User talk:Dontreader/Archive 3

Cite web vs cite news
Hi Dontreader! Nice job improving the citations in Camille and Kennerly Kitt. I don't think it matters whether we use cite web or cite news, as they seem to display the same way: Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Guess that makes cite web and cite news identical twins too! :-)  GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , interesting! LOL But I'm a purist now with the refs! I see a newspaper and I use cite news, religiously! How about the most recent edit? Impressive or what?! Although again it still looks the same to the readers! :) Please feel free to correct anything, and thanks so much! Dontreader (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Word choice
Thanks for doing that. Personally, I didn't find your usage of the term inappropriate, and apparently Wikipedia doesn't either. So, removing an entire thread of very informative and pertinent information apparently over the use of a single word was a bit of an overstep not necessary per WP:CENSOR and possibly WP:GREATWRONGS and certainly not in accordance with WP:BLP. Changing the wording was, however, a nice gesture on your part and hopefully whatever issues the other editor had with the thread has now been resolved. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC); (Edited by Marchjuly to change word choice - 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC))
 * I very much appreciate your message. Yes, I think it was enough to change the title of the section, but everyone is different, so it's better to try to do something that a sensitive person in that sense might prefer. And as you said, it was a mistake to remove informative content, especially since that information could potentially make someone else refrain from bringing up the same issue in the future. Thanks again! Dontreader (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned this in my first post, but it probably would have been technically better to follow the steps in WP:REDACT since the post in question had already been replied to just so Tuesdaymight's following post remained in the same context. It's quite easy to do. All you do is go back and mark it up as breasts physical attributes so it looks like breasts physical attirbutes .Then after your signature/time stamp, just add ; edited to show that the post was edited. The new time stamp will let people reading the thread know that your post was edited after she replied to it. If you want you can also leave a message like ;(Edited by Marchjuly to blah, blah, blah -~) or something similar sort of like I did above so people know who, why and when. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll do my best to try to have some harmony here, but please give me a few moments to read what happened on that person's talk page. Also, I'm not familiar with adding a new time stamp after an edited post but I'll follow your instructions. I appreciate the information. Dontreader (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. The 5 tildes just add the time and date without the signature so that people can see the post has been edited after the fact without having to search through diffs in the page history. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was writing at the same time. Thanks for the explanation. I have probably used five tildes once before since I became a Wikipedian. As promised, I did my best. I hope this solves the problem. The only other issue I see is that someone else changed the title of the section, so should that editor do what I did? In my opinion the editor that is complaining has blown this whole thing out of proportion. We have tried to amend things to please that editor, but the editor keeps on complaining. Besides, the editor's rationale for deleting the section is flawed. Although one could attribute that mistake to lack of experience discussing issues on talk pages, there might be a COI. I think that editor should calm down. You and I have really wasted time on a non-issue. The changes to the parts that were replied to (the change in the section title, and my edit) merely took out the usage of two words, which were replaced. The spirit or meaning was not altered by these modifications. Furthermore, the second time that the user removed the section, the rationale given in the edit description was not related to the modification of comments. As I said, it looks like a COI to me. But what do I know? It's 3:30 AM here and I don't know if I'm making any sense. I'm sorry for not addressing the issue sooner. Thanks again for your very kind help. Dontreader (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep trying to assume good faith and try to put ourselves in their shoes. It's not really out place to tell someone what they can and cannot personally be offended by. It's also best to avoid any talk of a COI unless there is something more substantial to indiciate that is the case. I do think, however, that we can offer our interpretations on what is or is not a BLP violation and advise accordingly. As long as the discussion stays focused on policy/guidelines and remains civil, then things will evenutally work themselves out. If they don't, then other people will weigh in and decide if any further action is needed. Nobody could do really anymore than you've already done to try and make things good, so I wouldn't worry about it any longer. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I pinged you, but if you'd like to comment then please feel free to do so at WP:BLPN - Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right. I should not have mentioned a COI. As you said, if that editor's behavior continues (blanking the section), others will weigh in and measures will be taken. The editor will have to stop that behavior sooner or later. Also, I will check out the situation at WP:BLPN. Thanks for your wise advice. Dontreader (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up that issue on the noticeboard. I think you did a great job. As you predicted, a solution was found. I added my own observations, too, hoping that the editor will understand the policies better. Have a great day... Dontreader (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well based upon it seems the situation has been resolved satisfactorily for all involved. If that tone had been taken in the first place, then this probably wouldn't have dragged on for as long as it did. An olive branch has been extended, so it's probably best to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. At the very least everybody got to vent and state their case, but hopefully we are all a tad bit wiser from it all. It would've been nice to have also received a shout out in the end, but us pioneers always end up taking the arrows for the settlers that follow. At least now I can return to my endless debates with those who insist on inappropriately adding non-free images to articles. Anyway, sorry if I dragged you through the muck in my quest to resolve this matter. Funny thing is I never heard of Jess Greenberg before the other day and have really no idea at all who she is let alone what she looks like. Never edited her article a single time. I just stumbled upon that discussion via the Teahouse and decided to stick my schnozzola into the middle of things. Happy editing - Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's finally over! Don't worry about me replying to that editor because it's not going to happen! I saw what took place at the Teahouse and it scared the heck out of me! I feel very bad for the host who very kindly tried to help that editor. The editor also blanked sections today on his/her own talk page, erasing what the administrator DES wrote! Oh well, I'm just glad that we both did our best to bring some peace, hopefully, to that editor's mind, and at least the folks at the BLP noticeboard supported our views, with a couple of exceptions. It's interesting that you deal with images and copyright issues here on Wikipedia. I myself have spent a lot of time on Commons looking for uploaded pictures that were copyright violations, and nominating them for deletion. In a way it's fun because I like to enforce the rules and it's so much easier to destroy than to build! I've also uploaded a few pictures of musicians after receiving permission from the owners. You should check out Jess' "Highway to Hell" video on YouTube! Wow, I really thought EVERYONE had seen that video! Thanks again for everything, and I hope to see you again soon! Dontreader (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors are pretty much free to free to remove or archive their user talk pages as they please with certain exceptions so nothing really wrong with that. You can do the same for yours if you like. Many people prefer archiving since some sort of record remains and there are bots that will automatically do it (WP:ARCHIVE) for you. Some editors, on the other hand, just prefer to delete. Either way stuff that has not been redacted by OTRS can be always be found by looking at diffs. I am certainly no expert on copyrights, etc., but recently I've been looking through non-free images to see what is what. Even though the policy is quite clear (at least to me) in most cases on how they should be used, there are plenty of editors who think "their" image or article is an exception to the rules or their Wikiproject "guidelines" trump community-wide policy/guidelines. It's pretty much a losing battle to be honest, but if you like images and commenting on them then check out WP:NFCR, WP:FFD, WP:PUF and WP:MCQ. Things can sometimes get testy though since many just think you're an image-deleting copyright commie, but occasionally you're able to convert one over to the dark side. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At some point I will have to consider the archiving option (I appreciate that you gave me the link). I had no idea that there are so many pages on Wikipedia that deal with files. I thought Wikipedia dealt essentially with fair use files, which Commons doesn't accept. Before I forget, I believe that there are tons of images used on Wikipedia citing the fair use rationale which do not meet the criteria because often times the images are not discussed at all in the articles. For example, many covers of albums and singles. But I could be wrong since I don't really know fair use rules that well. For now if I'm in the mood for searching for copyright violations I'll continue to do that on Commons because I've learned all the essential rules and tricks there, and there simply are not enough administrators and other volunteers on Commons (those folks are clearly overwhelmed), so I'm happy to help out there, although it's been a while. I, too, have received many complaints from uploaders when I nominate their files for deletion (and maybe I've been the victim of witchcraft on several occasions! LOL), but when an uploader understands that he has to get a declaration of consent (instead of claiming "own work"), and does go through that trouble, he becomes a potential candidate to join the Dark Side in the future, like us, because then he gets upset when he sees others uploading images as "own work" to avoid going through the trouble he went through! Dontreader (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All non-free images are required to satisfy each of the criteria in WP:NFCCP. Out of the 10, WP:NFCC seems to be the one that is the most subjective and the one (in my opinion) that is regularly ignored. If an album cover is used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the article then WP:NFC is considered satisfied; However, using album covers in discography galleries, band articles, or list articles is not typically allowed per WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFG, and NFCC#8. Same goes for non-free logos, non-free screenshots, non-free anything. Disagreements tend to arise when the images are not being used as the primary means of identification, but are simply there for show with no discussion at all or provided with just a caption and are somewhat associated with content in the article. According to the NFC (at least some people's reading of the NFC), this is something that is not allowed and sourced critical commentary about the image itself is needed to satisfy NFCC#8. Another school of thought, however, feels that this not the case because nowhere in the NFC does it say "Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are: where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." and even if it does say that then that is too bad because the NFC is too strict bs and not what so and so Wikiproject says or so and so talk page discussion says. If you scan any of the threads on NFCR, in most cases you'll find that those arguing in favor of applying the NFC are citing actual policy or guidelines while those arguing against the NFC usually cite unwritten exceptions or anything else other than relevant policy. Like on Commons there are not lots of admins, etc. willing to tackle non-free stuff so a lot goes unnoticed for years, and then when it is noticed there's almost always a "this image has been fine for years, so why challenge it now." or "this is the way it's always been done it similar articles." by someone trying to justify its use. Anyway, enough ranting for now. Time to think of more pleasant things. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. I appreciate the information. In my opinion Wikipedia contradicts itself when it comes to "contextual significance". I agree with "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I also agree with these criteria: "where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or" and "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." I also agree with "In all cases, meeting the criterion depends on the significance of the understanding afforded by the non-free content, which can be determined according to the principles of due weight and balance.", but then what follows is a contradiction, in my view: "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion. For example, to allow identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used; for identification of specific coins and currency, images of the front and back are normally used."
 * So, for example, if an article about a music album says when it was released, how well it performed on various music charts, and the track listing is provided, but the actual album art is not discussed, I see no justification for invoking the fair use rationale to include the album cover. If, however, to give you an example, an album article is about an album entitled "The Planets", and at least one reliable source is used in the article that discusses that certain planets are mentioned in various songs, and those planets appear on the album cover, then definitely I agree with invoking the free use rationale to justify having the picture of the album cover in the article because it significantly increases the reader's understanding of the article topic, but that last statement that I quoted basically says that EVERY album cover qualifies as fair use, which I think is wrong and abusive of the fair use principle. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually tend to agree with your assessment of NFCC#8 even for infoboxes, but many consider that to be too anti-image and are unable to see the logic in your argument. It is, however, I think a workable compromise. As I stated above, it's outside the infobox or where lots of editors, even experienced ones, feel that articles need images regardless of the NFC. Most of these editors would have no problem removing unsourced text from an article (if it absolutely wasn't needed) or tagging it with a citation needed tag per WP:PROVEIT; Images, however, are a different story for some reason asking the to "prove" an image satisfies the NFC is often met with "you fix it if you have a problem with it, but don't remove the image" kind of retorts. Some feel its impossible to support them by citing sources, so requiring them to be supported in such a way is not practical at all and uber-excessive. This is why you'll find things like a Wikiproject writing it's OK to add former (non-free) logos to its articles as a gallery (despite WP:NFG) because it's important for the reader to see all these logos to truly understand the evolution of the organization in question, even if the images are only decortive and are not the subject of any sourced discussion at all within the article itself, or a non-free logo for XYZ organization being added to the articles of all individual subentities/events (Nos. 14 and 17 of WP:NFC) of the "main" organization because some feel that the reader would not otherwise understand what the article is really about without seeing the logo. The other arguments I've seen is that if organization B's articles can use logos (B's logo is freely licensend or PD), then its unfair to organization A if they cannot use their logo n the same way (A's logo is non-free). I've seen 20+ non-free rationales written for a single non-free image in cases like this when really only a single usage is appropriate. The counter argument often cited in such cases is that WP:NFCC only says "must be used in at least one article", and doesn't cap the nmber of articles where the image can be used. Anyway, if you've got time and are interested, then you might find NFCC Criterion 8 debate or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42 interesting. They are old discussions, but not much has changed since then as you'll see if you take a look at any of the longer threads in WP:NFCR. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had no idea there had been such a heated debate concerning criterion 8. I was reading the arguments there for a while. I still believe the fair use principle is being badly abused. I think it's fine to use the album cover image on Duran Duran's The Wedding Album because there's a reference in the article to the cover art (and the cover art gave the album that unofficial title), and I think a reader benefits from that visual information (the statement is unsourced, currently, but I'll fix that in a few moments, hopefully). Another good example is the Billy Ripken baseball card because without seeing it the reader is left without something that definitely helps to understand the controversy, and it's discussed in the article. Likewise, the audio clips in the "Stairway to Heaven" article in the backward masking section are very helpful, although perhaps short audio clips fall into a different category of non-free content. If I had my way, I would say, look, if you want to include an album cover, it MUST be mentioned/discussed in the article by a reliable source. That would eliminate lots of the subjectivity. If people say it's too anti-image, well, they might think differently if they had ever designed the cover of an album. You might think I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I tend to believe that Wikipedia is getting away with this behavior solely because music record companies know that Wikipedia is a very big website and the album covers in articles promote sales. If you try to use a fair use rationale for uploading a song to YouTube recorded by a major artist, citing that it's for criticism and commentary, and therefore it qualifies as "fair use", well, comments and criticism will indeed appear, but chances are that the video will disappear because in that situation the record company is being harmed. But clearly your knowledge of fair use and non-free content laws is immense compared to mine. Thanks! Dontreader (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not even close to being a fair use expert and I believe "non-free" is a concept Wikipedia created for it's own purposes. I totally agree with your comments on "sourced commentary" for what it's worth and I think many NFC people do too. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be enough of us to stem the tide of non-free content being uploaded and added to articles. I'm not really sure why so much non-free content is being allowed by the original copyright holders. Technically their permission is not needed I guess, but still they a little surprising they don't say anything when their logo is being used in 70+ articles. Maybe in the early years not many people realized what Wikipedia was, but now anyone or anything which is fairly notable should be aware that there might be a Wikipedia article about them so not sure why they do not say anything if their copyrighted images are being misused. Maybe as you say they just see it as free publicity, so why raise a fuss. BTW, the Billy Ripken card is specifically mentioned as an acceptable example of non-free use in No. 8 WP:NFC and there are also other example where images (non-free or free) are the subject of sourced commentary within an article so those who claim such thing is impossible to do are simply not looking hard enough for examples. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Many thanks, Erick Shepherd! Wow, I think it's been years since I received my first barnstar! I will add the one you gave me to my user page as soon as possible! That article is not well written but the sources I found make it very clear to me that it has great potential. I've been adding some references and I've made some corrections, but it will take time to make it look good. The success of that show is a reminder that one should never underestimate redneck ingenuity!!! Thanks so much for your very kind gesture! Dontreader (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You have certainly earned it! Regardless of how well or poorly written the article is presently, you managed to convince me and others that it is worth keeping in the encyclopedia, and have effectively ensured that it will survive to see improvement. Great work! --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor edits
I'm a shameless talk page stalker, and, while you were reorganizing, I noticed this conversation about minor edits. I just wanted to say an emphatic thank you for your (well-articulated) stance. I don't see you in the wild much, but I very much appreciate well-written edit summaries like yours. Not only do you properly summarize your changes (saving others the trouble of viewing the diffs), but you explain them well enough—including linking to the relevant guidelines—that other editors can learn from you. Bravo, sir.  Rebb  ing   21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Rebbing! That's funny! A "shameless talk page stalker"! Well I certainly don't mind that at all, and I'm truly grateful for your very kind words, especially because I was feeling so depressed after realizing that "the world is a sorry place" because of me! I found it very amusing that you showed up there to ask him a technical question in the middle of a heated exchange! That was actually quite helpful as well because not only did I learn something, but I also felt much better after realizing that even you were not familiar with that term. Furthermore, your "spontaneous" comments (I can't think of a better word right now) made it easier for me to walk away from what could have become a real problem. I honestly try to be very humble and nice always, but in my opinion the nominator's behavior became insufferable; it reminded me of what happened when I defended The Wakes from deletion long ago. By the way, thanks for improving that article so much with one single edit! Amazing and admirable!


 * It was so kind of you to take a moment to thank me for how I write edit summaries. I will never forget the days when everything on Wikipedia was so new to me, and experienced contributors helped me in countless ways, including links to pages with very helpful information. So yes, the pertinent links in edit summaries are a way to help others, just like others have helped me (and continue to help me - I remember you with great fondness every time I see my user page). And without detailed edit descriptions I do worry that I might offend people since I often change what others have done, and I don't want to upset anyone. I still remember how excited I got the day I figured out how to include a link in an edit summary! Best wishes to you always, Dontreader (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad I could cheer you up, and I'm happy my comments at that AfD were productively distracting. I'd come across it by chance and was pleased to bump into you. I've seen the nominator around before, and, while he is fairly abrasive, I think he means well, and I doubt he meant that Wikipedia was worse off for having you around. So please don't feel bad; even he doesn't dislike you. More likely, he was commenting somewhat dramatically on what he perceived as your naïveté. To be fair, you did goad him, but, in my opinion, he was off base in his criticism: someone can be an experienced editor and a valuable AfD contributor without knowing the finer points of Wikipedia markup, and vice versa! If the formatting bothered him that much, he ought to have taken care of it himself. I fixed it—as I often do in discussions—and I didn't think it was a problem.

As for "breaking" backlinks, I'm not sure he's correct: I know the standard user warning templates do it (e.g., ), but I can't find any guidance saying it's recommended. I think it's interesting to go to an article and see what user and talk pages mention it, and, for those that don't want to see that, the "What links here" page lets you limit your search to links from the article namespace.

I very much appreciate your cheerfully sassy yet friendly demeanor. On Wikipedia, having a good attitude about things is crucial—and I say that as someone who often finds herself being prickly and unpleasant. I don't mean to be, and I think I am getting better, but I get so irritated when people dump their poorly-written barf about their totally non-notable bosses, products, and film projects here like Wikipedia's a free billboard and then expect us to fix it for them. It's disrespectful. We're providing a world-wide audience for free and not only do they not look at other articles for writing tips, but they can't even read the notices that say "Provide references," "Write neutrally," "Don't upload other people's pictures and pretend they're your own"? Ugh!

Like last week I found an autobiography in the new pages list—this guy. He seemed notable, so I helped copy-edit his article, and I reached out to him on his talk page to give him some advice. About the same time, he'd uploaded a photograph, claimed as his own work, that was taken from a professionally-produced YouTube video (which I found). So I flagged it with copyvio and, after it was deleted, I eft him a note explaining why it'd been removed. A couple days later, he uploaded another image, again claimed as his own, that's obviously not his. And I'm thinking, ''What the hay, broski? You know that isn't cool.'' I left him a message telling him he needed to take care of it, which he ignored. Since I'm not okay with copyvio content hanging around Commons—the photographer might not appreciate having her work shared like that—I wrote up. There's ten minutes of my day I'm not getting back. :/ But, despite my intense irritation, I managed to stay polite and cheerful the whole time, so I am really proud of myself for that.

That said, I actually don't mind paid editing when the writers try their best and their subjects are notable. Last night, I came across Heather Maloney (as I found it), an American folk singer, in the AfD log. It was a bit of a mess, totally unreferenced, and obviously written by a paid editor ("H·maloney·promo"), but I could see the subject belonged in our encyclopedia, so I spent a couple hours improving the article and writing a convincing argument for retention in the deletion discussion. It still needs work, but the article's good enough to be useful and reliable, and I'm happy to have helped; I think Wikipedia is better off for having it.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Wikipedia can feel pretty lonely at times: I spend as much time here as a person might spend at a volunteer position, but there's little opportunity for chatting about this "job." Even though I frequently interact with other editors, those interactions are almost always for a specific purpose; so it's nice to be able to sit back and shoot the breeze about "work" now and again—the stuff non-Wikipedians can't relate to. Rebb ing   23:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Words in Wiki dictionary
Is there a way to suggest addition of certain words that are spelled the same in both British and American English in the dictionary? I am just doing grammar searches while watching the mind draining device hanging on my wall. I was searching through "rain" and noticed a lot of words spelled correctly that showed the red underline and thought they should be included in the dictionary.Hmmreally 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)


 * That sounds like it could be your browser's spellcheck feature. If you know the word is in fact spelled correctly and want to prevent the red underlining from showing up, right click the word and select "add to dictionary" to store that word/spelling in your browser's spellcheck dictionary. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like what is happening, I did not get a message to come here. Hmmreally 02:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)


 * Many thanks, Erick, for helping! I wasn't sure what he meant. All the best, Dontreader (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of assistance! --Erick Shepherd (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been practicing on my Sandbox page, no matter what I do, the signbot says I am not signing even though you can clearly see my signature
I am not sure what is going wrong in the talk page? I sign with tilde's in at the end of the text, signbot, I sign in in the edit explanation box signbot, I only sign in the edit section signbot, I sign only in the explanation box, signbot. Hmmreally 03:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. If you film what you are doing on your screen and you upload it as a video to a fake account on YouTube I could show you where your mistake is. Otherwise, there's nothing I can do. Dontreader (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your custom signature doesn't have a link to your user page. See . You should take care of that. (It's actually required by the signature policy that your signature have, at minimum, a link to your user page, talk page, or contributions.) You can restore your default signature by going to your preferences, "user profile" tab, and blanking out the "existing signature" field and unticking the "treat the above as wiki markup" box. Cheers.   Rebb  ing   04:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Most cherished Rebbing, I owe you a reply! I'm deeply sorry for taking so long. I haven't really been myself lately, so you're not the only "online" person I haven't replied to. You deserve the very best version of me when I write to you, and I'm hoping to reply this week. I need to recover my sense of humor because you are just too funny! I loved your message! You made my day when the sky was gray, so please don't go away this month of May, for I have much to say! Dontreader (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't feel bad! I wasn't expecting a reply, just a chance to vent to a sympathetic listener. Even though electronic communication is instantaneous, I often approach it more like writing letters and less like a conversation where everything gets a response. (But I will gladly read yours if you write one: I always enjoy hearing from you.) I'm actually really behind in my own letter-writing. I have a long email from a good friend in my inbox from September to which I haven't yet replied. September! Also, I love the clever rhyme. Your friend,  Rebb  ing   17:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rebbing, I unchecked the "Treat the above wiki" but how do I blank out the existing signature? It is permanent and cannot be changed.  Thanks for the help.  Dontreader, again, I was not trying to make you mad.  I will try the tildes but not sure how it will work because for the verbiage of what is written in the text next to the check box.  I know, nubes right! :) Hmmreally 17:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)


 * Well, I will try erasing the signature which I can remove and try it again. OOPS, did not see the save at the bottom. will try signing here again.  Hmmreally (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, after erasing the signature, unchecking the box, and saving, it now shows a link on my signature above. I am signing here and in the edit summary, is that the correct thing to do?  Hmmreally (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Woooo Hoooo, seems to have worked!!!! Thanks guys! BTW, wonder why it is not defaulted to do this correctly.  I never went to the preference page before to check that box. 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)


 * Hmmreally, that's awesome! It worked! I'm very sorry for thinking you were wasting my time deliberately. Just sign on discussion/talk pages, not in edit summaries. Congratulations, and many thanks to the amazing Rebbing! She's such an amazing lady! Just one thing: you went back to doing it wrong on your latest comment. Dontreader (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, favored Dontreader! I'm delighted when I have a chance to be helpful like this.  Rebb  ing   17:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * How very odd. My memory is that the signature is unset by default, and, in my observation, brand-new users' signatures are properly-formatted with links. My guess is that you changed it, perhaps accidentally, but forgot about it. Either way, I'm glad to see you're up and running. Your last comment you signed with five tildes, which expands to the timestamp, not your signature.  Rebb  ing   17:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow! When has Wikipedia ever seen someone with such exceptional technical skills combined with equally astounding and brilliant writing talent? I shall build a temple dedicated to Rebbing at once, and only my choicest rams, lambs, goats and oxen shall be offered there! Once the temple has been finished and officially inaugurated, there will be seven days and seven nights of festivities in my village! Dontreader (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm getting geeked out you two! :) Hmmreally (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just you wait till you're an old, salty wikipedian like us!  Rebb  ing   19:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I assure you, such flattery is undeserved. I am but a humble fairy with a keen eye for detail. Yet who am I to refuse a temple, to abstain from a choice feast, to decline a week of revelry?  Rebb  ing   19:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmreally, that's because I forgot to tell you that I'm a High Priest in my village. One day I decided to leave my home and seven wives (temporarily) to gather an army and conquer many lands for the glory of our nation. Thanks to my leadership 11 countries were annexed to our mighty nation as provinces (although we had a nasty setback when the Scarlettians tried to take back their country after some of our civilian citizens had already settled there - we won it back but that land was reduced to a haunt of jackals and vultures). We were heavily outnumbered in all of those battles, and the aforementioned Scarlettians were seven feet tall on average, and the weakest of them weighed 300 pounds. Our secret? The gods were always with us. My guidance as High Priest was crucial. We offered the right animals at the right time and in the correct quantity to the lesser and greater gods. And we were righteous. Oh, I'm delighted that my beloved Rebbing has accepted my temple proposal! I shall worship you soon with great fervor! Dontreader (talk)

Request for review to Newmarket:Suffolk, I had a section taken down
Could you go to Newmarket:Suffolk, I had a section taken downI placed a section on an F-111 that crashed in the 1980's, I would think that is a significant event. The editor that took it down disagreed obviously.Hmmreally (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, Hmmreally, notice that your link didn't work. What you have to put inside the double brackets is simply the name of the page. In this case, Newmarket, Suffolk. Now, whether or not that information is notable is subjective, but I agree with those who commented on the talk page. I think what you wrote has too many details that wouldn't interest most readers who go to that article. That crash and those details might be more suitable for the article about that plane. Also, if the plane merely crashed in a field and no one was killed, fortunately, I think the story is not notable enough. There were no real repercussions. As I said, the article about the plane might be better for including that information, if it isn't already in it. Just my humble opinion. Dontreader (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masha (singer) (2nd nomination). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dontreader. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , I do apologize, as you requested, for behaving in such an uncivil manner in that AfD discussion. I think I should apologize on that page as well. I'm typically very civil and kind, both on Wikipedia and in real life, but somehow my behavior tends to become disgraceful in AfD discussions. It's a shame because you can see on my userpage that I pledged to return to Old-Fashioned Wikipedian Values. My first huge mistake was to use that AfD discussion to try to damage the reputation of SwisterTwister. In my opinion I have legitimate reasons for being very upset with that contributor, and you can understand the problem better here. Things just got worse when Davey erased that thread because then I lost respect for him, too. It's a talk page, so the deletion of my comments seemed rather hostile to me. I think that some people here send love to each other, you know, cookies, cups of tea, and even cute kittens, and then they become too loyal to each other, like best friends forever, which I suspect affects AfD discussions, making it very difficult to reach consensus. The prime example for that theory is that SwisterTwister refused to change his vote, as if to show loyalty to the nominator, during the AfD discussion for that redneck podcast despite an avalanche of solid coverage that was eventually provided. I would never do that, not even for my beloved Rebbing (for whom I built a splendid shrine next to my fireplace), because the project (and specifically the survival of articles and files) is more important, slightly.


 * Then last night at around 3 am (it's not the first time that I've gotten to bed very late defending that article), I now realize that I really lost my mind. I turned the whole thing into a war. I felt as if everyone was against me, sort of like Rambo in the first movie. But to be fair, when I said "girly behavior", I meant literally a girl, a female child, so it wasn't a sexist remark at all. As a matter of fact, I was going to say "Stop acting like children", although that wouldn't have been nice either. Then, to make matters even worse, I laughed diabolically for at least half an hour intermittently after I called SwisterTwister "Twisted Sister". At the time I thought it was so brilliant, much better than any name Donald Trump has come up with, but now I feel terribly ashamed of myself. As I said, my behavior was utterly disgraceful. But I do think SwisterTwister is highly problematic for AfD discussions. Look at what I found last night, here. Notice that my behavior was civil even though he and the nominator were careless enough to try to get rid of an incredibly notable international company. If I hadn't jumped in, they probably would have gotten their wish. Will SwisterTwister change his vote? Not in a thousand years. I think it's a problem that should be addressed by an administrator, in my opinion, such as yourself.


 * Anyway, I will apologize (more briefly!) on that page, too. I'm really sorry. There's no excuse for that sort of conduct. I promise it will never happen again. Have a great day, Dontreader (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dontreader, thank you for your note. AfDs are usually not good places to discuss personal issues one may have with an editor, not just because they can devolve into personal attacks, but also because it doesn't reflect well on an editor in a place where, after all, one needs to convince others. My friend and colleague has this on his user page: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience". DGG has been in more AfD discussions than you and I together, and he makes a good point. Even if you can't convince SwisterTwister (that's a tough name to type), you may convince their audience. Right now it looks like the discussion may well be going your way since another editor jumped in (, I think--hope I'm spelling that correctly), and that's the way these ought to be won. As for that other AfD discussion, well, that's how things go sometimes. If you manage to save that, good for you, and the discussion there is civil. I just think it rarely helps to involve others' behavior or even their past. I think SwisterTwister has been brought to ANI before about their AfDs, and I don't think there was any consensus to criticize their behavior. All the best, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 wishes to Who has summoned me by spelling my name correctly! ...
 * I don't really have anything to add to this thread, though. AfD can be one of the more frustrating places around Wikipedia. We've all probably felt like we were losing our minds at one point or another, realizing a clear-cut outcome was not being treated as so clear-cut by others, that people refuse to change their !votes, etc. SwisterTwister edits like AI. Very prolific, fast, and gets a lot done, but without a lot of care put into each task (for the task or other editors involved). Ultimately, it's really hard for someone to be topic banned from AfD, though, and it's hard to say "you have to respond to people and change your !vote if you're wrong". There are people who are much more consistently wrong than ST at AfD, and who have been at it for many more years. Regardless, there's no absolute requirement that you have to respond to questions, etc. -- it's just a good idea on a collaborative project. The mass editing approach is what has led him to ANI a few times (though the two times I can remember were over NPP, and only incidentally AfD). Anyway, good on you for your most recent post to the AfD. That's a big deal. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You apologize like nobody else, Dontreader. I can't remember the last time I read such a thorough or graceful mea culpa. However, I think you're mistaken about SwisterTwister's motives. Rebb  ing  22:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC) (I edited this to remove speculation that I had no business making.  Rebb  ing  03:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Rebbing, Rhododendrites, I know the most recent one was over NPP, but in ANI archive 924 there was an AfD thread as well, which Rebbing contributed to. Rebbing, I suppose I see SwisterTwister's contributions in a slightly better light than you do, and at any rate this is not really the right place for this converastion--but please don't speculate about psychology or mental condition. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sorry. I was hoping to provide a helpful and charitable explanation, but I see I have missed the mark. Should I redact my comment or simply go and sin no more? Rebb  ing  23:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * MayI just suggest that the best defense against erratic reviewing or deletion nomination sis to make unimpeachable articles on clearly notable subjects, with excellent references. I'd like to say that will always work, but reviews here are human, just like contributors; even so, it will work 95% of the time.  DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I said at the AfD, please don't involved with discussing the merits or deficiencies of individual performing artists on wikipedia, or your interest as a fan. This just isn't the place. Some of your postings have been rather embarrassingly over-personal, including a recent exchange of compliments with another ed.  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, . I was playing a game that I thought was harmless with Rebbing, but that sort of thing won't happen again. What I find troubling is that two editors now, including her, have invoked IAR to justify keeping the article, even though they admit it fails to pass GNG. I had already explained to Rebbing on the AfD why that argument was flawed, yet it was used again, as if to block consensus. I can be accused fairly of being biased in Ivana's case, but my nomination rationale is based on policy. That's all that matters per WP:ADHOM. The fact that I said outrageous things about the subject is no excuse to invoke IAR. The voting rationale must be based on the merits of the subject, not on my behavior. To say that the subject is not notable but to vote Keep seems like a terrible precedent to me. Do you have any advice, please? This situation looks corrupt to me. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We make the rules ourselves at WP; there is no higher authority that hands them down to us. Just as we make the rules, we make the exceptions. The notability provisions are guidelines, and guidelines by their very nature permit exceptions--and the heading on each page of guidelines says exactly that. In order to keep or delete an article, all that is necessary is a reasoned consensus at the individual discussion. Please seeWP:IAR for an explanation.
 * As a result, there are no hard-and-fast boundaries between what we keep and what we delete. The extremes are obvious enough, but it is not clear where to draw the line in the middle. Almost all of the terms in WP:GNG are a little fuzzy, and if the matter is borderline, we each interpret the guidelines to give the result that we want. The consensus of the reasonable policy-based interpretations is what makes the decision. But we also have the ability to say keep or delete this anyway, because....   If enough people agree, and their reasons are rational, that's the decision for that article, even if it is inconsistent with the decision on other articles. The only real alternative to doing things this way is to have a hierarchy of people empowered to make the decisions, as is the case in any formal organization. But WP is an experiment in not having a hierarchy, and doing things by agreement of the ordinary people here who have an opinion. This has its limitations, and there are some rules so important that we never make exceptions, like copyright, but it's the way this place was set up originally, and the way it continues. It's not corruption, but rather a limited consensual anarchy.
 * This necessarily means there will be decisions individuals disagree with. Myself, I disagree with the conclusions of about 5% of the decisions at AfD, and probably so does everyone else--but of course a different 5%. Everyone who has been here for a long time has therefore found it necessary to not get over-involved with what happens with any one article. Make the case, and move on. It is possible to have another AfD after a reasonable time, and sometimes the decisions are different. Once in a while when I think the result is really perverse, I do that, but usually I just move on to another problematic article. I would encourage you to do that here. There's a real danger in getting over-engaged with one particular thing. Keep perspective--it's just an encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for your wise words. If you take a look at Mr Eazi you will see in the AfD that (although I reacted badly to another contributor, and later I apologized on his page), I stated that common sense should be used. That's because the situation with online coverage in Ghana is different. Not only are there fewer websites, but also because useful links, especially in online versions of Ghanaian newspapers, tend to rot quickly, plus Ghana doesn't have an official music chart. Mr Eazi has received massive airplay on the radio all over Ghana, and he has done extremely well on the informal charts. He's been making songs with the biggest names in the national music industry, yet according to the rules he might not pass GNG, which is why I said that an exception should be made. So I understand what you mean. And of course with copyright violations we have to be strict, without exceptions, which is why I like Commons, where I have nominated probably over 200 images for deletion. I prefer Commons in that sense. The votes don't really matter. Consensus doesn't matter. What matters is copyright law, so I'm glad with whatever decision the closing admin makes. It's like a good dictatorship. I have learned over the past week or so not to get upset at AfDs here on Wikipedia (by the way, I apologize for not replying to an earlier message of yours above - I ran into several problems here and I forgot about some messages on my talk page). But to me this situation with the IAR argument is unheard of in AfDs, and most likely unsustainable. I was somewhat familiar with that essay but I just finished studying it carefully again. I have the right to challenge the usage of IAR, and I will do that, but then I will walk away from the discussion, as you recommended. I would have been okay with the invocation of anything else, but this IAR trick seems very bad for the encyclopedia, like a dirty technicality in this situation, and I can't just let it go that easily. But certainly I will change my style in future AfDs to what you suggested. I tend to spend too much time on AfDs, which sometimes works because I'm good at finding sources, but I think it's usually counterproductive, especially if you say so. Many thanks again for taking the time to share your experiences and insights. Dontreader (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Written before DGG's response: I'm not sure what you mean by my IAR argument "blocking" consensus. It's plausible that the consensus will be that you never should have nominated for deletion the biography of a woman to whom you previously gave volunteer assistance and professional advice and for whom you have since "totally lost respect." I chose not to respond to your reply in the AFD because I didn't believe it merited a rebuttal: I acknowledged that the guidelines end with notability, and I explained why this case was an exception. Cf. WP:GUIDES (noting that "occasional exceptions may apply" to guidelines). (ADHOM, by the way, is an essay, not an established guideline.) Your protest about fairness was implicitly answered by my highlighting of your conduct and should be obvious: the impression that an editor had an article deleted in retaliation for a personal grievance would be a much more significant concern for the perception of fairness than the technicality of a non-notable article being allowed to remain in the encyclopedia. Your invocation of AGF and NPA was inapposite because, despite the contrary evidence, I explicitly affirmed good faith ("I am personally certain that this nomination was brought in good faith"), and I absolutely did not attack you: I simply pointed out what could be reasonably gleaned from your own remarks in that discussion (which you tried unsuccessfully to remove). If anything, I generously soft-pedaled the explanation for my vote. Rebb  ing  06:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't assume bad faith? What you did was a poor job disguising your assumption of bad faith. On the one hand, you said, "I am personally certain that this nomination was brought in good faith", but you also wrote, "In light of your familiarity and personal frustration with Ms. van der Veen, one may wonder if a concern for notability was your only motive for bringing this nomination." Thanks for assuming good faith. Also, you wrote, "... the nominator's acrimonious relationship with the subject, documented in part in this discussion, creates the appearance that this nomination was spurred by personal frustrations or other pernicious motivations." That is nothing more than your personal opinion, not a fact. By the way, I clearly stated that I wanted part of the thread removed because it was a distraction. Perhaps you like to distort the truth. Your insinuations are an attack on my character. I never told Ivana that I was going to nominate her article for deletion, let alone why. Apparently you've been in touch with her, so I challenge you to prove your foul assumptions. I said that a recent SimilarWeb analysis was a key reason for the nomination. If you refuse to believe me, that's your problem. Dontreader (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , even if you succeed at blocking consensus, go and tell Ivana that the days of her article on Wikipedia are numbered. It will be nominated again, I guarantee you, sooner than later. It's something I did not intend to do regardless of the outcome, but I despise your dishonest conduct and tactics, so you can take my future actions regarding the article as something personal against you. Good luck with using IAR next time. Have a good night. Dontreader (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My dishonest conduct and tactics? You have something personal against me? I am not the one who wrote an article for a woman because I was "very fond" of her, then lost all respect for her after she spurned my counsel, and subsequently took that article to AFD without disclosing my conflict. My conduct and motivations were plainly stated, yet I am the snake? No. Also, you still managed to miss the substance of my argument: it doesn't matter whether or not you actually acted in bad faith; it could appear to a reasonable observer that you acted maliciously. Do as you will, but I hope you will avoid editing the article going forward, see COI ("You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes."), or acting to make a point about me ("[Y]ou can take my future actions regarding the article as something personal against you."). Rebb  ing  14:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed this comment when I replied. When I wrote those comments, I believed that you acted in good faith but that a reasonable editor could judge otherwise. Consensus discussions often involve subjective judgment calls, not just facts. Whether coverage counts as significant is a subjective judgment as is deciding that your behavior gave the appearance of retaliation. Your motivation for removing the thread doesn't matter: the thread was embarrassing to you, revealed your undisclosed conflict of interest, and called into question your reasons for bringing the nonination. I have not been in touch with Ms. van der Veen, and I never claimed that you told her you nominated or would nominate "her" article for deletion. Rebb  ing  14:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , you need a moral compass. I proved to you that my problem with Ivana occurred in February, which is when she received that award from a criminal company. Your precious Ivana can confirm that to you. At some point in March I quit supporting her entirely, yet I did not nominate the article for deletion in March. Since you are not stupid, I see that you are morally challenged. Unless you can prove that my nomination was an act of revenge, then shut up and vote for Hillary in November. Fans can create or edit articles about people they are fans of. That's not a COI. Likewise, former fans can nominate for deletion articles that lack notability. That's not having a COI. The article would have been deleted if Ivana's messenger had not shown up with such imbecilic behavior, claiming that poor Ivana was a victim in distress, and making other idiotic statements. The behavior of Ivana's other fan in the previous AfD was very different, not moronic at all, but this Elek58 attacked my nomination rationale for no reason, and then he kept up the pathetic attitude. Now HE does have a COI. I will not edit Ivana's article. Do whatever you please with it. You will fail to make it notable, I assure you. She's nothing more than an amateur singer. The guy who crossed out his delete vote due to the circumstances showed moral integrity because he didn't change his vote to Keep, whereas you voted to keep the article while stating that Ivana didn't pass GNG or BAND. You are the one with a COI, and morally bankrupt. You could have refused to vote Delete without voting Keep, as Rhododendrites did. That evil scheme will not work for you again. Now please go back to chatting with your precious Ivana, or go back to campaigning for Hillary, or both. I'm sick of you and of your slithery ways. I will not reply any further. Dontreader (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , I'm going to hold you to what you just said. Do not engage any further in this discussion, or have anything to do with the article or afd in question, or the other user. I shall tell the other editor to stop now also, to help you avoid any of these further improper discussions. What I previously posted was intended as a warning, though I tried to not be bureaucratic about it. This is a formal warning. Continue any of these topics and I shall block you to prevent further disruption. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Dontreader. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article van der Veen article, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)