldn't mind if I could treat WP as a sort of volunteering opportunity (it actually opened some doors for me back in the day), but for now getting my feet under me with studies takes priority. Maybe the occasional edit-a-thon. Working on Indiggo sounds so pleasant though... After doing SMAC with you, I managed to get myself involved in a bunch of articles related to the India-Pakistan relationship. That was...stressful at times. I spent more time than I'd ever want to on the talk pages of a few different admins trying to settle things down. It's quite nice to just have a niche little topic you can research and work on. Nolelover (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning me on your page before you replaced it today! Vyeh (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh of course, and thanks for tagging me along when you began work on that page! Nolelover (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It was a lot of fun collaborating with you! Vyeh (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize law school is about to begin and you may be in the process of moving (although I saw activity on Friday). Could you do me a favor? I think it will take 5 - 10 minutes. Could you read Indiggo and give me your general impressions?
 * I added "and are the creators of Wicked Clone The Cinema Musical" in the lede and the second paragraph in the summary. I've checked most of the cites in the summary. (The cites I've written do not have a terminal period because I am using the more recent citation template, instead of cite web.)
 * I expanded "Biography" from 5 to 19 lines, not touching the old stuff.
 * "Wicked Clone The Cinema Musical" is a new section I added.
 * In "Music," I added the sentence 'The album liner notes describes Indiggo as “ambassadors of the great Romanian tradition.”' and reference. The rest is old.
 * I added the middle paragraph of "Eurovision Qualifications." The other two paragraphs are old.
 * In "Stage, Movies and Television," I edited the last sentence. The rest is old.
 * Just go ahead and edit (and place your observation in the edit summary) or reply here with an observation, whatever is faster. I'll check to be sure the cites conform.
 * Talk:Indiggo/Translations contains the references I ran through Google translation.
 * What I'm looking for is a fresh pair of eyes from a competent editor. I really appreciate any help you can give me during this busy time for you. As you can see from the talk page, I've spent a lot of time talking with myself. It will be very nice to have you briefly in the conversation. Thank you! Vyeh (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing! Here are initial thoughts as I read:


 * Too much info in the first sentence. Possibly just end the sentence after "singing-songwriting duo" or if the musical is the one reason they're notable, keep that and put the "signed with Imagem" clause elsewhere.
 * Second graf of the lede feels very quote heavy and tbh, the Miller source in particular doesn't seem so unique/well-written that it needs to be quoted instead of paraphrased.
 * I think as a whole the lede follows MOS:LEADREL pretty well.
 * The Indiggo section could probably be trimmed a bit--if the parents have that much going on, some of the content that is less related to the twins should be in their own articles (assuming the notability question ofc).
 * Possibly restructure the Indiggo section so that the review comes at the end and the section opens with the background of the show itself (second graf), just so it flows a little better.
 * I can tell you haven't rewritten the Indiggo section as it definitely feels like anon editors have just added individual sentences over the years to it. This one probably needs the most work/trim/cleanup--I can imagine that sourcing here is lacking though. Is there anything you can add or did that 2011 album rumor come to nothing?
 * I made a quick change in the Indiggo. Possibly also shorten the quote from Sony BMG, since it's quite literally a press release? From "No wonder!" on to the end of the quote seems kinda fluff-y.

On the whole it seems pretty well structured and appropriate weight is given to the various aspects. I didn't have time to check sourcing but on the other hand, nothing stuck out as obviously needing a source. Unless you have a whole additional aspect of their career to write about (music?), it seems like you can tighten a couple of the sections, probably drop 100-150 words across the entire piece and have a really good article. Nolelover (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I look forward to going through your comments at my leisure!
 * On another matter, I'd like to get more involved in WP. I believe you patrolled new pages. Do you recommend it? If so, where do I go?
 * Are there other WP activities you would recommend?
 * Once again, thank you! When is your first day of law school? Vyeh (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I gotta try to remember haha...lets see. So since I did new page patrol (you can start at WP:NPP) they've significantly overhauled the UI. The page itself is Special:NewPagesFeed but I've have to reacquaint myself with the tools that people use to do that. Before I semi-retired, I think I actually switched over to WP:AFC, which I do highly recommend. Instead of new page patrol, which is just a lot of deleting, Articles for Creation allows you to help other people start their wp articles and every once in a while, for a more promising topic, I'd just jump in and help format sources and expand sections so the article could be published. I also did a lot with WP:WikiProject Wikify but I think that is dead by now, even if the backlog isn't. First day is a week from yesterday! This is orientation week so I still have a little free time...the first readings are just hitting my inbox today and I'll nail down my class schedule wednesday. Nolelover (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the recommendations. I suspect there will be a lot of reading in your inbox! I've made a first pass at bullets 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7. Thank you! Vyeh (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No prob! I'd be happy to take a look again later after your improvements when I have time...just let me know when you've hit that wall and need another set of eyes. Nolelover (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer! I was looking at my first edits and I came across our first conversation. If you're trying to reconcile two cases that start with similar facts and come to opposite holdings, and the urge to edit overwhelms you, feel free to edit Indiggo. I'll clean up the sources. Vyeh (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good luck for the first day of class!
 * My impression is that Indiggo is now at the C class level, where Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was when we met. What do you think?
 * Do you have any memories of the GAR for SMAC?
 * Knock them dead!
 * Well, first week down. There's so so so much reading but at least I'm enjoying what I'm doing. Don't think I've made a fool of myself too much yet haha. On the GAR...no, I unfortunately really don't remember at all. I assume I was the one who initiated it, but to be honest I don't even remember that... Nolelover (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Uh, ... The idea is not to read. A professional attorney has to be selective or all those transcripts, answers, etc. will overwhelm her. One tactic of opposing counsel is to give everything asked for and a hundred times more. Learn to recognize the stuff the judge has to throw in (CYA) and what is critical to the judge's reasoning. Much better to discuss the cases in a study group led by a woman who is determined to make law review (and hence has read everything and more and won't tolerate one second of social chit chat). You'll learn to defend your opinions. For fun, take a chauvinistic position. You won't get a date, but your classroom performance will improve.

I have rewritten the Music section. I've found more cites. The problem with SMAC is that we were struggling to find sources until we realize we had a 100+ page manual. In retrospect, it was a primary source, but we made GA and the developers of a new Civ game actually went to WP to see what inspired Brian Reynolds and that info came from the manual. Vyeh (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope the first month and a half of law school has treated you well! I noticed that you have been making contributions to WP. I've requested copy editing from the COGE and two editors are peer reviewing as a step toward FAR. I complete a peer review for one and I'm in the process of a peer review for the other. It's not like I've hit a wall, but this would be a good time for you to reread the article and make any general observations, whenever you have the time. No rush. Another two weeks for COGE. It is 48.5 kB, above the 40 kB threshold. Something to keep in mind. In my experience, the law students that are most confused tend to be the ones that get the highest grades. I don't know whether that observation will encourage or discourage you. :) Vyeh (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nolelover
Hey!

I'm not sure if you are the same person, however I vividly remember playing Runescape with someone named Nolelover many many years ago. I am not sure why I am messaging you, I spontaneously thought about you and thought I'd look you up and see if I can get in touch, as I remember you with fond memories. You can reach me on Steam, if you use it, my name is AndrewGaze.

Best Regards, Flipers04 (what my Runescape username used to be)
 * Sent you a message there! Nole  (chat·edits) 21:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

AfC
Hi, please explain why you reverted my posting at WT:AfC. If it was inadvertent, there is no harm done - I have restored it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely inadvertent, sorry about that! I tried to click another page on my watchlist, some notification loaded in late at the top and pushed everything down by a line, and I thought the extent of my mistake was that I had just clicked on the WT:AfC page, not reverted you entirely. Thanks for catching that. Nole  (chat·edits) 21:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please help to fix proper things
Please help to fix proper things and sources and move to main place this article,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zarb-e-Sukhan_(Kulliyaat). Thanks.Mediateamnews (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello I'll try go look over that article but I'm going to start with the Ehsan Sehgal article, since a lot of the sources are used in both places and I want to get a feel for how reliable the sources are. Plus it may help to let someone else look at the submission as well, since I have already done a lot of work on the topic. Additionally, may I ask if your wikipedia account is a single person or a business? "Mediateamnews" sounds like an organization, which would be against the rules--editing accounts should be limited to single persons.  Nole  (chat·edits) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

= Thanks, it is not a company and also not organiation as I said here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mediateamnews - it is a single account, but I ask help my friends until I learn. I will be not much here. Mediateamnews (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

congrats
plz, vote delete and let it deleted a good sourced article to verify ill purpose, u win, congrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "you win", because I have always thought this article was notable. Unfortunately I'm also in the middle of law school finals and don't yet have time to go through Saqib's arguments--plus I don't speak Urdu. Is this Ehsan? Nole  (chat·edits) 11:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

you always thought this article was notable, now not?
 * I have always thought the article was notable, and I still do. However, when I went back to find the sources that I used in the first deletion discussions, I cannot find them anymore. The websites no longer exist and are not hosting the old newspaper scans. I disagree with the nominator's rationale: I think "no results of the subject on Google news or Google books" is very English-centric, and obviously ignores any sources that would be found in other languages. I think Wikipedia should explicitly be trying to include more topics where the sources are non-English. However, I don't know how to find more sources, and Saqib is making arguments about Urdu publications that I cannot answer. I've been trying for months to get some help with translation but I didn't get answers from any of the users I asked. :( So at the moment, like I said, I could say "keep" based on what I've said in the past, but it would not be an argument that answered the reasons why the other editors are voting delete this time. And I think an administrator would ignore it/I would not convince anyone else without more research. Nole  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 13:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't speak urdu either, but all sources are available on talk page, someone posted, urdu and english, more than 30 and none of those is unreliable, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ehsan_Sehgal&diff=954666009&oldid=954665882 - there many urdu users they can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to look over this before the deletion discussion ends--again, I'm pretty convinced that the article passes notability guidelines but I don't know how to respond to what Saqib says about Urdu publications. It's hard for me to believe that we should just ignore all Urdu newspapers when determining notability, but others may disagree. Nole  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

it seems pure pakies jealousy, mentality or some hidden purposes, I think so. can u reinstate this text and rewrite as your words. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ehsan_Sehgal&diff=954666009&oldid=954665882 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Try not to insult him, it won't help your case. Again, I will do my best to look over this before the discussion ends but the timing is unfortunately very bad for me. Nole  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 15:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

he got war medal from pak army, is something not making notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because the award is itself is not notable enough. --Saqib (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nolelover, at-least two editors who initially opposed the deletion of the BLP, has now changed their minds. Both are regular on Urdu Wikipedia, probably has better knowledge of Urdu language sources than me and one is in-fact admin there. Point to ponder. --Saqib (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean yeah, there's obviously a reason I haven't weighed in and am not likely to. That said, I do wish that two users who had come in both quoting the sources as reasons to keep had then done a little bit more than retract + say "COI", especially if they both are more familiar with Urdu sources as you say. To be quite honest, I have a hard time with the idea that Urdu sources are just per se unusable, but again I obviously know nothing about the subject. I trust the judgment of the three of you here, at least in so far as the reliance on sourcing here goes. Nole  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Colombo Fashion Week Revision
Dear Nolelover,

I am writing with regards to the Wikipedia page for Colombo Fashion Week: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colombo_Fashion_Week&direction=next&oldid=969338310

As I am relatively new to Wikipedia, could you please clarify why you have revised this page to the old version written somewhere in the year 2015. The information I added is accurate and factual, if there are any issues please do let me know and I will do my best to fix them.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you, Christalin — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristalinC (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there thanks for leaving me a message instead of trying to re-add the material. The very short answer is--and I'm happy to elaborate if you want--you generally can't directly copy information and text from other places onto Wikipedia for copyright reasons. The "Celebrate Colombo" section you added was copied from this site, and that site holds the copyright on that text. Because I noticed that a couple of the sections had been copied from other places, I reverted the page back to the edit before you started expanding the page, because that was the only version of the page that I was relatively sure didn't have any copyright violations. If you wish to expand the page, you'll need to put that information in your own words with citations to places where readers can verify the statements you add. I do also want to caution you that just because something is accurate doesn't mean it automatically belongs on Wikipedia. For example, WP is not a place to advertise or list every detail about an event. Generally, we say that info needs to be backed up by reliable, independent sources. In other words, not the website of the fashion week itself. Better sources would be news or analysis of the event by reliable, third-parties. Does that make sense?  Nole  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 03:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: external links, etc.
Hi Alyo - I appreciate the time you've taken to reply and elaborate on W policy on external links - thank you. After careful review of W:EL I'm glad to understand the EL policy for future contributions. As a fellow editor, it is also courteous to first discuss on the article's TALK PAGE one's desire to REVERT another editor's changes, before actually doing so, and I was sorry to see you avoided this twice -- perhaps you can consider doing so in future, since it's what Wikipedia asserts the talk pages are for. Best, TashaB 21:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
 * I consider the messages I left on your talk page to be a kinder, more informal method of edit discussion--and one you're more likely to see. Happy to engage further on the article's talk page, but in this case the discussion was purely about your edits. Glad you understand the policy now, and as I have said previously I'd be happy to with with you to create a new article on the Four Ladies piece if you want. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 18:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank You
Dear Alyo, thank you very much for your recent help! I'm still (perhaps quite obviously) learning how things work here. --Cjslaby (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm glad to help! If I can flag one thing that hopefully makes your stay around here easier, it's that Wikipedia demands everything move through the slow building of consensus. What this means for you is that once someone else has reverted your addition/change you're expected to go to the talk page and come to an agreement by explaining your side. I know the term "edit war" sounds inflammatory, but it really is just meant to convey how much the community values talk page discussion over reverting each other during a dispute, even when you know you're right. Without going into any specific complaints you had--which I absolutely understand and which are very valid--please know that the wikipedia process is just....different. It's unwieldy, cumbersome at times, and borders on being structurally anti-expert. (This has been true for a long time--check out the fifth question in this 2006 Wired piece) You've said you come from academia, and I must unfortunately say that a lot of the assumptions you make in your career about communal knowledge of scholarly resources won't hold here. If you stick around, I all but guarantee there will be a day where you get into a content dispute because a user disputes or demands you prove something that is well known to you (e.g., the value of the Trivedi book). Hopefully you can get past that, because there are massive topics within WP that you can contribute to like no one else. Let me know if I can ever help you (particularly with the community norms stuff) but you'll just pick things up as you edit. Best, Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 05:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alyo, thank you again, including for this note. I was thinking/realizing that the talk page seems to be the most productive and appropriate place to bring things like what I was trying to do, at least until I learn enough to add things with proper formatting and in a proper manner. I think it was you who elsewhere said something about a "Further Reading" section, which is also something I've seen on other pages, and, once again, so long as I learn how to add things with proper formatting, I think will be one way to go about things going forward. As an academic, I spend a lot of my time being aware of research and sharing that (i.e., knowing and telling others about books and other scholarly publications). I see no reason not to include those on relevant Wikipedia pages, even if the article isn't directly citing them. Especially in situations like with the khadi page, where there aren't, as far as I'm aware, that many high quality publications (or even just much information in general) on the topic, it's particularly important that such works appear on the page so that anyone reading it can see them. I do plan and hope to stick around, and perhaps even become more involved, if I can. If a time comes when I need to make the positive case for the sharing of scholarship, well, let's just say I recognize the unfortunate and troubling reality that there are long-standing threads of anti-intellectualism all over the world and many people who outright oppose things like knowledge, learning, and thinking, but I will always stand for those things and will continue to try to make them a key part of what goes on here, too. Thanks for your help with all this. If you happen to have any suggestions for useful overviews of Wikipedia editing, I'd more than welcome those. I know there are things out there and I can and will look them up on my own but I get a sense that you've been pretty active here and so I trust your ability to evaluate the quality of such introductory guides in a way that I can't. If you also have any suggestions for readings on the culture of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editing and the community norms stuff, I would certainly welcome those, too. Thanks! Cjslaby (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm pretty confident in your ability to integrate yourself, based on you very quickly picking up norms like signing your posts and using colons to indent on talk pages. W/r/t "useful overviews of Wikipedia" I'll try to use the teach a man to fish method. First, if you're not familiar with the different namespaces here, this little overview is good. The reason I start there is that when I have a question about what I'm editing, one of my first steps is to search the "Wikipedia:" namespace for relevant policies or guidelines (everything that I link to in this comment is in that namespace). When I wanted to find the policies about a possible further reading section during discussions about Khadi, I typed "WP:further reading" into the wikipedia searchbar. The "WP:" prefix limits my search to the meta/policy namespace, and that search sent me to Further reading. The core article section types will all have guiding policies that can be found this way (e.g., WP:Lead section, WP:References, WP:External links). Our style guide is the WP:Manual of Style, thankfully well organized. You absolutely do not need to and should not read all of this now--just be aware that after ~20 years nearly every question you may have is governed by some policy somewhere, and if you don't eventually incorporate them into your edits then some editor will happily revert your edits with an edit summary that's just an all-caps acronym of a policy (<-- this one is suggested reading on WP culture) and get indignant when you ask them to explain further.
 * For something I do actually suggest you read now, this is a brief version of the core content policies. The three policies linked at the top of that page are some of the most linked-to pages in discussions, along perhaps with WP:What Wikipedia is not. These are the policies that may become relevant when, for example, you want to add books and other scholarship to WP articles. The burden will largely be on you to demonstrate that any works you add are neutral, relevant, and that a given work being preeminent in its field isn't just your conclusion as an editor (often labeled original research). That last part can be especially difficult to deal with, because editors will want you to demonstrate that someone else is an expert without relying on your own expertise of their expertise.
 * Don't worry too much about culture yet. For now, the only thing that matters is that we're all here to build an encyclopedia. Go into discussions assuming good faith about the intentions of the other editors, and know that sometimes your idea of how to best share knowledge with the world will clash with some established policy. If you ever have a question, the WP:Teahouse is a fantastic place with a lot of great helpers, and I'm happy to help as I can. Find your editing niche, and go for it! Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 17:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alyo, thanks again very much! I'm sure you've encountered it before but it's pretty standard among academics in the humanities to note that there is no such thing as neutrality. Quality/accuracy/reliability/etc. are not the same thing as neutrality. But again, this is old hat and I'm sure these issues have been hashed out (if not fully resolved) on Wikipedia long ago. (I'll make sure to read up on it. I first started my Wikipedia account when I participated in an Editathon to add more information about women in early American history and we were warned about any number of these issues.) As for the issue of expertise, this is something, especially as a historian, that I often find both fascinating and vexing. I would argue that it is impossible to "demonstrate that someone else is an expert without relying on" one's own expertise. For example, it would be nearly impossible for me to assess someone else's expertise when it comes to something like particle physics. Maybe if they have a Nobel prize I could point to something like that, but most people don't have Nobel prizes and so assessing an expert's expertise is something that only another (apparent) expert in that field could do. (And after all, isn't that what happens with a Nobel prize? It's just such a well-known award that many more people are aware of it.) For the most part, I assume this will just be a matter of pointing to a broadly recognized credential (like an advanced degree, professional position, or the like). Nevertheless, I very much appreciate the heads up. I've still so much left to learn about how all of this works! Cjslaby (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
I see you recently accepted a pending change to July 28 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the note. I wasn't aware that DotY pages were ever exempt from V, but I'll keep this in mind. I double checked the birthdate on Neilia's page before accepting, but that was based on a presumption that the sources correctly verified her birthday on that page. (And on further review, I'm not sure they do. Google/recent sources, despite backing up the July 28 bday, are likely just pulling from WP in the first place. Always fun to see that.) Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 21:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the DOY articles never should have been exempt but they decided they were - which we fixed. This led to loads of citogenesis incidents and you may have identified another.  Thanks for your help!   Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:overlink
You are de-linking words, as here, asserting overlinking. But, as wp:overlink provides, "the following are usually not linked:  Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river) ...  However, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others."

The words you are delinking under the assertion that they fall within this are not everyday words understood by most readers such as the examples here -- education, violence, aircraft, river -- but rather words such as "center field" (as I pointed out in my edit summary), "foul ball", "Fenway Park", etc. A very stark difference.

If you disagree, let's involve an admin to opine. --2603:7000:2143:8500:7829:9932:9AA8:EFA0 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi 2603, the key with the overlink policy is to link to things that aid the reader's understanding of the topic. This means linking to things that are unclear in the context of the page, and contain information on the linked page that are relevant to the reader. I'm not going to go through my edits on the Sam Fuld page link by link, but I stand by my removals. Words like "gatorade" and "youtube" are common. Words like "Fenway Park" and "pitcher's mound" are common in the context of a baseball page, and the concepts aren't the focus of the sentence in such a way that needs clarifying (e.g., "His ... bases were also records for a Fenway Park debut" could easily be changed to another phrase for a debut in Boston, showing that it's not the core concept that needs to be understood). Pages like "signing bonus" also didn't contain any information beyond a dictionary definition that would be relevant to a reader coming from a page about a baseball player. Same for "crash test dummy". The point of wp:overlink is not to link to every possible term that has a WP page, but to specifically link to other pages that aid the reader's understanding of the first page. The links that I'm removing do not do that. Also, Center field is a disambiguation page. If you want to start a larger discussion about the links on that article's talk page I'll participate, but administrators are not inherently better able to weigh in on this issue. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 18:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I stand by what I said.
 * To take the easiest example, take "Fenway Park."
 * Imagine a 10 year old reading the article. Maybe he is there because he has diabetes, and want to read about athletes with diabetes.
 * I think you misconstrue what the rule says. You missed the phrase "everyday words". If you apply that, you will see that "Fenway Park" does not fall into the category.
 * Please reread, look at the examples, and reconsider.
 * If we can't agree, let's get an admin or someone w similar experience to help us.2603:7000:2143:8500:7829:9932:9AA8:EFA0 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully sure what you mean by the diabetes example. As for Fenway Park, I also removed that link because there's another link to Fenway in that same paragraph. If you have individual words that you think should be linked, please list them and I'm happy to talk through my thoughts. I ask that you don't fully undo my edits though, as there are multiple removals in each edit and on the whole I think most of the link removals are unambiguously correct. Broadly speaking, I've had a lot of experience with wp:overlink and the rest of the linking policy, and I do believe my interpretation of the policy is correct. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 22:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="border:3.5px solid #FFD700; background-color:#FFFAE0; padding:0.1em 0.2em; height:auto; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">



 Alyo , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Le Panini  [🥪] 23:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
 * Thanks Panini! Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 07:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)