User talk:Astynax/Archive 14

Forgetting to sign in...
Hi Astynax. Several times I've forgotten to sign into Wiki... and so my IP address is left published on the record here. I know it's my own fault for forgetting to sign in, but I don't like having my IP address published. Is there any way for me to go back and change my IP to my signature. There are a lot of weirdos out in the cyber-world, and I've heard stories of people getting bothered when their IP address was published. Thanks. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. There is no way to do this on your own page (on talk pages, you may go back and replace the IP address signature with your logged-in signature, though the IP address will continue to display in the page's View history). If there is a compelling privacy concern, there is a procedure to hide certain edits that contain sensitive information, however I'm not sure an exposed IP address would be considered enough of a reason and it is more trouble than it is worth IMO. The IP address continues to be stored with all your edits and visible to administrators and bureaucrats in any case. To avoid editing while not logged in, the icons and shortcuts to Wikipedia on my computer point to my Watchlist page, which automatically asks for a login before it will display. &bull; Astynax talk 17:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I won't worry about it. I knew that administrators and other Wiki types could see IP addresses, but I'm not worried about them. It was just John Q. Public I was worried about. You said, To avoid editing while not logged in, the icons and shortcuts to Wikipedia on my computer point to my Watchlist page, which automatically asks for a login before it will display. Is that a setting on your computer? I'd like to set something like that on my computer.   DimeBoxFrank (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are using Internet Explorer, go to your Watchlist and right-click to "Add to favorites" to create a link to that page. If you are using Firefox, right-click to "Bookmark This Page". When you go to Wikipedia, use your bookmark. If you are running Windows, IE also allows you to set up a desktop icon (while on your Watchlist page, right-click and choose "Create shortcut"). &bull; Astynax talk 20:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Uruguayan War
Astynax, I took the liberty of replacing a photo of a destroyed building with a photo of the Brazilian troops during the siege of Paysandú. I think it's more appropriate since that section's title is "Army of the South in Paysandú". If you agree, please correct the alternative caption. If not, feel free to revert it. --Lecen (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. &bull; Astynax talk 18:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't finish that article anymore. I already delisted from my watchlist. I'm sorry for having taken your time. --Lecen (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's better if I finish that thing than leaving it at the hands of LangusTxT. Please take a look at the third and last paragraph of "Legacy", especially in part where it says "Politically motivated and in close alliance with neorevisionists, some of Menem's successors in office..." The author was talking of the Kirchner couple. --Lecen (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Finished "Ruler of Argentina". Please, don't forge to take at the last paragraph of "Legacy" as well. --Lecen (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Inexplicably divergent ratings
I am putting this on your talk page because I'm not sure if you are watching the Andrew R. Heinze talk page anymore:

Hi Astynax. Re: the WP:GA. I think the reason the review process puts me off is that the various Wiki articles I've looked at have inexplicably divergent ratings by the review committee. What are the benefits of submitting an article to WP:GA? Are my fears about the review process groundless? The kind of "inexplicable" thing I'm talking about is this: the article I'm working on at present is the Luther Adler article. That article has been reviewed as "Start," and yet it had zero sources or references when I began working on it (last week). I've seen many other articles rated less than "Start" that have quite a few decent sources. So what's the deal with the review process? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GA is a step toward identifying things that may not fit with Wikipedia's standards. Getting the GA designation indicates that it has passed a review. That said, the review you'd get at GA would depend on the reviewer. There have been a few horror stories there with reviewers who have been more destructive than constructive, though I think the likelihood of getting one of those is small. After GA, you could try FAC, which is the closest thing Wikipedia comes to a review panel (also worth doing). GA and FA articles are considered stable and are treated with more respect than most (it is easier to make a case against vandalism and unconstructive and unreferenced edits). GA is a rather simple process and I'd encourage you to try for it. Ratings below GA can be arbitrary given, and few seem to be updated as most articles have few people looking to improve them or watching them for changes. &bull; Astynax talk 03:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your answer. So... it seems that having a GA rating might give an article a little security and that (on balance) the reviewers are reasonable. That's a good thing. I'm going to try it.  DimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 8, August-September2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
 * Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
 * New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
 * Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC) -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
 * English signup
 * Deutsch signup
 * Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
 * Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
 * British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
 * Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
 *  Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
 * JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Rosas's apostrophes' sibilation
Hi Astynax. thricky section "whether the city of Buenos Aires' citizens supported Rosas's" — lots of Ss, including apostrophes. For consitency, it should be "Aires's" (you guys have managed to keep "Rosas's" throughout, which most people don't understand — well done). But that would give us City of BuenoS AireS'S Citizens Supported. I propose you invert "whether the city of Buenos Aires' citizens supported Rosas's" to "whether citizens of Buenos Aires supported Rosas's". Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting the inconsistency. I have made the change you suggested. &bull; Astynax talk 11:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  people of Brazil

Thank you for collaborative contributions to quality articles on noble people of Brazil, such as Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil, in Wikpedia spirit, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 321st recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Landmark proposed decision talk page
You know, you can propose new findings of fact and proposed decisions on the proposed decision talk page. I would think that perhaps WP:IDHT in response to questions regarding WP:COI, and possible tendentious repetition of the same points over and over for no readily apparent reason, are possible complaints. Also, I seem to remember in the Falun Gong 2 case that there was a new procedure instituted then called, if I remember rightly, mandated external review, which indicates that the person subject to such review cannot edit the article page at all except with prior approval from an uninvolved administrator. I think for this topic something of that type might not be a bad idea for some of the participants here anyway. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want an unruly mess of articles from a databank, most of which probably aren't worth a great deal, regarding est and Landmark, drop me an e-mail and I can forward what I found off the Cengage databanks to you. I'm going through them, and I honestly don't see a hell of a lot of material I would use so far, but I haven't gone through everything yet. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Robinson's Arch
Thanks very much for your note about the photo of the prayer platform at Robinson's Arch! It's great to get a note of thanks once in awhile, and not a note of criticism! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
 * This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Contingency plans
If it ever becomes called for, there might be some useful information at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 179. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And check your e-mail too. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a story there somewhere. Interesting. &bull; Astynax talk 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Landmark on the web
I thought this page might be useful, although, admittedly, there are other keywords which could be searched for as well. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good find. The returned links seem to be dominated by stories from PRWire, Business Wire and similar press release mills, and hopefully editors will not mistakenly assume those are reliable or objective sources, except inasmuch as such press releases reflect the views of Landmark's marketing department. Unfortunately, some periodicals reprint press releases as fillers, and even these press releases may show that Landmark the source of such "stories". There are, however, a few bona fide journalistic sources mixed in with the press releases and mis-hits. Searching on 'Werner Erhard' there returns further relevant hits for both est and its subsequent iterations. Interesting site. &bull; Astynax talk 08:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Peace to men of good will
{| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color:#008000; width: 755px;"
 * rowspan="2" valign="center" | Weihnachten10.gif
 * rowspan="2" |
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | Happy Holiday Cheer
 * style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray; color:#008000" | Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an AwesomeHoliday and a HappyNewYear, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings!  Joys! John Carter (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC) |}
 * Thanks. May the new year bring you good things! &bull; Astynax talk 00:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. May the new year bring you good things! &bull; Astynax talk 00:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 9, November-December 2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
 * New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
 * Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Arbitration clarification
There is a request for clarification in which you are named here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Landmark_Worldwide.2FR6_Additional_eyes_invited DaveApter (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article review/Pedro I of Brazil/archive1
I'm sorry it's come to this, but we cannot actively mislead our audience by claiming conspiracy theories support changing historical documents to how we think they should be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed
This is a courtesy message to inform you that an arbitration clarification request in which you were listed as a party has been closed and archived with a motion being enacted which authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide
Thanks for. Of course CEO is not Chairman... bleary-eyed edit on my part. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark DS
Apologies for this bureaucratic silliness, but according to the labyrinthine WP:AC/DS system you aren't "alerted". Which doesn't make sense because you were part of the arbitration case, but bureaucracies seldom make sense. Manul ~ talk 01:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did notice a notice posted on a couple of talk pages, but didn't know whether some other notice was required. &bull; Astynax talk 08:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Margit Warburg
Hello again! With you removed both the notability tag and the 3rd party sources tag. While I disagree with the removal of the notability tag, let's leave it off if we can get some unrelated sources there. I've re-tagged for the 3rd party sources, and I'll take a look for some over the weekend. From your edit comment, it sounds like you know something about her though. Do you have any sources to add as well? Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Had you bothered to look, you would have easily found multiple references. You obviously tagged before doing any such thing, even after I added a newspaper account. This sort of drive-by tagging without making any effort to locate or look at the referencing regarding an article's subject is a very poor way basis on which to begin Afd processes, particularly for shorter articles. How many other articles have been deleted on this inappropriate basis? Please take more care in future. &bull; Astynax talk 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the addition of the newspaper article. There is no requirement to look at anything other than the article before tagging.  WP:BEFORE applies to AfD.  As far as Ms Warburg, I didn't see anything in a quick search that met WP:ACADEMIC (a couple very lightly cited book collaborations, a few barely cited articles, the usual non-RS websites, social media, etc).  I still don't.  That doesn't mean that sources don't exist though, and you seem pretty confident that they do.  Maybe in another language? --Tgeairn (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Margit Warburg for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margit Warburg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Margit Warburg until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tgeairn (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Request for Enforcement
You are the subject of a request for enforcement from the Arbitration Committee. You can see this at the Request for Enforcement page and you can enter a statement and other evidence to the Arbitration Committee there. See also Arbitration. Thank you. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you for a child on the Main page, - don't remember any, -  precious  again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia
Hi Astynax. Do you participate at all at ? Do you know anyone who does? I'm interested in how they handle admin tasks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You've been busy, haven't you? ;)
I really don't know many other topics, other than at times pseudoscience, Israel-Palestine, and a few others, that get sent to AE so often as Landmark. Three times in the past two months, so far as I can tell, and it looks like none of them are found to have any significant merit to them. If there were any evidence of cooperation between the three individuals who have filed those AE requests, that might not unreasonably be seen as basis for AE action on its own. And some of the comments I've seen elsewhere regarding this matter in the past month or so give me real reason to think that, maybe, you or some of the others who have been kind of targeted in the recent AE's might not find it unreasonable to start expressing your own concerns. In fact, from what I can remember, in the second in the string of recent AE's one of the uninvolved administrators more or less specifically indicated that there was at least sufficient verbiage to raise what would be basically a BOOMERANG complaint against the filer of that complaint. And, yes, some of the other comments I've seen recently, although I am clearly not in a position to confirm or deny them, as they apparently deal with sensitive matters I'm not privy to, give me reason to think that there might be very good reason to raise concerns at AE or, maybe, if they might extend beyond Landmark per se a little, to ANI. Is there any particular reason you haven't field any complaints yet? John Carter (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be any robust method for addressing POV advocacy cases through dispute resolution, as it entails looking at content. Similarly, even after an arbitrator said that COI cases should be taken to COIN, the request was booted right back to ANI, where evidently no one was willing to look into it. This is quite discouraging. I will try again when I have a bit of time, even though this is starting to seem like a huge waste of time to do anything to correct what is blatantly advocacy. Even though many people are aware that there is a serious problem on the topic, almost nothing has been done to correct. It is very curious that ensuring that the presentation of accurate content which reflects reliable sources seems to be less valued than (some) editor behavior by many here—odd for an encyclopedia. &bull; Astynax talk 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 10, January-February 2015 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
 * New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
 * TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

AE result
As a result of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=650038937#Request_concerning_Tgeairn this AE request], I have fully protected the article Landmark Worldwide for one month to allow time for disputes to be worked out without edit-warring and other disruption. Further, you are warned not to cast aspersions, not to make accusations about editors outside of the proper fora, and to critique edits and content rather than editors and their motives. I strongly suggest you avoid Tgeairn beyond participating in talk page discussions. I will be giving him a similar warning, and you can request enforcement of that at AE, but note that enforcement can also be requested against you should you fail to adhere to the expected standards of conduct. It is my impression that admins' patience with this dispute is wearing thin, and that liberal use of topic bans is a likely result, should the measures taken today prove ineffective. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest
It occurs to me that you might be in a position to contribute, if you choose to do so, some behavioral evidence or other input at Sockpuppet investigations/Tgeairn. Please feel free to do so if you so desire. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a related incident that should be relevant. &bull; Astynax talk 22:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you have flat-out lied about what said and completely omitted that you attempted to raise this same argument at WP:AE only to end up with a warning yourself and NO finding of puppetry or anything else.   and  both warned you (and John) to stop - and yet you have continued to make unfounded accusations. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Astynax, I believe the above statement unequivocally constitutes a direct personal attack as per WP:NPA, particulary the "flat-out lied" part. I believe you may be interested in contacting an AE admin and seeing if such are considered actionable on their own. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Rosas
Good news: I finished Rosas article. Sorry for taking so long. I have less and less time available. Of course, most of the blame is simply because I feel no pleasure writing for Wikipedia anymore. Hope you can take a look at the article and improve it. I plan to add further sources, but the text is all done. --Lecen (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will try to look at it tomorrow. Yes, less and less time is a problem and gets worse with every year. I had a few small additions that I was going to add from Shumway's book, but I also put it aside because of time. It is good that this will be finished! &bull; Astynax talk 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done for good there. I added more references. --Lecen (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! I will reserve the small additions I had until after the FAC. &bull; Astynax talk 04:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Userspace essay
I actually started an essay, intended to deal with editors other than any involved in this current situation, at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet. It is still only just a rough draft, but I think it might be useful to change it and particularly take into account any possible questions of solipsistic editors, which I tend to think, in various ways, might be among our biggest problems. Maybe it could be made some sort of addendum or alternate page to WP:EXPERT as well as WP:SPA and or WP:POV. Anyway, feel free to make any changes to it you deem reasonable to make it more useful as an essay. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in
Hello Astynax,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
 * Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips.
 * Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)