User talk:David Tornheim/Archive 6

September 2018
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.

Please do not follow other editors around without good reason, as you have apparently been doing to. You are not an "ANI regular" and so have no good-faith excuse for suddenly posting in two separate threads related to Jytdog, neither of which involved you, in the space of a few days, having not otherwise touched the page since May 2017.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

AE
Please use the AE template for making an AE request, rather than writing freehand. You can find a preformatted request on which you can just fill in the blanks here:. While I removed your request since it was malformed, you're welcome to resubmit it using that template. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * okay. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA archived
Your request for clarification has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  23:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You might be interested
I noticed your comment at DGG's talk. Have you seen http://badpr.co.uk/ ? Marsh does a good job of documenting the indicia for churnalism. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Has that website's main page changed? The first item that comes up is "Your partner is lying to you!" says TV show about liars.  Not sure how that relates to press releases.  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Marsh is critiquing stories - this is an article presented as a factual story about how partners lie, but when you look at the story, it prominently quotes a TV show, and in fact it's concealed marketing for the show. The site discusses a lot of this - Michael "Marsh" Marshall lectures on this in journalism schools and gives public talks on it as well. The tell is that the source pushing the PR is not normally named in the first para, but in the third (or second or fourth, but usually third). These stories are written by the PR agency in the house style of different papers and websites, and dropped in the inbox of reporters. They have quotas to meet, especially at Mail Online, so very often the stories go out completely unaltered other than the addition of a byline by the journalist. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Pics uploading and linking
To follow up from User talk:Smallbones, about Engine Company 29 etc., I do think it is pretty easy now to upload pics to Commons.

You can just go to Commons's main page, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/, and click on the "Upload" button to be brought into the Upload Wizard process. I don't upload pics often, but I have recently found it easy and intuitive, and I think improved from how it used to be. You could just upload one pic at a time. But it allowed me also to upload multiple pics for the same site, and to easily add categories and descriptions which were going to be the same, copying them across the pics. If you have multiple pics of a place, it is good to create a new commons category to keep them together. And it is good to add a general "National Register of Historic Places" category or a more specific one such as "Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C.".

Perhaps confusing in the past was another option, where you might have been directed to go to the NRHP list-article, and to find your subject's row there and click on an item-specific upload button. This was made available during the September "Wikipedia loves monuments" or whatever drives, and using this ensured that some NRHP-specific categories were added automatically. That option (though it probably works differently now) happens to be available right now, too, but I just advise using the regular interface.

About including pics into a wikipedia article, you can see in this edit at Engine Company 29 how I added two pics, one into the NRHP infobox and one in separate thumb box. Just use whatever is the file name in Commons, and in the thumb box you include "File:" part of the name but that is not needed in the NRHP infobox link.

Happy to follow up if you ping me. You're welcome to post any questions to wt:NRHP and would get good help there, perhaps independent and better advice than I could provide. Hope this helps! Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll let you know when I feel ready to try it!  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS
Stop asking editors if they "think fuck off is civil". That is not the question being asked, and biases the reader in favour of your POV on the matter. Also, I'm curious why you thought WP:FEMINISM and WP:WOMEN in particular needed to be notified of the discussion: clarification would be appreciated, and if none is forthcoming I'll probably blank the messages as canvassing Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing (again)
Brought it to ANI. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here to complain about this. I'll go to ANI now. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 07:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I've changed my mind regarding 2007 British Army order of battle
I'll nominate it for an AfD once J-Man11 is unblocked. There's no justification to have a structure or ORBAT for 2007 as there was no defence review or mini-review that year or in previous years and there's no point in forming structures of the British Army for the year 2007, which user J-Man11 is quite obssessed over that. You may contest the AfD once it is made, no problem.

Or if you can improve the 2007 British Army order of battle, that's fine.

Sammartinlai (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. I'll see where that AfD stands.  I noticed an IP editor is trying to clean up some of the problems mentioned at the WP:AfD and add WP:RS.  I wonder if it is the blocked editor trying to save the article.  It don't see it worth an investigation since the work appears to be an improvement.   I like that you feel it is worth waiting for J-Man11 to have a chance to weigh in before the article is deleted.  I agree.  --David Tornheim (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * His block ends next week and I'll nominate the 2007 and his 1989 Swiss Army article then. NATO forces in 1989 I can accept but Swiss?! Sammartinlai (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I guess it all depends on the WP:RS.  I did change my vote at 1995 to delete (which now matches yours), mostly because of new votes coming in and because those who wanted to save it were not further discussing ways to move forward, such as merging, etc. and if no one wants to do the work on it, I'm not seeing what there is to save, unless J-Man11 will do the work co-operatively.  Please ping me here when you nominate those other articles.  --David Tornheim (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Formal warning for canvassing
Hi David. I know you're obviously aware of the warning I issued in response to the AN/I complaint, so please don't take this as an attempt to rub it in your face in an insulting manner. It has simply been brought to my attention by an uninvolved admin that, as a procedural point of order, I should have posted it on your talk page. So, this message is notify you that:

You are formally warned that any future instances of canvassing may result in a block. The rationale, behavioral assessments, and responses to those who defended your actions can be found in my statements at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995, User talk:Swarm/Archive 14, and Administrators' noticeboard (diff). Please note that the warning has been formally endorsed by the community (see diff).

Again, don't take this message personally, it's just meant as a formality to properly notify you. In fact, please don't take the warning itself personally, I have nothing against you as an editor, and am not being so harsh because I have something against you, but the policy implications here are straightforward; dubious notification practices are a serious offense (even if unintentional), and drawing a hard line is very necessary to protect consensus-building processes. Now that the closure has been endorsed, I hope you will go back and re-read my comments and take them more seriously, not as a criticism of you, but as an explanation of the importance of the underlying ideals here. I'm happy to discuss or explain anything you feel is unclear about where you went wrong or about the concept of canvassing itself. Best, Swarm  talk  22:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)j


 * Thanks for fulfilling that requirement. And also, I do appreciate the feedback, even if negative.  As I explained to Lourdes :


 * I appreciated your comment at WP:A/N. I had spent quite some time preparing a short response to you (and more or less to everyone who had disapproved of my RfC notifications) that I hoped would be included in my A/N post before it closed. Unfortunately, it is too late now.
 * I do understand now that it was a mistake to not repeat the RfC question word for word. Although I knew my summary question was not identical, I thought the core question was the same and that others would see it as the same essential question too--but I can see now that many editors clearly feel it was a substantially different question and that it was a mistake to take any chance that my wording would be objected to.  I was quite surprised that I was taken to WP:AN/I and formally warned without even a request to correct the posts first.  I would have corrected them if an editor had asked me to.  Regardless, I learned my lesson about RfC publicity.
 * Again thanks for the RfC. The responses are as surprising to me as the AN/I was.  --David Tornheim (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * --David Tornheim (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your reasonable response to negative feedback, because I know human nature is to be defensive. I'm sorry you weren't given a chance to respond or correct the situation amicably, but you did not appear to be active at the time and I was doubtful that you would be open to listening to criticism when multiple users were trying to drown out said criticism, so I decided to act decisively. Based on your response, it sounds like we won't ever be needing to invoke this warning, and I'm happy to hear that. Regards, Swarm  talk  23:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment on ORBATs for various years
1) I don't want to clutter up the AfD so I'm replying here.

2) I don't know how to group AfDs and I don't think it is a priority for me.

3) No Structures/ORBATs should have significance--likely related to conflicts or defence reviews or both. If not combine it in the alread established entries like Structure of the British Army.

Sammartinlai (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Did you read WP:MULTIAFD? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

1989 Swiss Army ORBAT AfD
Nomination of 1989 Swiss Army order of battle for deletion

Here's my nomination Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Trolling / personal attacks
David, please apologize for this. Sarcastic remarks like There are some very, very, very important editors that have really quite a lot to say are clearly uncalled for, and claiming I "repeat myself", while it may be accurate, is out of line because despite me repeating myself neither you nor the person you were addressing actually appear to have got the point. It's entirely possible you actually do get the point and are just trolling, but that's even worse.

If you do not retract that remark, I will request that you be blocked. (It might have to wait for the obvious troll who follows me to ANI every time I go there is also blocked, mind you.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I will try to strike the comment, but please note that the RfC is already closed, and I can't prevent other editors from reverting my strike.  If they do, please feel free to argue that you want it gone.  This is the first time I have been on Wikipedia since I made that remark.   --David Tornheim (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

re: Article about ArbCom
I think the article is/was actually open access in the International Sociology journal. At least I can download it without logging in, through hmmm, it seems that going through their web page is clunky. Google Scholar still provides a free download link:. In case the link is temporary, I got it by entering the paper's title into the Google Scholar. If this doesn't work, there's always Sci Hub, and I also uploaded the paper to academia.edu. PS. There's also a xopy at Zenodo, another open repository that doesn't have any registration barriers; you can get Zenodo link from regular Google search, at least to me it is the 3rd link or so when I entery my paper's full title to normal Google search. For some reason Zenodo link triggers our blacklist filter so I cannot link it here, feel free to complain about it at Spam blacklist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately, every single one of those requires a sign-up, and even though I signed into academia.edu and allowed them access to my gmail account, they would only let me look at the abstract.  So no luck with any of those sites.  --David Tornheim (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * While academia.edu does require sign up, Sci Hub most certainly does not. Neither does Zenodo. I tested both just now on Chrome incognito and I was able to download the paper in <1 minute from each site without any need for registration. Unfortunately, I cannot provide you the direct links since Sci-Hub links are dynamic and unstable, and Zenodo is spam blackisted. Try zenodo.org/record/883897/files/article.pdf or http://gen.lib.rus.ec/ . That's the best I can do with regards to linking, I am afraid. PS. Sadly, the Google Scholar link seems to be restricted somehow, it doesn't work for incognito mode, so I guess there are only 3 ways to access the article for free: academia.edu, zenodo and Sci-Hub. Again, the latter two should not require any registration. PPS. I just learned that Zenodo provides abstract only, but that still should leave two avenues of free access available. PPPS. Apologies again, Academia.edu also provides just an abstract, so in the end only Sci-Hub can provide you with the full version. Piracy is the only way yet again :/ (It's not like any copy I could provide anyone would be particularly more legal). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I was able to get the paper through SciHub without signing up.  I'm not sure what went wrong the first time I tried.  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind comments and encouragement. You seem to have taken the time to investigate and follow completely the timeline of events and have made an accurate summary of the experience. As you are an experienced editor, I would like your help to modify the revision to bring it into full compliance and update the article with the many current references and resources that are available. The microbiome page (another interest of mine) that I have been reviewing tonight is excellent with very current information and resources and is a model perhaps which could be followed. However, it seems many of the references used may be primary by your strictest standards, although in my opinion, they really add to the scientific quality of the information offered. Given the current sentiment on the specific carbohydrate diet page, perhaps it is best to give it some time. All the best. Beall4 (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your message.
 * As I think you have seen, quite a few editors defended you at ArbCom and at the article page. Our policies require us to give some latitude for new editor mistakes.  There are also some unwritten rules.  How to deal with pushback without breaking the rules is an important skill that new editors will not know and often gets them into trouble that they do not understand.  You are certainly not the first editor who I have seen get treated badly.
 * I do recommend you take a look at the exchange I had with Soulman1125 here: User_talk:David_Tornheim.
 * Much of the advice to Soulman1125 is appropriate for you:
 * (1) Work on other articles, besides Specific Carb Diet, especially articles you feel less attachment to. If you work on too few articles with too much investment, you will be accused of being a WP:SPA.  [This has already happened.]
 * (2) Don't accuse other editors of double-standards, don't call them names, don't get nasty, etc. It may appear others are using double-standards, but trust me, comments like those will be used against you to get you blocked, topic banned, or even ejected from Wikipedia--even if you are 100% confident you are right.   Look at this to see what happens when you make accusations against other users.
 * (3) Keep your cool. Try not to get flustered if nasty untrue allegations are made against you. Your nasty responses will be noted and used against you.  It's okay to say, "That's not true." and provide evidence.  But don't start calling your accuser names or they will take you to WP:AN/I and use the name-calling to have you blocked, etc.
 * (4) If you feel you are harassed, you can take the issue to WP:AN/I. I would be very cautious before doing that.  I have seen few new users succeed at AN/I.  To win a case at AN/I, you must provide WP:diffs.  Until you learn how to create diffs like other editors do at AN/I, it would be nearly impossible to win a case there.  Also, some editors are "teflon", and they can get away with things no one else can (see User:Beeblebrox/The_unblockables).  Taking them to AN/I would make your jaw drop, cause immense frustration, and be, unfortunately, a complete waste of your time.  So do your research before taking any case to AN/I.
 * (5) Go to some super controversial articles and just watch. Try not to speak, just watch at the article and the talk page.  Watch for edit warring.  See what happens when someone adds something that others disagree with, and especially watch what happens when they don't get their way.  You might notice that you are not treated any differently.  They will have warnings all over their talk page too.
 * (6) Look at other articles where there are disputes over resources as to whether something is WP:RS or not, and where there are questions about whether a sources meets WP:MEDRS or not. Take a look at noticeboards, such was WP:RS/N, WP:NPOV/N, WP:FRINGE/N, where issues of sources are mentioned.  The disputes there may take a tone that is familiar.
 * As for what to do at Specific Carb Diet, I have some thoughts, but I am going to wait and keep it brief for now. Because right now you are getting a lot of pushback, I suggest you slow down, and instead of pushing for changes there, try to follow some of my above advice in the meantime.  I suggest avoiding any WP:BOLD changes to the article--on some articles it works; on some articles like this one there is intense negative pushback resulting in warnings.  Instead of changing the article, share proposed changes at the talk page first, and if a majority of editors rejects it, try to accept their opinion even if it seems patently wrong based on your knowledge of the sources.  I know it can be incredibly frustrating to have to accept a majority opinion if you strongly feel the opinion is wrong.
 * I think you will be able to make improvements to the article--especially given your knowledge of the sources--but it will take some patience to learn the bizarre way things work here. If you keep pushing hard for your desired version, there is a good chance they will block you from editing the article.  We can talk more later.  I hope some of this helps.  Thanks again for your reply here. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * David, I realize that my presence here may be unwelcome, and if it is, please accept my apologies. But I want to very sincerely compliment you on what you wrote just above. It is very thoughtful, and spot-on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * David, I did not see this post until now. I made the effort to remove the most egregious error and move on, and I appreciate your review of the material and sources.  Given the most recent change on the article this morning taking it to completely unfounded allegations, it seemed logical to revise my original contribution to eliminate any area of controversy and primarily cite the two most recent review articles on the subject to provide a balanced and objective, accurate review as an encyclopedia should. I invite you and others to objectively compare the two.  Given this is my current area of expertise - Nutritional Therapy for IBD- it is most logical to begin with contributing in this area.  If it is this difficult in this area, I am not sure it is worth my time to contribute to Wikipedia as I have other presentations and national meetings to prepare for.  I have experience in internal medicine and past experience lecturing on a wide variety of disease states, so although not as current in these areas as IBD, I would be glad to contribute to Wikipedia in these areas if helpful.  However, the current experience does not lend itself to interest to volunteer for this when there is no real sincere interest to put forth accurate information, at least not under this topic. I respectfully ask you and others to review both recent versions.  Thank you for your time, consideration and guidance.  You are a voice of reason. Beall4 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I started a longer response to you, but for now I am going to keep it simple:
 * (1) When dealing with non-experts, rather than making big changes, make changes ONE AT A TIME.  It will be far easier to argue from the sources (and short quotes from those sources) and for editors like me to follow.
 * (2) If you keep it simple, those who disagree will have to do the same.  Good text from a quality source(s) is hard to oppose based on WP:NPOV.
 * (3) It makes no difference if I agree that your big rewrite is an improvement.  You have about four editors at the page who do not.  You have to get a consensus before such a WP:BOLD change would stick.  Reverts (undo) by you, will be reverted by these four editors, accomplishing nothing, and will lead to the talk page warnings, which lead to blocks, topic bans, etc.  It's not helping you at all to try to push your version in when you do not have support at the talk page.  Think small.
 * (4) You were indeed making better progress with small edits.  Their defense of "causing malnutrition" is weak.  If you are patient, there might be improvement there.  Give other editors to a chance to weigh in on that issue.
 * (5) Regarding the "most recent change on the article this morning taking it to completely unfounded allegations", rather than put in your preferred version for the entire article, which had already been rejected more than once, all you had to do was revert the new edit.  Then the editor who added the new material would have the burden under WP:BRD to address your concern that it is unfounded.  I suggest you put that concern about it being unfounded on the talk page.  I created this section where you can express your concerns.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Jingle bells
Thanks! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! --David Tornheim (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi David Tornheim. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ADavid_Tornheim enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm {talk}  20:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Thanks! --David Tornheim (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

List of transgender and transsexual fictional characters
Hi David, the Film and Cartoon sections were small subsets of the more complete List of transgender characters in film and television. This isn’t a disruptive edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakForMe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I responded at talk page here: Talk:List_of_transgender_and_transsexual_fictional_characters. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

My talk page
Just to let you know in the most civil possible terms that your edits and suggestions aren't welcome there. I already mentioned that I refrain from making any but minor edits and vandalism reverts on alt-med articles. Your suggestion to topic ban myself is neither welcome or useful. Unlike the people you seem to have so much affection for, I have the ability to decide when I have a bias and exercise self control. Edaham (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stay off of my talk page.
You are not welcome there. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ha ha snap! Edaham (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Western River Wilderness Protection Area
Thank you for adding the field 'IUCN ref' to the infobox in the above artilce. However, I replaced the citation that you added for the following reasons. Firstly, the IUCN category is already cited with respect to an Australian government source. Secondly, the Protected Planet website is a less reliable source  when compared to the Australian government source as discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Archive 6. Also, thanks for advising the relevant WikipProject Australia editor(s) re the above - the field has now been added to Template:Infobox Australian place/Blank et al. I will upgrade all of the relevant articles in South Australia and the Northern Territory. Please reply here if you wish to reply. Regards Cowdy001 (talk)
 * Thanks for your work on this, and thanks for the mention of discussion of Protected Planet. I agree with your past comments that data appears to be out of date at times.  I have also noticed the search engine sometimes does not come always come up with area even if it is in the database.
 * If you hadn't seen it, there was some discussion about IUCN refs having been removed:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Protected_areas
 * User_talk:Aymatth2
 * Please feel free to add your thoughts to those discussions. I found an interest in the subject when I was doing vandalism reversion, and I noticed IPs deleting the IUCN refs.
 * I created this thread to helping identify WP:RS for the IUCN ref if there was none:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Protected_areas
 * As you can tell I'm not as familiar with the databases that have protected areas as you seem to be. I didn't noticed when I wrote that, but I see now there are some mention of databases and searches on the main page for the protected areas project here:
 * WikiProject_Protected_areas
 * WikiProject_Protected_areas
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your query on my talk page
Answered there. Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Herman Melville
Since you are an experienced copy editor, I thought to ask if you might consider completing the GAN assessment for Herman Melville. The original assessment was started a month ago by another editor who appears to be on extended Wikibreak. Does it sound possible for you to do this assessment? CodexJustin (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the request. That's a very substantial article on a subject that undoubtedly has volumes and volumes of exceptional WP:RS.  I feel highly underqualified to assess the article.  Also, doing such an evaluation seems like a massive undertaking.  I'm sorry I can't help you.  If you have a smaller favor with regard to that article or another, I might be willing to help.  Also, I have not done any GAN assessments.  If I were to start doing them, I would start on smaller articles and also review the accepted assessments of other editors first.  If you want to try to entice me to work on GAN assessment and want to help me learn the ropes on that, I am open to it.  I'm sure there are other editors that do that kind of work regularly.  I can't say I know how to find them, but it shouldn't be too hard.  Some of the wikiprojects are probably a good place to start, maybe a WikiProject Literature or something like that.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the places to find out more about assessments and look for assessors for your project:
 * Content assessment  (shortlink: WP:ASSESS)
 * WikiProject Literature -- sadly, this "appears to be inactive"
 * WP:PROJDIR -- makes it easy to locate some of the over 2,000 projects. If you post on a project talk page, a large number of editors in the field will see the request.  Maybe something in liberal arts or history might work if lit. is not good.  As long as the request is reasonably relevant to the project field, you could do more than one posted request in different projects.  I wouldn't do more than four, however.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow!
Way to be completely rude to me. You might as well told me to go fuck myself. 2600:8800:5A80:1394:78FF:1C1D:ACE1:877A (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you felt I was being rude. I was just joking with you, which is why I used the smiley face.  Do you understand why the material is in the article?  That it is grounded in reliable sources WP:RS?  That's what determines what is in our articles--at least it should.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You might find my section "Advice to New Editors" at the top of my user page User:David_Tornheim helpful. I do hope you continue to edit.  And I do understand why you asked the question you did--especially if you were not familiar with our sourcing rules.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...So you’re saying that as long as I have a bunch of reliable sources I can just add the original Star Wars film into the List of films considered the worst and the higher ups will do everything in their power to prevent anyone else from deleting it, including going to editing wars and forcing someone to do a request for comment on its removal. Got it! 2600:8800:5A80:1394:78FF:1C1D:ACE1:877A (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:POINT. Making edits just to prove a point will get you blocked from editing. Don’t waste people’s time with games like that. Sergecross73   msg me  03:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that you pulled up WP:POINT as your only objection to adding Star Wars with no mention of WP:WEIGHT says a lot. 2600:8800:5A80:1394:78FF:1C1D:ACE1:877A (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello David, Thanks for your encouragement and advice. I am on holiday now for three weeks so can't do much mid Atlantic!!! Musicwaves (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

AE appeal result
Hi David, I have closed your appeal of your topic ban to AE with the following outcome:

This has been noted in the 2016 AE log under your original sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky GA review

 * Thanks for getting back on this. I just noticed your interest in Noam Chomsky on your User page and that his article has also been nominated for Good Article review here . The evaluation process for this in described by clicking on the instruction tab on the top of the same page that I just linked for the Chomsky nomination. If its interesting for you as a trial attempt then apparently all you have to do is select the evaluation template from those given in the Instructions section there and then work through the article's sections one-by-one. Should you be up for it and would like an assist I could join in on the Chomsky review if you would like to try it. CodexJustin (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I needed to wrap up other things before considering this.  I'm not willing to commit to doing the entire GA review, but I am willing to start on looking at one (possibly more) sections of Noam Chomsky as you propose and see how that goes.  Can you show me an example of a page that was reviewed section by section by more than on editor.  I looked at one at random, and I saw this:  Talk:Billy_Budd/GA1.  It is not organized by section, but was an overall review.  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you. I guess I could offer to do the nomination of Chomsky and you can join in with your comments on one or more sections. I would propose listing the Table of Contents of the article on the review page, and then commenting on each section in order. At the end of the review, you and I can decide if the article looks ok. Just let me know which section or sections you are comfortable with and I can try to put in the nomination. I just noticed that there are lots of red links in the article and some of the sections look like lists of sentences rather than actual paragraphs. Does my doing the nomination sound like an interesting approach? CodexJustin (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does my doing the nomination sound like an interesting approach? I don't know. I would think they would try to have the person making the nomination be different than the person reviewing it, but honestly I don't know. For an article that has been around as long as Noam Chomsky, one that perhaps you have done little editing to (it looks like you have not edited the article at all (no article editsno talk page edits)), then it might not be a process issue.  Please note that I have edited the article once and talk page five times.  If it were a brand new article an editor created, and that same editor did the review, that would undoubtedly be a problem. You might try asking editors who have done a bunch of reviews.  I think  may have done some GA reviews, asked for assessments, etc.
 * As for which sections I would do: My only preference is that at first the sections are short, and that the WP:RS does not require me to go to the library or deal with paywalls.  Unfortunately, the New York Times and some of the other big papers are making it increasingly harder to look at their articles without a subscription.  But I'm willing to give it a go.
 * I just noticed that there are lots of red links in the article and some of the sections look like lists of sentences rather than actual paragraphs. One thing I don't know:  Can an editor improve the article while doing the review, or is this a separate process that has to occur after the review is completed?  I can see a potential problem with objectivity of assessment if the reviewer is ultimately reviewers own changes to the article.  I could imagine rules in place that you are not supposed to change it while working on the review, but I don't know.  It's really not clear to me what rules are in place to prevent this kind of objectivity problem of assessing one's own work.  If you can find the answer to that, I'm very curious to hear it, that would make me feel more comfortable.  It's one of the reasons I have been hesitant to look into the whole GA stuff in the first place.
 * I would propose listing the Table of Contents of the article on the review page, and then commenting on each section in order. I have no idea if that is normal or not.  I'll let you figure that out.  Or someone else who has done this before.  If you can give examples of someone who has done a review the way you are proposing we do it, that would really help.
 * Once you get the skeleton in place, just tell me what section to start on, and I'll give it a go, unless some of the above questions are going to be an issue. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In the last five minutes I just loaded the review page for Chomsky as nominated by User Tejas. I also noticed that he has not been signing on very much this year, last sign in for him was last March. You can start filling in the Table of Contents on the review page as soon as you feel comfortable with the material and it will be interesting to see how the review goes. In terms of editing the article by the reviewers, from what I have seen it is usually assumed that the nominating editor, not the reviewers, make the edits, unless the article is within striking distance of being passed as adequate in its current form. You can link to the review page from the Chomsky talk page to start to add comments. CodexJustin (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Dodge Dakota
I already discussed this issue with an editor before. I refuse to do it again.Jeep did make a production truck in the early Sixties called the Gladiator. The new recently-introduced Jeep Truck HAS revived the name .Road tests and info on the new truck are all over YouTube.LOOK IT UP. (You would get a lot further with fellow editors if you used kindness and civility.From the response you've received from other editors on your talk page, It seems you have a problem with that.) Willgee (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will respond on your talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Repsonse
In response to your questions about me being getting paid to edit and create articles, the answer is no. I do not get paid by any party, nor do I work in the music industry. I do this on my own time for leisure. --unsigned comment by Thedivinemania (talk | contribs) 20:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC) [signature added --David Tornheim (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)]
 * Thanks you for answering. This is in response to:
 * User_talk:Thedivinemania (permalink)
 * User_talk:Thedivinemania (permalink)
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty Little Liars nominations
I really think WP:PLOT needs to be emphasized more, and stuff like this is why. If you take a look in the Pretty Little Liars category, there are 38 pages dedicated to individual episodes, and if you specifically look in 'Characters', all of the non-italicized names have their own articles. Take a look, for example, at this episode. Or this Or this. And many people will just assume, "Oh, it's an episode/character in notable media; obviously this is notable too, then." I don't like to think of myself as a deletionist, but I might have to try my hand at a multiple-article nomination, because good grief, this is just sad. I'll be looking into your other nomination to give it a fair shake, but I very highly doubt I'll be swayed into finding it notable enough for even a weak keep.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  05:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I have been working on music, music videos, films, and other items that come up for vandal reversion.  There is an amazing amount of junk on Wikipedia like this.  If you have ever looked at a music article for a popular piece like say, Red Pill Blues Tour, you will see drive-by IPs coming in and putting in junk constantly with complete disregard for our sourcing rules and basic procedures of including an edit summary.
 * For pointless junk, take a look at this category for example: Template:Toronto_skyscrapers.   I tried to delete a bunch of the remarkably unnotable buildings (the articles for them are mostly puff pieces, like say The_Uptown_Residences), but I got a surprising amount of pushback, perhaps from PR people working for developers, real estate interests, who knows.  Too many editors were so invested in keeping these articles on the sole grounds that "any building over X feet is 'notable'".  I eventually gave up, but may some day submit the puff pieces again.  I still think categories like this make a mockery of Wikipedia, by using our site for their advertising.
 * Anyway, if you do submit any more episodes (or anything else for that matter) to AfD, feel free to let me know. I actually consider myself an "inclusionist" but not for trial junk.  My biggest pet peeve by the way is that every single person who ever competed in any Olympics is automatically notable.  That's a travesty.  If you select random article, the odds you will get one are surprisingly high.   --David Tornheim (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I have a soft spot for short articles – like the one in that category of Toronto Skyscrapers Sugar Wharf – with maybe two paragraphs, a picture, and a few citations. But yeah, that article about The Uptown Residences is categorically unacceptable in its current state; maybe I'll look into it and see if I can find some references that lend it notability. I'm generally far less forgiving, however, of articles dedicated to media such as non-notable episodes or characters, because the fact that the 'Plot' section (or character equivalent) – usually the overwhelming bulk of the article – is entirely uncited makes it ripe for vandalism, which is exacerbated wildly when nobody knows and/or cares about the subject enough to watch the page for it. As far as the Olympics go, WP:NOLYMPICS seems overinclusive. If it were up to me, I would draw the line at a bronze medal, then let WP:BASIC or the rest of WP:ATHLETE sort out the rest. I admittedly don't watch sports much, though, so that's effectively an outsider's opinion.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  06:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just about to send The Uptown Residences to AfD, until I started to worry from my past experiences with trying to delete similar unnotable buildings. I'm glad I checked first.  Look at this: Articles_for_deletion/L_Tower, where there were arguments like this:
 * "It's surprising a skycraper in Toronto of this height is AfD'd." - Editor #1
 * "A building of this height in Toronto is notable." - Editor #2
 * "@Editor #2: Please cite some policy or guideline that gives notability to buildings of a certain height. I know of none and would oppose such a guideline as contrary to our general WP:GNG rules." -- David Tornheim
 * "The policy is WP:IAR. It allows us to make exceptions to guidelines. Some of the exceptions to GNG have been codified into SNGs, such as GEOLAND, others have yet to be codified." -Editor #2
 * "Buildings should be handed an automatic free notability pass, if they happen to surpass a certain arbitrary height, at least because that means they can be an item in a list of tallest buildings, and at worst their article can be redirected to that item... I think the minimum cutoff for automatic notability of any building should be 100 meters." -- Editor #3
 * I definitely have no interest in listening to all that again! LOL. Instead I put an unsourced tag. If you find any RS for it and want to add citations, fine by me.  --David Tornheim (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually just went ahead and cleaned up the L Tower article, as I think it passes WP:NBUILD. I added some sources, cleaned up existing citations, and expanded upon the crane controversy.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  18:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I had considered doing something like what you are proposing--numerous AfD's on multiple episodes. Submitting the first two I found was a trial balloon, to see if it would be as difficult as the Toronto Skyscrapers were.  If these two are successfully deleted, I am happy to help you will working on a bigger deletion scheme.  Let me know how I can help.  I did dig up some material on multiple deletions when someone else was discussing deleting ALL THE ARTICLES created by a specific banned user--something I strongly opposed.  I'll post my finding from that as soon as I can find them.  --David Tornheim (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MULTIAFD provides the instructions for process. I don't think I have tried it.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi! By chance I noticed this edit. I'm not sure if there are similar cases before, but even though I agree the edit was controversial, the rollback reason does not seem to fall under WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I thought it was important to leave a message regarding this. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I regret having hit rollback on that edit: I had I forgot that rollback does not allow an edit summary.  Yes, if I had remembered that, I would not have used it.  I don't really understand why it doesn't allow a summary.
 * As soon as I noticed there was no edit-summary, I put this comment on the talk page to explain the edit and warned the editor on his her talk page about the edit-warrning.
 * Why are you bringing it up now--when this occurred a week ago? Do you support the edit-warring which you have also been accused of at User_talk:Jamez42 (permalink)? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm sorry, I confused the edit with this one, which reverted a similar content in Maduro's article. I'm mentioning it because it happened seven hours ago. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you look in again at
...at the AfD you opened at the Hayley McLaughlin article? I am worried, despite addressing your lack-of-sources and IMDB-only concerns, that the AfD, which can take on a life of its own, is seeing the bar raised, unfairly, for this non-American actor. Have a look, see if your initial reervations have been addressed. I would suggest, at very least, if you are not satisfied, that decision wait intil mid-January, when the full press on the new work, Zemeckis' drama, Project Blue Book have had time to appear. Likely another half dozen sources reviewing/discussing this work will appear by then. 2601:246:C700:9B0:10F8:DB65:ED5E:C55A (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that I posted this at your talk page.
 * Why exactly are you worried?
 * What do you mean that "the bar raised, unfairly, for this non-American actor"? Can you site another article where an actor of even less notability has an article?  Maybe we can have that article deleted as well.
 * I can see you added much material and many sources, but another editor reviewed it after you added that material and still came to the same conclusion that I did initially--that the sourcing does not meet notability of WP:NACTOR.  Please explain succinctly with the best quality sources you can find why you think she meets the WP:NACTOR WP:NOTABILITY requirements?  Probably better to answer this last question at Articles_for_deletion/Hayley_McLaughlin rather than here.  --David Tornheim (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also see what I wrote at the AfD here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello
Thought you may be interested in this following your recent edits. I want to make sure that there is an accurate consensus with such a decision.

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt at Canvassing, only a notification for a user who may be interested. This is action is being performed to broaden the consensus.

Thank you.ZiaLater ( talk ) 00:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

 * Thanks! You too! --David Tornheim (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tulsi Gabbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tulsi_Gabbard check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tulsi_Gabbard?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)