User talk:Czar/2019 Jan–Apr

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy new year
Please check if you can here

see if u wish the Greek article(new edits).

page 171. Just ctrl+f "Σπερας". He was a dictator supporter and in the army since 1925!

Anarchism in Greece during the 1920-1970 was a total ZERO. Please check it, and help me to stop the hoaxes! Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Paloukis CV. He will publiced his phd thesis in a book in 2020 at Brill-Haymarket publications in English(few Greeks can do that). Soon or later, everyone will be informed that anarchists in Greece became well know Fascists and Axis collaborators. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Great, when his thesis gets published, reviewed, cited and become mainstream, you can cite him for archeiomarxism related articles. Until then, you might find useful reading WP:FRINGE. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No. It it is very good and awarded thesis that will be soon publiced. Politics of wipedia allow phd to be placed here. Do you want to leave the NOT TRUE opinions of many anarchists ? I hope your aim isn't just propaganda. But i see that you leave for months outrageous claims for many anarchists and you don't allow opinions of historians. In Greek Wikipedia you were banned for falsified a source for a month. I hope you don't do the same here.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't get a ban for a falsified source, I have never done that. If this kind of personal attack goes on, I will go to ANI. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Good to know. Should be easier for me to read when it's published in English. We can continue at Talk:Anarchism in Greece. czar  03:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Mk. III
Hello again. I hope you enjoyed the festivities. For the record, this is what I meant by "FAC4 won't be the last time you'll be speaking with me". There's FAC numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 to look forward to. But hopefully we can sort this out – one way or the other – before 6, 7 or 8. So to reiterate, specific aspects of the article you currently object to are:
 * Moving info about her non-appearance in RE2 from 'Concept and design' to 'Appearances' ✅
 * "The Reception & legacy (R&L) reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole", specifically "'the most consistent' as a superlative" ✅ (i.e., expanded content on that point)
 * Mikami quote ✅ (i.e., added context for the discrepancy in her sexualization)
 * "The interplay of the sources on her sexualization is nonsensical."
 * ^ To that end, I've created this draft. Please feel free to rearrange there the text on her sexualisation in any manner you see fit. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Left some quick comments on the talk page but otherwise, for a number of reasons, I'm not planning to engage in a perpetual review as I did in-between the last three FACs. Laser brain's advice (re: reaching out to another experienced/unassociated FA writer) is a good place to start. czar 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor am I asking for another review, since the extensive discussion on the talk page did nothing to assuage you from opposing the last FAC. did provide some sound advice about asking for some "fresh eyes". You may recall, that's exactly what I asked for way back in my nominating statement at FAC3. The only problem with that suggestion, is that Alan gave more weight to your opposition in FAC4 than the opinions of nine other editors—Niwi3, ProtoDrake, Adityavagarwal, Cognissonance, Tintor2, Bridies, Aoba47, Beemer69 and Sergecross73. Then there was Finetooth, TheJoebro64 and Vanamonde93, who supported during past FACs but were reluctant to comment at any future FACs. And then there's me and you, the original nominator Freikorp/Damien Linane, along with SarahSV/SlimVirgin, Ealdgyth and Victoriaearle, as well as retired/non-responsive users 1989, Famous Hobo, Casliber... plus the JV-FAC newcomer FunkMonk, which makes a total of 22 users. I seriously doubt a twenty-third, or any subsequent editor – however well meaning they might be – could make a difference in a situation like this.  So I'm sticking to what's actionable: one of your key reasons for opposing was that "The interplay of the sources on her sexualization is nonsensical." So I provided a link to a userspace above for you to broadly make sense of the "nonsensical". Your commentary here and your inference elsewhere suggested you have a broad knowledge of all things video game. And you seem to know exactly what you want, but these are criticisms only you have made, so I doubt anyone else could ever resolve these in a way that satisfies your expectations. And, for the last time, I'm not being argumentative or hostile here, and I'm not being a troll. I'm simply asking you to help resolve the messiest incident I've ever come across at FAC; probably the messiest incident in FAC's history. So your continued participation, since you're the only user who cares enough to oppose, would be appreciated. Short of that, I really wouldn't feel comfortable to continue editing, unless a mutual interaction ban was granted, including any and all future FACs. I doubt that's a road you'd want to go down, through... Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to tell you. I've given copious examples of both the current holes in the article and how I would rewrite them. "The interplay of the sources on her sexualization is nonsensical" accompanies paragraphs of context and open questions for the assiduous reader. If, as LB suggested and I seconded, another experienced/unassociated FA writer reads my argument and thinks my points are invalid, they're welcome to say so and surely weaken my case. My hunch, however, is that they will agree and be faced with the harder ask of how much time they want to spend personally rewriting the article, which is more or less where I'm at. czar  02:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You've given copious examples of self-contradicting arguments which in effect prove your inability to work collaboratively, as evidenced by both the tone of your latest round of criticisms on the talk page and this very response. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's harsh and I don't see how that can be reasonably inferred from anything I've said. I'm open to self-correction if anyone agrees with your sentiment, but I'd be careful of it applying the other way around. In any event, I don't think you need to involve me in the article's next round of edits. czar  03:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ... "If they are design choices that need to be discussed in tandem with critical reception, then maybe they should even be split back out to their own subsection or section on the sexualization of her portrayal? And what would be left from this Reception paragraph as-is if the design choices alone were moved into another section?" You ask for one thing and simultaneously dispute the efficacy of performing such an action. Lest we forget about you complaining at FAC4 about something which was only done to the article based on something you said at FAC3. And now you're also complaining at the talk page about the moving of the 1UP.com source, which was only ever done as an attempt to address criticisms you made at FAC4. This is a never-ending cascade of self-contradiction. Also, your focusing and giving so much weight to a little bit of simple checkbox formatting is telling. You've been combative and edit warring from the get-go. All you're doing is confirming my suspicion that you're perpetuating an argument which I was never even party to. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm not seeing the contradiction there. My review pointed out what I consider problems and you should feel welcome to consider/address them however you'd like. There aren't any rules for how to write or group the content as long as the underlying issue is resolved or negated. But really, if you think so little of my efforts, I encourage you to work with someone else, as LB recommended. czar  03:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of, I've taken the liberty of undoing your redirect of Lisa Foiles. For future reference, it's not especially collaborative for you to say to someone, "I don't agree on naming the rest of the commentators in the Reception but that's your call at this point. If the individuals were "notable writers", they would have their own articles", only to then unilaterally redirect one of those existing articles without consensus. A less tendentious approach from you may have persuaded me to at least pretend to take your latest round of badgering seriously. Alas... Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No talk page response for three months is more than enough go-ahead for bold redirection as a preferable alternative to deletion.
 * You came to my talk page requesting edits, so offering them is not "badgering". That's not how that term works. Above, you wrote that you did not intend to be "argumentative or hostile", yet each of your subsequent posts contain more aggressive vitriol than any editor should ever receive. I've given ample opportunity to approach this discussion with dignity and you have repeatedly trampled my good faith. I'm no longer offering my assistance. Whatever you're after, I hope you find it. czar  03:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the circumstances, do you really think being bold was the best option there? Especially when Foiles' article already contained 4 RS's, and a Google search revealed a multitude of others from which to expand. An AfD or RfC involving other editors would've helped establish consensus. WP:BOLD clearly wasn't the way to go here.And, if you recall, I actually came here "requesting" your input on a user-space page I'd specifically created in hopes of resolving the issues you'd raised in the reception ¶ once and for all, but you refused, calling me "hostile" in the process. As I said before, you seem to know exactly what it is you want; what I didn't say before is that you've repeatedly labeled my attempts to address your concerns "inadequate" or "insufficient". Plus the repeated instances of you complaining during FAC4 about things done to the article as a result of criticism you made during FAC3, couple with your recent complaint that subsequent attempts by me to try and address your criticism at FAC4 have introduced "further difficulties" to the article. All of which tacitly implies incompetence on my part, by the way. So this has quite clearly become a merry-go-round, exposing the underlying issue—if your reasons for opposition keep shifting, and you can't keep track of what was done at your behest, and you end up subsequently complaining about genuine, good-faith attempts at fixing your complaints, then there's really no hope for any other user ever being able to adequately rectify what you're complaining about... except you; hence my creation of the user-space. Because no-one can say I haven't already tried... and tried and tried.You've really not said anything here to deter me from my opinion that, all of this, from the outset, has been an attempt by you to try and convince me that Jill Valentine would never meet FA criteria, regardless of the extent any other user tries to resolve your broad criticism. If that is indeed the case, that's clearly not a very collaborative mindset to have adopted. Thus this entire process could be perceived as badgering. Unless you're suddenly implying that your latest round of criticisms are indeed your last? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm disgusted by the implication and don't have enough time in the day to untwist these warped accusations. Take up any remaining concerns with another experienced editor. czar  02:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disgusted by the implication "that your latest round of criticisms are indeed your last"? What a strange reply. I'll be amending my response above to include diffs within the next 24 hours. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the continued gaslighting to impugn my character rather than keeping the basic presumption of good faith. Reviewers have no obligation to handhold through edits. I pitch in when asked nicely, but in this case, after the way you've acted, I won't. I sometimes indulge straw men like the lackluster sourcing at Lisa Foiles or the projection of who is "badgering", but in this case I won't. This impasse isn't particularly complicated, but it hinges on you not viewing or treating me as the arbiter. I'm not. I didn't say anything special. Since we disagree, as I've said repeatedly and as the FAC coordinator suggested when you asked about next steps, a third-party, experienced editor would be a fine judge for whether my points are valid. Either way, you choose whether to adopt the criticism as if it were your own, or to convince/influence consensus at any subsequent FACs that my points should be disregarded. You're more likely to find momentum from a third party's support than from whatever it is you're attempting to do on my talk page. Unless you have new business with me, I have nothing to discuss with you and you are unwelcome to post here. czar  04:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi Czar, thanks for your note! The links were helpful; I added the project page to my watchlist and will check out the cleanup categories (I didn't even know that tool existed; thank you). Also, I don't think I ever said this, but thank you for teaching me how to use the sfn and harv templates, which I learned entirely by looking at your work while I was editing Schinas. I found that article from a help page request I saw, and got kind of hooked by the mystery of it all. I will take a crack at expanding the lead, too. I assume you've seen the peer review? If you have anything to add there it would be most welcome! BTW, I thought ANI was part of WikiProject Anarchism? :-) Thanks for reaching out! Levivich (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I expanded the lead; would be happy to get your comments/edits; thanks! Levivich (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , good, I'm glad, and nicely done on Schinas! I left some comments on the talk page. Feel free to reach out if you need anything else! czar  03:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Since you invited me to ask :-) a couple questions for whenever you might have a minute:
 * E.g. cite #4 is a bundled cite bullet list, and there's a newline break before the first item of the list (making the "a", "b" links appear on their own line instead of at the top of the first line of text in the ref as usual). Same with cite #8, #9, etc. Is this the right or the best way to do it? Is the newline break OK?
 * When should I use  and when should I use  ?
 * Thanks in advance! Levivich (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , re: #1, if I recall correctly, I think the line break is just for bullet rendering. You can try removing the break and previewing to see if the bullet renders as such or as an asterisk. Yep, it's fine to do this. There are some other options listed at WP:CITEBUNDLE.
 * re: #2, harvnb links the Harvard citation in-line with no  tags (footnote formatting) or trailing period. sfn adds those latter two elements. In uncomplicated footnotes and when the article contains a separate bibliography, sfn is the fastest way to cite a source+page. To avoid this ref error, it's easier to construct your own footnote, starting with harvnb and adding elements than it is to struggle with shoving everything into sfn modifiers. The error in this case came from  and  having sharing the same (read: conflicting) ref name. Building custom citations with   tags avoids this collision. Check out the template's documentation for more cases/options, though I think the format used in Schinas should cover most of your editing, depending on your footnote/notes style.  czar  11:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and also for the suggestion about putting last=, work=, etc., first, instead of comments. Do you know if there is a script that reformats {cites} automatically like this? Levivich (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can't think of one that would shuffle parameters like that offhand. Your best bet would be to use a script that can do RegEx replacement to detect and reorder/replace the parameters as you wish. More common are the plethora of scripts that automatically format citations in this manner (WP:Zotero, Google Books) so that you never need to reshuffle params. There are some other reference management tools at User scripts/List and Help:Citation tools. czar  11:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, once again! Levivich (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)
My apologies if this is a duplicate message for you, it is being sent to multiple lists which you may be signed up for.

Hi all, following up on last month's announcement...

Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either Wednesday, 9 January or Thursday, 10 January 2019. Captions are a feature to add short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you might want to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:


 * 1) Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on mediawiki.org because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons.
 * 2) Test out using captions on Beta Commons.
 * 3) Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you have anything you'd like to say prior to release.

Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January with the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as anything else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as well as a link to join, are on Meta.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to the IRC office hour on Thursday. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Anarchism in Greece
Text has been added in the article, without prior consensus. The user who reverted me (and re-inserted the material without consensus), had mentioned the term "revenge revert"elsewhere. It is obvious what is going on. I thought consensus was fundamental in WP. This is becoming increasingly sad. I do not know how to deal with it. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , consensus can be a fuzzy term. When two or three people enter a content dispute, the most important part is to drive a talk page conversation, not to hold a tighter grip on the rules or BRD. Even if that conversation reaches an impasse, the solution is almost always to involve other editors, as exchanging reverts all around is seen as petty and unproductive, even or especially if the editors think they're in the right. I'd put it like this: If the discussion will need outside intervention, how are you making the situation easier for that editor to intervene? In the case of another editor stalking your edits as "revenge", I recommend first deescalating any current discussions with this editor and second, reaching out to an admin (e.g., me) to issue a warning if it continues. But—and I haven't looked so I'm not saying this is the case—mind that it's harder to issue a warning if the other party appears just as tendentious in the discussion. czar  11:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and your suggestions Czar. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bad Boys for Life
Hello czar! Happy new year man, and sorry for the late. Will you please move Draft:Bad Boys for Life to 'Bad Boys for Life''? Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , ah, looks like someone beat me to it but happy New Year to you too! czar  11:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ferrer
The Francisco Ferrer infobox says he was born January 1, but the text says January 10. The source is behind a paywall (I don't otherwise qualify for JSTOR.) For now I'm suggesting that User:Howcheng remove Ferrer from Selected anniversaries/January 10 (On This Day, main page) because we can't be sure it's the right day. Art LaPella (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The source for the birth date is actually Google Books and it says January 10. — howcheng  {chat} 07:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , here's the link czar  11:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Salzedo
Hi Czar, I was wondering if you could help with a dispute I'm having over at Talk:Carlos_Salzedo. Baron D. Z. didn't like my substantial edits to the page and changed information on it without adding in-line citations. I reverted his edits. Baron D. Z. wrote that I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm not sure if he will believe my rebuttal. Could you provide an outside opinion? I put a lot of work into sourcing the page, so I may be overly invested. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you bet. Left a reply on the talk page and will keep it on my watchlist for a bit. czar  11:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Would you know if there is something to...
...sort this this kind of mess? Is there a template calling for a bot or whatever, to re-arrange the list in alphabetical order? I am asking because doing it manually is really tiresome. Thanx. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

{{syntaxhighlight|lang=python|code= import re, operator
 * 1) !/usr/bin/env python

class item(object): def __init__(self,name,contents): self.name = name self.contents = contents #https://stackoverflow.com/a/1535375/879266 def __repr__(self): return "" % (self.name, self.contents) def __str__(self): return "item: %s" % (self.name)

text = clipboard.get_clipboard array = []

for line in text.splitlines: name = re.findall(r'\|\s*last\d*\s*=\s*([^\}]+)\s*[\|}]',line) if name: name = name[0].strip else: name = re.findall(r'\|\s*title\d*\s*=\s*([^\|}]+)\s*[\|}]',line) if name: name = name[0].strip else: name = 'null' array.append(item(name,line)) array = sorted(array, key=operator.attrgetter('name')) text = '' for each in array: text += each.contents+'\n' clipboard.fill_clipboard(text.strip) }}


 * , above is the jury-rigged code that I use to alphabetize bulleted refs in my clipboard. You can trigger it with a tool such as autokey. Personally, when redoing a bibliography on a major article, I'd most likely rewrite the refs from scratch using OCLC data+WP:Zotero, considering how many of the existing citations are incomplete. czar  03:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I used to have some Python code on my laptop that fixed this sort of error (among others). I've been thinking about finding it an cleaning it up... but I would have no idea how to do anything similar with a bot... Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks both of you for your answers. I do not know though, they seem a little complicated for me. I also use some citation apps but it is for newbies like me. If I need help in the future, I will knock your door again. Cinadon36 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , by the by, I already have most of those books in my citation manager (though perhaps not the exact editions), so depending on what you'd like and whether all of those citations will remain in the article, I could also help with tidying the bibliography, if useful. czar  22:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Toggle
Hey, would you like to try out test version? If so, change User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js to  User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-test.js. Adds a little link to "Chk ref fmt" in toolbox left side of page. Default is NOT CHECK; click button to check... I haven't tested it all ..... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops no doesn't work correctly. each press runs script again and again with accumulating error text sorry maybe later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * hey it seems to work now. Sorry took so long. First traveling then get caught up in another project. Please help me test... change User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js to  User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-test.js. The link doesn't show up on the side amy more; it's on the "MORE" tab atop the page. Please let me know if you see probs.... If not I will make it go live... tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.

'''The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check"''' with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be done.  I'd appreciate it if you'd try it out for a while and let me know if it has any kinks. Happy Chinese New Year, btw. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We the People Will Fund the Wall
Just FYI at the time I removed it, it was showing as below... I'm guessing no url had been entered in Wikidata yet. But I routinely check Category:Official website missing URL. Just wanted you to know why I removed it. :-) -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , hm, strange. Maybe it was a caching issue. I added the URL to Wikidata immediately after adding the template. czar  10:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * General tip: Add it at Wikidata first as sometimes it is caching. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Was tricky in this case since I had to get the official website link whitelisted (or, the hack, temporarily remove it in Wikidata until the article first let me save the template). Anyway, resolved now! czar  14:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My soul hurt for having to read that. In at least two ways (one the workflow way, one the 'spam' way). --Izno (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My soul hurt for having to read that. In at least two ways (one the workflow way, one the 'spam' way). --Izno (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with User:HotArticlesBot/Config.json
Hey czar, I noticed you can make changes to the Hot Articles bot configuration at User:HotArticlesBot/Config.json. I left a note at the bot operator's talk page a week ago and got no response, so am coming here: There are 4 consecutive projects that have the target page configured incorrectly in the code: they use "Wikipedia:Wikiproject" rather than the correct CamelCase "Wikipedia:WikiProject". Could you correct the code for these four so the correct page gets updated? Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , fixed! czar  10:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Greg Williams (American football coach)
The article you just deleted has been updated to reflect that Greg Williams is notable due to his playing career as well as his extensive coaching career. There are many articles (that are less in depth than this) for other coaches throughout the NFL, who have far less experience. Please consider allowing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtleturtle00 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice
I don't know what point you thought you were making with a response like this, but it really didn't fill me with confidence that you're going to desist with your tendentious editing. So...

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Clinton Ford
Despite closing the AfD as a delete, you haven't deleted Clinton Ford (painter). Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

re Menna Elfyn
Please use Talk page for discussion. Then people can respond if need be. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually this is only done when there is something to discuss, started by the person who wants to discuss it. In any event, appears we're in agreement. czar  02:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Czar!
You posted in my talk page some days ago! I´m very interested in help in the wiki project anarchism but I don´t know where to start.

Since most of the time I edit and try to improve the navigational boxes templates related to anarchism, socialism and libertarianism, I have some ideas to get the portal more friendly, like I try to do with the navboxes, I don´t know where I can show and discuss these ideas. But in the articles itself I don´t know what can I do since most of my knoledge on anarchism still comes mainly from the Afaq. I´m opened to suggestions on what I can do to the project!

ps: I´ve found very usefull this wikipedia guideline Anarchism referencing guidelines specily the section of reliable publishers (Anarchy Archives, Anti-State.com, Libcom and Infoshop News).

Ogat (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , nice, welcome! I just put some advice in this "How can I help?" page as a place to start, but if you let me know what else you're into, I can suggest other areas. I'll also post some other ideas on the project talk page. Navboxes tend to not require much maintenance once set up, but if you like that sort of tinkering, you might appreciate categories. I put a blurb about category cleanup in that "How can I help?" page. And re: Anarchism referencing guidelines, eh... that page looks severely outdated. I'd start with books by academic publishers (searchable in Google Books) and articles in academic databases, and unfortunately I don't think any of the four publishers you mentioned should be considered reliable for statements of fact (no editorial process/pedigree). Kind of hard to believe that they were at some point. I'll clean that up. czar  17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , I´ll see if I find some stub to expand or if I help in categorizing some articles! The navboxes, not only anarchy related but in general, are things that I relly like on wikipedia, for me they are like "mini-portals", I'm thinking in some improvements to he aarchism navbox, but I want to show first the "preview" that I made in a simple image editor just to preview the idea. Is there other way where the people involved in this project talk more easy than here, like telegram or other messaging software? (thanks for the advice about the publishers in that referencing guideline!) Ogat  14:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another doubt: Do you know if there is any proxy for the wiki site "Anarchopedia"? I didn´t find any mirror. Ogat  14:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , great! English WP users in general use IRC and Discord for live chat, if that helps. And the Internet Archive has a backup of Anarchopedia, but its quality was never very high. (I'd think that our content has surpassed it by this point.) czar  03:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , editors from the anarchism project preferer discord or irc to chat? I think it would be easier and quickier to talk in a instant platform! I´ll see the anarcopedia in the internetarchive. I noticed that the italian wikipedia have an article for this ended wiki, but here on english wikipedia there is not, and it´s aparently forbidden, saturday I wanted to translate the italian article and I found that it was locked. Do you know why? Ogat  14:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , most editors communicate on-wiki but feel free to propose otherwise to the group. I'm on the Discord sometimes but I've found that most editors prefer to communicate asynchronously. As for why some topics have articles and others don't, check out our general notability guideline and this summary. Essentially, unless reliable, secondary sources discuss Anarchopedia with some degree of depth, we'd need to base the entire article on primary sources and original research, which goes against what we're about. Some other language Wikipedias have more lax notability policies, but then again, they also have fewer editors, so sometimes it just takes them longer for some articles to be deleted. As for translations, I believe the content translation tool requires a certain permission level. czar  01:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Zombieland 2
Hello! Please move Draft:Zombieland Too → Zombieland 2 — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  02:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible help with the No Russian article
Hi there!

So I've been a bit preoccupied with school over the last few months, and was for a while burnt out with editing. But I've recently got back into it and I'm trying to bring the No Russian article up to FA status. It's a rather dense article for a single level, but as I'm sure your aware, it deserves to have a dense and detailed article. Right now I was just wondering if there was anything you could do to help, like a mock peer review. Nothing major, I just wanted to know what else I can do. Right now I still have to add more information about the initial reception from both gaming journalists and major new publications, the British parliament debating the content of the level, more analysis from research papers about the impact of No Russian, and the possible connection to the 2011 Norway Attacks. Thank you! Famous Hobo (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , welcome back! Left a quick/brief peer review. Feel free to ping me there if you need anything czar  02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Grace Ueng - Deleted?
To Whom This May Concern,

I understand that Grace Ueng's wikipedia page was deleted because it did not meet the general notability guideline, but even after doing a lot of research into what that means, I still do not understand why exactly the page was taken down. She had MIT Tech Review (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/411472/grace-w-ueng-87/), Audrey Magazine (http://kore.am/audreys-women-of-influence-grace-ueng-founder-and-ceo-of-savvy-marketing-group-with-web-exclusives/), Inc Magazine (https://www.inc.com/magazine/20091001/ceo-passions-outdoor-cycling.html), and other secondary sources.

I was wondering if there's any way to restore her wiki. If there is no clear way, could I please at least have the content in Grace Ueng's deleted wikipedia page sent to my email? Thank you so much!

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm7970 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, those sources were used in previous versions of the article, and the first and third sources remained in the version under discussion. My involvement in the discussion was limited to assessing its consensus, so you would have to ask those editors to know more about their process. My independent assessment would ask what about this sourcing gives us enough content to write an article that does justice to the subject? The MIT piece is an alumni piece, and the Inc. piece is fluffy, about a hobby. If Ueng is known as a businesswoman, a reader would expect the biography to be about that acumen, not her biking regimen. If you have additional sources that were not considered, I'd first show them to the discussion's participants. If the other editors agree that they missed valuable sourcing, it would be no problem to restore the article or re-open a draft for review. Also I should mention, based on the article's history, that if you have an association with the subject or registered prior Wikipedia accounts, our policy is that you disclose this in a prominent location, such as your user page. czar  01:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I was one of the editors involved, Czar's questioning/assessment is on-point. Those sources are not sufficient; we need multiple independent reliable sources covering the topic in depth. All the sources I found were either a) dependent or b) did not cover her in depth. The one you add above is no different. --Izno (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Zorua and Zoroark listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zorua and Zoroark. Since you had some involvement with the Zorua and Zoroark redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Othello
Hello! I have reverted the redirect on Othello (2009 video game). It seems like a game that passes GNG just by a touch thanks to it's Switch release. Has 2 reviews from reliable sources in WP:VG/RS in Nintendo Life and Nintendo World Report, with 2 situational in Cubed3 and Gaming Age. None of these are deemed unreliable, thus making the game pass WP:GNG. Not the most notable game from Arc System Works, for sure, and the article state is pretty bad, but it is enough notable by wiki standards I guess. If you think that is not enough then I would advise opening an AfD for a fair discussion. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Farm-Fresh eye.png Talk:Arc System Works czar  01:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

History of anarchism
Hi Czar, can I ask you a favor? I have finished with R Sources in history of anarchism. Can you help a little bit with spelling/grammar/syntax ( I am very weak in english and in my native lang in these kind of subjects). I have remove much of the content (unfortunatelly, non RS and seemed a little bit trivial) so there might be gaps in the history of anarchism. Have a look and let me know of your thoughts pls. My aim is to describe the history of ideas and actions of Anarchism as good as possible. Cheers!Cinadon36 (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , left some comments on the talk. When the basic sourcing issues are resolved, I can swing by for a readthrough/copyedit. Nice work! czar  23:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Authority control
I already explained this on the noticeboard, where I thought the issue was settled - I added the Authority control to articles to see if they have wkidata already - this happened, for instance, on the page for the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Some pages do not have wikidata already, so I add it to the bottem of the page so that it will be ready if and when wikidata is created. Note that I also add it while also doing routine editing on a page, for instance the The Literary Voyager.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Centralize discussion here: Farm-Fresh eye.png Template talk:Authority control czar  01:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fraye Arbeter Shtime
Nice work! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Diamond Tooth
Hey, trying to figure out where in it describes Lil as coming from a Jewish family? I searched for "Jew" and "Jewish" in the text but didn't see anything, and it wasn't mentioned anywhere else I could see? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what created the rest of the ref errors, probably VE having an allergy to the ref style, I've fixed it now. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it was in the 1936-07-01 WaPo source: "She is known ... to have been the former Lillian Orinstein, daughter of a Jewish family." czar  23:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The WaPo one was attached to the next sentence so I didn't realize it was intended to cite the previous one as well; I thought you were working from the book. Can you do me a huge favor and email me the text of the WaPo article? I was working off an article on Newspapers.com that I thought was a re-run of that source but apparently not since they seem to have different text. I don't have ProQuest access unfortunately so I can't see the WaPo one. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if there was a research fail somewhere along the line with regards to Red Light Women of the Rocky Mountains. It says Honora was born in Austria-Hungary, but all of the Newspapers.com records I can see refer to her being from a wealthy Montana family and nothing about her being from Europe. Maybe that was the convention of the time, I don't know. Even the WaPo article mentions a sister in Montana and a wealthy family in general. Red Light Women has a footnote for their claim, but it's not available for me on GBooks - not sure if it is for you - so I can't check what their source was. It's held in a library close to me so I've shot off an email asking if a librarian can verify their reference for me. RLW source seems to conflate the two Lils pretty freely, so I think having that info might help. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My library was able to pull the citation page from RLW for me, and it's kind of contradictory. The text on p 163 says Honora was born in Austria. This is cited via footnote 9 to the Social Security Death Index Master File. I don't have full access to that, but the searchable versions of it on genealogy sites that I can access don't mention birthplace (so either footnote 9 only confirms the DOB, or the Master File has more info than the public versions). But then, footnote 13 says that the 1920 census listed Honora as being born in France. So either the census was wrong, RLW has accidentally conflated Honora with Evelyn (as it does quite a bit), or I've missed something again. Then there's the repeat references to the Montana cattle farmers in the Newspapers.com refs above. It's messy. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep and until there is a more authoritative study, I tried to keep it light and unspecific with the claims. What I originally wrote for GA should be largely exhaustive of the cited sources. Once we start getting into the SSDMF/genealogy verification, gets easy to veer into original research. I have copies of all the sources I used, so let me know if you need anything. czar  01:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I reworked the first paragraph to incorporate the contradictions; that way it doesn't make any judgment about which version is right, just says there's a bunch of versions (and cites them, of course). Sorry to have spammed you, I got a bit laser-focused on trying to get to the bottom of this and had some spare time to do it. I still have a pile of newspaper articles the Indiana library sent me about Evelyn awhile back that I never got to, but that's a project for another day. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Class conflict, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Class war and Class Struggle ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Class_conflict check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Class_conflict?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) 09:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello!
You visited my talk page and now I am visiting yours. I'm interested in contributing via my research on the contemporary political movement around squatting and refugee/migrant solidarity, but I'm having trouble deciding where it would best fit. I mentioned this on the squatting page, which merely lists political squatting as one of five types, and the Refugee crisis#Political Responses talk page as well. Let me know if you have thoughts on this. Thanks for working on anarchism-related content! A symmetrics (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, in brief, both Squatting and Refugee crisis need a lot of work but likely need expansion from overview-type sources to build a basic structure before editors start applying specific journal articles, etc. If that's something you want to tackle, I can help you find sources, but we would be looking for sources that describe the topic with greater breadth than say, those specific to contemporary refugee crises or to Greece in specific. Based on the sources in your sandbox, and perhaps single-handedly thanks to South Atlantic Quarterly (2018) 117 (4), I think there is enough coverage to write an article on "Athens refugee squats" with a focus on recent Syrian refugees and their conditions. I plopped some sources in Draft:Athens refugee squats and you should feel free to tear it apart and make it your own. czar  14:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is great! Thank you! I also just dumped a bunch of sources into my sandbox, many of which are more general. A symmetrics (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , nice! I'm around if you'd like a hand with formatting or have any questions. Happy editing :) czar  11:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
All Cats Are Beautiful

A symmetrics (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC) 

Your edits to Plastic Anniversary
I'm a bit baffled as to why you restored literally everything I changed. Firstly, I don't know why you didn't just format the dates yourself into mdy if you're going to force them to be in mdy with the df= parameter in references. The end result is exactly the same, and it saves needing to have those in the first place. Secondly, if there is only one author of an article, you don't need the 1 suffixes in first= and last=; I trust you know this? It gives the appearance of a newbie who just used an automatic reference template. Thirdly, we don't need the venue= parameter for studio albums. That's for live albums, and do you honestly think they recorded plastic objects at a venue rather than a studio? Doubt it. Finally, talking about something that hasn't happened yet as an excuse to remove a notability template doesn't really fly in all other circumstances. As I said in my second edit summary, I'm pretty sure admins should know better than to do this—this looks like an inexperienced editor who's pissed somebody tagged an article they made. If there is a concern, it shouldn't be removed until the issue is fixed and I'm quite sure a statement alone about something you think will happen but that hasn't actually happened yet doesn't fix it. If you're annoyed by my edit or me putting it there then you shouldn't be taking it personally, and that doesn't mean you should undo literally everything I did. Thanks.  Ss  112   00:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I use a citation generator that formats with df. If you change the date format and spacing in a drive-by edit, yes, you should expect to be reverted. As for the other cosmetic changes, as I already wrote, they make no material change and are not needed. My revert rests well within BRD, but yours does not. As for taking it personally, start by re-reading your own post. czar  01:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How did I take your undoing me personally? I saw it as pointless, reverted you and left a message explaining why—that's not taking it as some offense against me. No need to link me to cosmetic edit and BRD—I'm very well aware of both but cleanup edits are easily dismissed by those who don't like them as "cosmetic edits". Not every edit to Wikipedia has to be a significant addition of content to be worthwhile making. Also, you could literally dismiss half the edits to Wikipedia as "drive-by edits"—again, one does not have to make a significant contribution to an article for something to not be considered a drive-by edit. If your approach to what you characterise as "drive-by edits" is to always revert them (and that, as I said, is honestly half the edits made to Wikipedia), I really urge you to reconsider that mindset because that's pretty a terrible and heavy-handed way to approach editing and sounds like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I saw you deleted a redirect I made and decided to edit the article you made. That's all it is.  Ss  112   01:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly this isn't the first time you received this criticism. Edits to parameters and whitespace are cosmetic, yes, in that they make no material improvement to the article. I encourage you not to make such edits. czar  01:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They're just a small part of a larger scope when cleaning up a page. But sure, thanks for the encouragement.  Ss  112   01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabre Wulf
Hi Czar, this is listed at WP:TFAP for April. I'd like to run a suggested blurb by you. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabre Wulf is an action-adventure game by Ultimate Play the Game, initially released for the ZX Spectrum home computer in 1984. The player navigates the pith-helmeted Sabreman through a 2D jungle maze while collecting amulet pieces to bypass the guardian at its exit. The player does not receive explicit guidance on how to play and is left to decipher the game's objectives through trial and error. The developers had finished Sabre Wulf sequels in advance of its release but—in keeping with their penchant for secrecy—chose to withhold them until later that year. Ultimate hired outside developers to port Sabre Wulf to other computing platforms: the BBC Micro, Commodore 64, and Amstrad CPC. Sabre Wulf was a bestseller and a financial success. Several gaming publications recommended the game, and Crash magazine readers named it the "Best Maze Game" of 1984. Game journalists rate it among the Spectrum's best releases.
 * , looks good—thanks! I made some suggested edits here but feel free to use/scrap what you want. Could also mention its inclusion in Rare Replay but I didn't see a great segue. Appreciate your asking czar  23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

violence in 1944
In Greek: ''Η ανοιχτή ιδεολογική αντιπαράθεση κατέληξε σε αιµατοχυσία, η οποία έφτασε σε αληθινό πογκρόµ κατά τα ∆εκεµβριανά. Αν και από τους 84 εκτελεσµένους από το ΚΚΕ αρχειοµαρξιστές και τροτσκιστές της περιόδου 1944-1945, οι περισσότεροι έχασαν τη ζωή τους στην πρωτεύουσα, οι κατοχικές δολοφονίες (µέχρι τον Νοέµβριο του 1944) είναι λιγότερες από δέκα''

In English:''The open ideological confrontation resulted in a bloodshed, which reached a pongrom in Decemvriana. Although of the 84 archeoMarxists and Trotskyites executed by the KKE in 1944-1945, most of them died in the capital, occupying assassinations (until November 1944) are fewer than ten.''

From a most prominent historian. This is from his msc thesis in a conference. Published in a book.

He didn't mention any anarchist. He is the leading expert in Organization for the Protection of the People's Struggle. Anarchist didn't exist. Facts are facts.

Thank you for your kindness and for your time. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Anarchist didn't exist" needs verification by Rel Sources that address the issue directly. Cinadon36 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this different from Farm-Fresh eye.png Talk:Anarchism in Greece? If not, let's keep the discussion centralized there. Also, in general, masters' theses do not go through editorial review, so better to review in the form of the published book. czar  23:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to present a prominent historian opinion. Nothing more. It's from here. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

sent you a message
Hi, I sent you a message about an issue I'm having. I'd love to hear your advice. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Spoo
As Spoo used to be a featured article back in the day, I think it would be appropriate to keep the history accessible somewhere, maybe at spoo (food)? The talk page is also interesting and links to the old GA and FA promotion and demotion discussions. Would you mind undeleting and moving the histories to a good place? —Kusma (t·c) 15:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hiya, the FAC and GA pages are still live to use as needed. In terms of reasoning, the consensus was to delete and I haven't seen the precedent for restoring talk pages just because they're interesting, nevertheless because they once received a quality review. If you were planning to do something with the content or wanted it as a courtesy, would be slightly different. czar  23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus I read from the discussion is actually not to have a standalone article, but to redirect if possible. You deleted and then created a redirect. Usually I wouldn't care too much about the difference, but as the old FA and GA nomination pages are useless without the article they are referring to, and the fact that the status of the article as former main page FA wasn't even mentioned in the (not very well attended) discussion makes me believe it would be better to keep the history. I don't have a personal involvement in the page and agree that not having a standalone article is the correct outcome for the topic, but I like having the strangest topics to ever become a FA to point to so I can discuss how Wikipedia has changed. I just don't see the purpose of deleting the history here. —Kusma (t·c) 06:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, would you mind if I undeleted the history and moved it to spoo (food)? —Kusma (t·c) 07:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My only qualm is using the article's former quality status as the only rationale for restoring its history. If you had said that you want to be able to link to its talk page history for any personal project—basically any other reason—no, I wouldn't see a reason to push back (go ahead). Point taken re: the dab page—I didn't realize that I had created that. The restoration will have some technical complications because of the dab page. czar  11:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, restoring and moving is going to be a slight headache / need some extra clicks. But I can deal with that when I find a quiet moment (sometime between tonight and next weekend). I'll also have to fix the talk page article milestones links, update the link at Former featured articles and possibly add a note there that the article is a redirect now. (I was about to add a section "Former featured articles that have been deleted", but then I thought it is perhaps not worth drawing that much attention to it). Best wishes, —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've sorted it out. Please improve the note I left at Talk:Spoo (food) if you can. —Kusma (t·c) 20:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

May Days
A huge POV with anarchist friendly prospective. Please help. Thanx in advance. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sabre Wulf scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Sabre Wulf article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 7, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 7, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! We also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about the "1984 game that started the Sabreman series. Eclipsed in history by the isometric advances of successor (and fellow FA), Knight Lore, this game was "much-beloved" in its own right. Though it is mainly known today as a colorful maze, it was among 1984's most popular games in the UK, topping sales charts and (possibly?) breaking sales records."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Are future events allowed?
Hey, in this AFD discussion I had to emphasize that there's not 2019 unrest or etc. Why should the title cover 2019, too? Are users predicting the future events? -- M h hossein   talk 12:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the AfD discussion was about whether the article's scope has coverage, so it doesn't preclude a talk page discussion about whether the title is correct. To your point, yes, if there are no general strikes in 2019, then it would be inappropriate to "predict" that they will continue when no source says they did. But it looks like your merger discussion is set to bring the overlap and 2019 questions to a satisfactory conclusion. You might want to ping the AfD participants, as they might be interested but not watching the page. czar  15:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Saikat Chakrabarti for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saikat Chakrabarti 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/Saikat Chakrabarti until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Turf War (Banksy)
Hello! I saw you worked on 1:54, and was wondering if you cared to weigh in on the ongoing AfD discussion for Turf War (Banksy), or make any improvements to the article. If you're not interested, no prob! Happy editing --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Random message
Hello again. I hope you are doing well. I finally worked on another video game article and I actually really enjoyed it. A majority of my projects have been focused on television and music-related articles and lists, but it is nice to do something different (even if it is still within the entertainment category). I also wanted to say that I think all of your work on anarchism-related articles is very interesting. I must admit that I know very little to nothing on the subject so it is interesting to read about. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , nice! Yes, plenty of opportunity for editing in that area if you're interested: WikiProject Anarchism/How can I help? czar  13:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I will definitely check it out for future ideas and inspiration. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Anarchism
Hi Czar. I am struggling to find RS that outlines the main branches of contemporary anarchism. Unfortunately, I haven't found any that doesnt give me a headache after reading it for 5-6 minutes. This one is not useful. McLaughlin's book either is not suitable. I feel that the contemporary anarchism section in the article of Anarchism is underdeveloped and I 'd like to see it getting better. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hiya, a few thoughts: (1) Anarchism—this section, yes? I'll take a look this weekend. (2) I'm not fully convinced that classical vs. post-classical is the right dichotomy. I think the "schools of thought" article has its own problems, but based on what I've read, I think the best breakdown is something like "social anarchism" (or socialist anarchism—open to phrasing), "individualist", and "contemporary", just to identify that there are different traditions and some of the threads that bind within each. Post-classical implies a "classical" and my impression is that such a division isn't consensus terminology, so "contemporary" covers it better. (3) To your point, what gives an overview of "contemporary"? I haven't found one single source either but alas, it's "contemporary" so it has been citogenesis on Wikipedia's part to imply that "contemporary anarchism" has branches at all. Anyway, I'll take a peek this weekend. czar  13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) Yeap, that one. (2)It is difficult to spot the right dichotomies. It depends on the basis of your definition of anarchism. If you see anarchism as a movement (praxis) certainly there is a dichotomy on classical- post-classical . If you looking it as a philosophy (school of thought) there is also a case for a dichotomy among classical-postclassical. Classical anarchism was a distinct workers movement, post-classical philosophy is mostly spread through other movements, employing anarchistic methods or organisation forms. There are still classical anarchists in the cont. world, but they are not such a significant factor as they used to be during the early 20th century. It is what Maia Ramnath describes as anarchism with a small "a" ana anarchism with a capital "A". But surely there are other dichotomies as well. Peaceful-Violent, revolutionary-graduallism, scientific(rational)-religious. (3) If we stick to RS, we will certainly avoid citogenesis. I 've just re-discovered Anarchism Today by Randal Amster (2012). It might be a good place to start, but please have a look as well and tell me what you think.Cinadon36 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , looks like this will be a somewhat larger project. If you have time, I recommend starting with the Evren source I began to paraphrase and then merging over the relevant content from contemporary anarchism, which has little extra content to warrant remaining a summary style split (read: merge it back in). I'll swing back to help if I can find time. czar  01:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I 'll have a look but my understanting is that Evren's book is about post-anarchism, which is a fringe movement confined within academic barriers.Cinadon36 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , as a whole, yes, but this chapter (the introduction) has some recent history. Whether he has sufficient distance for some of his claims is a valid discussion, but on the whole, best source I've seen on 21st-century activity. czar  00:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of it deals with Newman's and Todd May's postanarchism. And another major problem of that section, is that it lists as "school of thoughts" various branches of anarchism (ie platformism, eco-anarchism etc). Cinadon36 (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Edge (video game)
I just made the necessary adjustments that you found issues with. Hopefully its satisfactory to GA criteria.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know..
I saw that you created the articles for Metamorphabet and Windosill back in 2015. I have created the article for Vectorpark itself. If you want to check it out and improve it you can. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks but is the (indie) developer himself the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources? (?) If not, then we lack the content to do justice to the topic. Not finding much coverage for his Sandcastles and otherwise his two main game articles are self-contained. czar  15:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Social centres in the United Kingdom
Hi I've got some questions regarding the decision to merge Social centres in the United Kingdom with Autonomous social center which you appear to have been involved with.

Regarding your justifications here.
 * Who is "we"? I am a longterm wikipedian and longterm editor of the page in question and i didn't see any debate, in fact i had to hunt it down.
 * Your edit took out 50 references! Including those from the Guardian, Liverpool Echo, Urban75, Peace News and several academic articles, which are all indisputably reliable, secondary sources!? So calling the entire page spam/cruft is nonsense. I'm trying to AGF here but it's hard.
 * Many of the centres are independently notable and have their own wikipedia pages already? I really don't follow your reasoning here.
 * You should indeed have got another opinion, well here it is now.
 * You say "I wrote 121 Centre recently" - i don't know what's happened here, but i think i wrote some of that, i remember in particular the monroe ref in anycase. It seems strange you are asserting ownership like that. Wikipedia is collaborative.

To sum up, you have merged one page with another but trashed almost all of its information. That doesn't work for me. How to find a way forward? I suggest reinstating the page and cutting out the self-linked social centres which i can only presume is the bit that actually offended you? This is basically your solution 1, which you could have already done. Considering I'm still tidying up your destructive edits here as well, I am starting to wonder why i need to clear your mess up again. Anyway, i've started the new page here.Mujinga (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've already responded in two other places (Ross's user talk page, your user talk page) on this topic so let me know where you would prefer to discuss. I linked the WP policy where applicable. If you still have questions, I'm happy to answer. The crux of your question is about preserving a table of venues sourced almost exclusively to primary and unreliable sources—we don't host such directories on Wikipedia. You're welcome to export the content to another wiki, though. As for "I wrote 121 Centre recently", I indeed wrote that article from scratch and you're welcome to edit it. czar  15:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi @Czar this is getting a bit ridiculous now. Half the linked social centres in the table had their own well-maintained wikipages. If you don't believe me count them. Feel free to read WP:NOTDIR as well and tell me what category the table falls under. I've replied more extensively on RossPepier's talk and would prefer to carry on there.Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I count six venue links in a list of 22 "active" venues (closer to a quarter than "half"). Of the group, none are "well-maintained" and some are candidates for deletion, having little secondary source coverage. But the larger point is that even if all six were independently notable, it wouldn't justify a separate article about autonomous social spaces in the UK without some bevy of coverage specific to that overall subject. And if the coverage isn't specific to social centres, an article already exists at Squatting in England and Wales for the larger topic. I'll watch Ross's page, as requested. czar  21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

A little help
I am trying to write simple facts about Ukranian anarchists (gang rapes of women) and i can't. Can you help me? Maybe something i don't understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nestor_Makhno#Rapes_of_the_anarchist_army_(in_english)

I hope we can add some things from historians that some anarchists(or nationalists) don't like. We have 2019 after all.

Thanx in advance. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

BIOS (film)
Hello czar! I hope you are well. Will you please take a look at Draft:BIOS (film)? I need you to move the draft to BIOS (film) or merge into Bios (film). Whatever you think is the best option and I think the best title is to keep it in Capital title per IMDb link. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And another thing is, as far as I remember, I had started this draft here, Draft:Untitled Doctor Strange sequel, and now I am not seeing any of my edits in it. Can you please restore my edits in it? Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, done! The topic's current reliable sources use "Bios". ("BIOS" in all caps appears to be a stylization that our house MoS ignores.) The two prose versions also had copy/paste internal attribution issues, but should be fine now.
 * re: Doctor Strange sequel, I traced the attribution history to a different draft title and restored it. czar  05:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was a good work, really. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please be able to restore the deleted edits of Draft:Mouse Guard (film)? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  10:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Tetris interest?
Would you like to work together on improving Tetris? I copied the entire article on my sandbox and just making improvements. Reason why i copied it into my sandbox is because there's a chance that a lot of unverifiable content will have to be removed and don't want to cause any edit wars with those who are fans of the article.That and my busy schedule causes me to make small edits at a time. I'm starting very basic, adding proper citation to the references and re-organizing the sections. I think it would be an amazing feat if we make it to GA status, but at the moment i'm aiming for B-class.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , nice! Go for it! I'm not taking on new projects right now but I'm around if I can help with any questions in specific. czar  09:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Anarchist Archives
Hi what's up with anarchist archives? Mujinga (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Methuselah (film)
Helo Czar! Please restore the deleted edits of Draft:Methuselah (film). Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And please restore the Draft:Sing 2 and then hsitmerge Draft:Sing (film) into it. Thanks again. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking me as a burden, but this one is important as it has a ton of editing hidden away. Please histmerge Draft:Scoob (film) into Scoob. Thanks for all. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done (and no burden at all—the cut-and-paste move needed to be repaired to preserve attribution) czar  10:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Bosque (programming language) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bosque (programming language). Since you had some involvement with the Bosque (programming language) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TJRC (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of unused article assessment class templates for deletion
I have nominated AN-Class, GAN-Class, FAC-Class, and FT-class for deletion. You are invited to comment at the templates' deletion discussion. I have informed you because you created GAN-Class. eπi ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)