User talk:DrStrauss/Archive 1

NPOV banner
Hi. I've noticed you added a NPOV banner to Sword Verse without leaving an explanation on the article talk page. This banner normally indicates that a NPOV dispute is in progress. You should explain your concerns on the article talk page. Otherwise, other editors will look there, see no active dispute, and remove the banner. Eperoton (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

- banner added. DrStrauss (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Huggle
Hi, Sorry for incompetence but how can I get Huggle: it's not in my gadgets section whereas Twinkle is? Thanks in advance, Dr Strauss  talk  18:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you went to WP:HUGGLE to download the software first? If not you need to start there (the page also explains how to set it up and use it too). RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I did but downloading it crashes by browser every time (I use Chrome by the way).  Dr Strauss   talk  18:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, that's something beyond my scope of knowledge. Your best bet is to head over to Huggle/Feedback and ask there about the browser crash. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, okie dokie, will do: thanks for your help though!  Dr Strauss   talk  19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Experimental rock
You reverted to the wrong version. Mlpearc Phone ( open channel ) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, really sorry: I'm still getting used to Twinkle! My apologies!   Dr Strauss   talk  22:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem :)   Mlpearc Phone  ( open channel ) 22:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle feedback
Hi, Where can I provide feedback for the Twinkle tool? I think a useful feature would be for Twinkle to direct the user to a vandal's talk page after reverting a vandalism edit to make warning or welcoming easier and faster. Thank you for your time, Dr Strauss  talk  10:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you go to Twinkle/Preferences and find the section heading "Revert and rollback" you will find that you can set options in Twinkle to automatically open the user's talk page when you revert edits. Wikipedia talk:Twinkle will tell you how you can suggest changes to Twinkle. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, great: thanks for your help!  Dr Strauss   talk  11:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC}

Category templates
I've been going through the articles requiring cleanup categories and edited a couple of them to update the templates. If an article has a "general cleanup needed" message but that appears out of date, whereas it has too many redlinks, should I leave the general cleanup template or replace it with a redlinks one? I've been doing the latter. Thanks in advance! - Dr Strauss   talk  12:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Replacing it with the more specific template is probably the better of the two options - then users wanting to work on specific maintenance categories can do so easier. Ultimately though, if it's only an issue of redlinks, the best solution would be to spend the time you'd otherwise use changing the tag to just fix the issue. Sam Walton (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice! Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  22:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)  Dr Strauss   talk  22:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Chanel Yates
Hi, do you want to just withdraw the submission to continue to develop the draft, or to delete the page altogether? If the first just revert to the version you require (removing the submission request and the CSD nominations). If the second then blank the page and then request CSD by placing at the top of the page. An Admin. will then delete it. Eagleash (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the message - I've done the latter. Regards -  Dr Strauss   talk  17:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I noticed. Season's greetings. :) Eagleash (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas to you too! :)  Do you know how long CSD takes for these kinds of cases?  Thanks -  Dr Strauss   talk  17:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Usually only a few hours...Admin may be on the sherry or playing with their new toys today though! Eagleash (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As will I!! Merry Christmas!  -  Dr Strauss   talk  22:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Warnings
I got a notification from you, stating "NB: superfluous warning removed as RileyBugz and I simultaneously warned. DrStrauss talk 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)", all i catch from this is that you remove my privileges already. I only edited something once, to show someone that they could be edited. Kat Werner (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. I placed a warning on your talk page as I had reverted an edit of yours which I thought was disruptive.  I am a recent changes patroller, not an admin and therefore can't remove privileges.  The message I left was to note that I had removed my warning as another user, User:RileyBugz had beaten me to it.  If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask!  Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  22:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You could show them in your sandbox. It should be at the top of the page, mid-right. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 22:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * am I right in assuming that User:Kat Werner has made "test edits", in which case, good faith should be assumed? Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, he did it to the page two times, once after being reverted. It was blanking of a section, so I didn't know. I guess after the fact we now know it was a test edit, but I didn't know beforehand. Thanks though, next time I see such a thing I will give a lesser warning (for blanking of sections, at least). Maybe this user could get a clean start? Thanks! (also, those were the users first edits) RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 23:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Depending on how blatant or offensive edits are I tend to step it up 1, 2, 3 etc but if it's BLP then I usually go 2, 4im. On the clean start point, I agree, it's a fairly new account so there's no real loss to the user,  - would you be willing to undertake this?  Many thanks -  Dr Strauss   talk  23:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Uh... yea?? Also i have no idea how to respond to this so forgive me for hitting edit. Kat Werner (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Basically, read this, and then create a new account. You may have to say that this is your former account, and that you are having a clean start or something. Hopefully you can contribute there, but don't test edit on the mainspace, do it in your sandbox (located top of the page). Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 23:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * you beat me to it again!! I trust this issue is now settled?  Thanks -  Dr Strauss   talk  23:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, I'm to the point where I'm copying the number of indents and then adding one. I will continue to watch this, but one of us may need to read up on what to do when we can't indent anymore. Thanks! (also, I'm not doing the research, lol) RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 23:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * definitely over now: the user has been blocked anyway! Thanks for your help with this : )  -  Dr Strauss   talk  22:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)  Dr Strauss   talk  22:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Khandelwal
Hello there, I noticed you nominated this article for deletion. While nominating an article, please check the revision history. Sometimes reverting to previous version may solve the problem. Regards Hitro   talk  17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for the advice, I usually do when checking for vandalism but I'd never thought of using it in these kinds of instances so I shall implement it! Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  17:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Jorge M. Perez
Good day! Happy Holidays!

I am trying to update the profile of our CEO but it keeps on being reverted. We've added all the sources we have for his content. Can you assist on getting the profile posted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.158.253.162 (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you obviously have a conflict of interest, I would suggest calling in a few people for second opinions. Make sure your edits aren't promotional in nature, and if they aren't, then ask why your edits are being reverted. Hopefully this helps. RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 17:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur, in fact: I would suggest that you refrain from making edits and instead suggest edits to be reviewed as per WP:COIREQ which gives your edits validity and minimises any COI complaints.  Best  Dr Strauss   talk  17:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Chanel Yates performing in 2016.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chanel Yates performing in 2016.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but the reupload isn't going to cut it I'm afraid. Please follow the instructions above and submit proof to OTRS. Preferably a link to the Instagram that you mentioned or the original photo with metadata intact. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * that's okay - I can use a completely different image with correct metadata. Please can you delete both of the previous images in accordance with CSD user requests deletion?  Thanks  Dr Strauss   talk  22:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've marked the other one for deletion as well. Please note that we need to be sure that the image is licensed correctly. It is just the nature of copyright and we have to be safe. I'm sorry for the hassle. The best way to do so would be to actually link to the image where it is posted and add the line "This image is released under " somewhere visible on the link. That way a patroller can just click on the link and verify that everything is correct. If you have any questions about this please don't hesitate to let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * no, my bad, I completely understand and it's good that Wikipedia safeguards itself like this. I do have a question regarding the methodology of metadata: does cropping by screenshot lose the original metadata?  That could have had something to do with it.  Thanks for all your help on this.  -  Dr Strauss   talk  22:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you upload it to a social media site and then take it from there the metadata will be stripped. Every social media site nowadays does this. If you are taking an original image, from a camera, and just cropping it, and uploading it the metadata should be preserved. If you are taking it from a website the best possible way to make sure it won't be tagged for further proof of copyright licensing is to leave a note on the page like mentioned above and actually link to the image. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi there,

I've granted you the rollback right per your request at WP:RFP/R. Please remember that rollback is only to be used in cases of blatant vandalism or abuse, and persistent misuse of the tool may result in it being revoked. Feel free to contact me with any questions, and thanks for volunteering to help out. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi thank you!  One question: I've just downloaded Huggle from the GitHub link but Norton is quarantining it and claims the file is unsafe - is the link on WP:HG secure?  It's probably the firewall being sensitive but I'd just like to check before overriding it.  Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  18:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * EDIT - fixed now, Norton required update. Thanks -  Dr Strauss   talk  18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Category
Hey, you put a category on this article, but it is wrong!! Novorossia TV is Russian-Speking TV, and... DONETSK IS NOT RUSSIA, so I have an idea, make a new category names Category:Russian Speaking Television or Russian-Speaking TV channels --Beta Lohman (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC
 * Hi my apologies - categorisation can be difficult when dealing with more obscure content.  I've now updated the category to Television in Ukraine.  It's good to see such enthusiasm but to avoid appearing aggressive I would advise you to adhere to WP:CAPSLOCK and refrain from saying things repeated times as it can appear rude. Regards - Dr Strauss   talk
 * Thank you for removing the repeated chant but do remember that the page history is retained so it is still visible. - Dr Strauss  talk  22:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, DR. It is wrong when you put it on Ukrainian TV because it's complicated. Please cancel it until we have a basic discussion. --Beta Lohman (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * if you go to the gadgets tab in Special:Preferences you can enable HotCat which makes categorisation easier. - Dr Strauss   talk  08:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I made categories on my own. I do it for the my sake. Cheers.--Beta Lohman (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, question here. Why are there two categories: Category:Television in Ukraine and Category:Television stations in Ukraine? They should be merge into one, why is like that? --Beta Lohman (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm not an expert in Ukranian television - I was just tagging pages as part of WP:WikiProject Categories.  It would probably be best taking this up with someone involved in WP:WikiProject Ukraine.   Dr Strauss   talk  23:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Roman province of Africa
The name of the province is "Africa". The category is not a fuzzy geographical locator, it is a precise name. Please revert the change. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * you can change categories using WP:HOTCAT. Dr Strauss   talk  10:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Categorisation Barnstar

 * thank you very much - it's a pleasure to help! I'm trying to get the uncategorised page count down to 0 at the moment!  Best - Dr Strauss   talk  14:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Task force template glitch
Hi, I'm sorting pages into categories at the moment and I've got it down into the double digits. However, a page keeps appearing in the categorisation project WP:UNCAT - Template:Task force. The "see also" section has the uncategorised cleanup template in it, but as soon as I remove it and add categories, it keeps restoring itself. When I check the page's edit history I am the most recent editor so it hasn't been undone by anyone else. Can anyone shed some light on this perplexing issue? Thanks - Dr Strauss  talk  14:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you purging the page cache, using Ctrl+F5? If not, try this and report back. I have just checked the page myself and the uncategorised tag doesn't show up. Your edit is showing correctly in history, so I wouldn't worry about it. Nördic   Nightfury  15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * yep it seems to have gone now. Thanks for your help - Dr Strauss  talk  16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Roman provinces of Africa
What are you doing? Why did you rename this? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * there were multiple Roman provinces in Africa. A category is a group in which several similar things are put.  I added an "s" to the end because several implies plural hence categories and not category.  See WP:MoS.   Dr Strauss   talk  14:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you should have created a new category, not renamed the existing category. Please revert and start again. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * there's no point - either method would end up with the same results. Renaming is just more efficient.   Dr Strauss   talk  15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Kindly tell me what were the names of those Roman provinces in Africa that were not members of Category:Provinces of Roman North Africa. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * it's not a question of category content it's a question of using correct English.  Dr Strauss   talk  16:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Has it still not dawned on you that you have created a redundant category? For the avoidance of doubt, let me answer my own question: There are no Roman provinces in Africa that were not also North Africa (i.e. Category:Roman provinces in Africa is redundant). Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * apologies for that oversight - I just categorise uncategorised pages to make Wikipedia easier for people to use so remember that when creating articles adding categories is helpful! On a separate point, please adhere Wikipedia's policy on civility on my talk page and cease being sarcastic.  Dr Strauss   talk  17:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 in Canada
May I ask why you reverted the IP user 68.194.91.23's edits at 2017 in Canada? They looked productive and made the "Incumbents" section of the article consistent with the other year in Canada articles. Take 2016 in Canada for an example. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi : there were four successive edits made by the IP address - some of these edits were blanking and some were content addition. I was in the process of reverting one of the user's blanking edits as they appeared unconstructive but by the time I reverted it the content had changed.  Feel free to reinstate the edits but to be fair they were unsourced.  Kind regards - Dr Strauss   talk  20:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC) EDIT - the user has been blocked for blanking as many of their contributions were clearly unconstructive.


 * Hi! I see what you are saying. I think I will re-add some of the content that the IP put in because that would make the format of the article the same as previous years. However, I will add sources. By the way, you have been really productive! You've barely been a Wikipedian for a month and you already have over 2000 edits! Keep up the amazing work! Regards, Jith12 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi that'd be great thanks.  And thank you - I'm really enjoying it, cheers for the vote of confidence!  Best wishes - Dr Strauss   talk  22:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi DrStrauss! I re-added the section with citations for all positions and fact checked all of the positions to make sure that they were correct. What do you think of it? Jith12 (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi it looks great - well done!  Kind regards  Dr Strauss   talk  15:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT - really good actually - given you a barnstar at your talk page.  Dr Strauss   talk  19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop Normalizing Chrome Extension AfD
Giving you a heads up since you proded Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension. If you feel like commenting you can here: Articles for deletion/Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi thank you for the notification: I've stated my support (and reasons) for the deletion of the article at the AfD page linked.  Thanks  Dr Strauss   talk  19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Just as an FYI on formatting, it is customary in AfD discussions to comment like this:
 * Delete/Keep/Whatever reasoning here
 * Thanks for participating in the conversation. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Bulk file upload
Hi, I've got 58 files that I want to upload and I was wondering if I could do this in one batch as opposed to one-by-one which is labour intensive to say the least. They are pictures of elephant sculptures which I intend to use in a gallery in the page Herd of Sheffield. Any ideas? Thank you - Dr Strauss  talk  10:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC) EDIT - looking on Wikimedia Commons Dr Strauss   talk  10:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary of recent tagging reminders
left me individual messages reminding me to tag my 58 uploads of pictures of the Herd of Sheffield elephants. As they were all the same except for the name of the page in question, I have replaced them with this summary for the sake of brevity. The uploads can be seen at Special:ListFiles/DrStrauss. I replaced the "untagged" template with the "non-free 3D art" tag on each individual page. Thank you. Dr Strauss  talk  13:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Herd of Sheffield sculpture images
Hello. I appreciate all the hard work you've done to upload the 58 elephant images to this article. Unfortunately, it all has to go. Wikipedia's mission is to develop educational content under a free license (see mission statement). Non-free content used on this project inhibits that mission. The Foundation, the people who operate Wikipedia, have recognized that some non-free content is critical to the project's success, and as a result has developed a policy regarding the use of non-free image. Descendant from this policy is our local non-free content criteria policy. We must abide by these policies.

Within the local policy, there is a requirement that we do not use non-free content when a free alternative could be created. This is requirement #1. These elephants still exist, and it is quite possible for someone to take an image and license the image under a free license at some point in the future. In fact, this has already been done. More on that in a moment.

I came across this article while reviewing this list, which shows articles on Wikipedia that have a high level of non-free content usage. With the addition of all the elephant images, this article was instantly moved to the top of this list, in fact exceeding the prior top using article by 65%. This level of usage is way out of line with our policy and mission. This is covered by #8 in the policy, and is also strongly discouraged by a guideline at WP:NFLISTS.

I'll be removing all of these elephant images from the article as replaceable non-free images and per WP:NFLISTS. I'll be adding a free license image to the article after I've done this. I rapidly found such an image. As part of this work, all the elephant images will be "orphaned", meaning they are not used in any articles. This is another (#7) element in our policy. This will make them subject to deletion. There's a notification template which describes this in more detail. I've included an example below for your reference. If you have questions about this, please let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I note from the non-free use rationales that your are claiming these are not replaceable because there are no uniform alternatives. We do not permit non-free images because we can not find free licensed, similar lighting/angle images of a set of art works. You also indicated there is no further commercial potential. That isn't for us to judge; the copyright holder of the images might decide to sell the images at some point in the future. We can't speculate about that. Lastly, the assertion that it was non-profit anyway has no effect; non-profit agencies do sell things commercially, often in support of their programs. Again, we can't speculate what they might do with the images. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elmer-the-Patchwork-Elephant-Patients-at-Sheffield-Childrens-Hospital-2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Elmer-the-Patchwork-Elephant-Patients-at-Sheffield-Childrens-Hospital-2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * the image is used on Herd of Sheffield. Kind regards,  Dr Strauss   talk  14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know it is. It is about to not be used on that article. Please see the section above. I used the notification above as an example, rather than hit you with 58 notifications. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for your consideration with that but why is it about to be un-used? Dr Strauss   talk  15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the section above. I am about to remove all...all...of the elephant images you uploaded from that article. The above section explains why. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, sorry for not realising - I was only looking at the section BENEATH this header!! Apologies for that.  Thanks for the recognition of the effort (uploading 58 one by one was quite strenuous) but I fully understand that if removal is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies then it must be done.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  16:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Ok, this has been done now; all the images have been orphaned, and a replacement non-free image has been put in their place. Of note; the photographer who too this image (which I put on the article) has taken photographs of many (all?) of the elephants, and licensed them under a license compatible with Commons (i.e. a free license). Freedom of panorama exists in the UK for 3D works of art in public places. So, these are good to go. Check out this search, but if you use those images be absolutely certain they are from Graham Hogg and that you follow his licensing requirements. See my uploaded example (the image on the article now) for how I did this. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the research! I'll look into implementing these into the article!  Regards  Dr Strauss   talk  18:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT - can these files be nominated for CSD?  Dr Strauss   talk  18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. You could try WP:CSD or WP:CSD, but in both cases some administrators might deny them because those criteria do not strictly apply to images. They're all tagged for deletion as is, and will be deleted in a week's time. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

JavaScript user subpage deletion
Hi, I was trying to amalgamate Page Curation and Twinkle but I didn't really like the combination the script provided. I tried tagging the script page for speedy deletion but it has gone in as a code line. Please can User:DrStrauss/common.js be speedily deleted? Thank you! Dr Strauss  talk  10:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why yes, it most certainly can. Yunshui 雲 水 10:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * why thank you, kind sir!  Dr Strauss   talk  10:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Companions of the Order of Australia
I apologise if my edit / edit summary was terse. If you would like me to eloborate, please don't hesitate to ask. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I've never been involved in that article as far as I can remember - maybe you've got the wrong user?   Dr Strauss   talk  11:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sorry for being obtuse. (The direct link is Frank Flynn). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)
 * ah, I see. Well, apology accepted for the abruptness but I would contest that merely receiving an award makes somebody notable.  The article in question doesn't state the reason for which he received the award, nor does it detail anything about his career.  Maybe you could expand it to improve it in those areas?  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  11:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But a) it's a stub and b) somewhere it mentions that everyone who was awarded an AC is notable.
 * I've created many such stubs - you're the first to complain. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * in response to your points:
 * a)Whether or not an article is a stub is irrelevant to the notability of its subject.
 * b)I'm not saying you're wrong on the "everyone who receives the AC is notable" statement but could you please provide a source for that?
 * c)Maybe I am the first to complain but that does not invalidate my complaint. Adding content to Wikipedia is great but if you can, expanding something so it is beyond a stub is better than creating a stub.   Dr Strauss   talk  11:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm off to bed. If it weren't a stub for an AC, I'd be agreeing with you. (And also similar comments in relation to what you've said). But the FACTS are (not opinion, facts) a) it is a stub and b) he is an AC. I don't want to be or sound rude, but just because you don't appear to have any idea what an AC is does not make it incumbent upon me to do your homework for you. I'm sure Mr Google can supply your answer for you if you go looking. If you haven't found it by the time I get back, I'll look for it then, and then hopefully you'll be happy, and you (we) will no longer have a problem. Until then. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware what the AC is and I'd prefer it if you weren't rude and condescending to a fellow Wikipedian. The fact of the matter is that the article is a stub and I don't think it passes WP:GNG at its current quality which is why I will be replacing the tags on the article.   Dr Strauss   talk  11:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're taking that attitude. I had no idea if you knew anything about AC - I deduced from your words that you didn't. I'm very disappointed you feel I've been either condescending or rude - I have gone to some effort to be neither, and am puzzled as to why you think I've been both. I'm further disappointed by your further comments. The man is a hero. I'm puzzled and disappointed why you think he's not notable. But as I said, I'm off to bed. Good night. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the man is a hero, please expand the article to convey that and make it as detailed as possible.  Dr Strauss   talk  12:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your request is not unreasonable, but for the third time, I want to go to bed.
 * Nevertheless, I did make a preliminary addition to the article. (More later.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good! Expanding articles is more often than not a noble pursuit.  I'm not stopping you from going to bed, if you have trouble sleeping due to Wikipedia use you may want to look at this.  Dr Strauss   talk  12:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent PRODs
Hi DrStrauss, could I ask you please to hold fire on your multiple PRODs for now, you are nominating a large number of people who pass the subject-specific guideline as they have played in a fully professional league. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * apologies - I was unaware of the policy and going by WP:GNG which I considered those articles to fail. Thank you for the information.   Dr Strauss   talk  13:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, my contesting of the prods was purely on the basis of the subject-specific guideline. If you feel there are genuinely non-notable players there then feel free to take to AfD, but it would probably be best to discuss with Gonta-Kun first from a collaboration POV. In my opinion, most of those players would pass GNG as having played multiple times in significant leagues, though there were a couple where the number of appearances was small and there career seems to be over so I'm not making any concrete judgement. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Advertisements
Hey, I noticed you placed an advertisement tag on Ranvoo. I went ahead and put the CSD G11 tag on it. As an FYI, if an article is unambiguously an advertisement and there is no hope of rescuing it, you should usually tag it for speedy deletion under CSD G11 rather than placing the advertisement flag on it. This is because it will be harder for people to find once it is out of the new pages feed. The advertisement tag should be placed on articles that are written like adverts, but are salvageable. Hope this helps :) Thanks for your work in NPP. Always glad to see new faces around. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the hint and it's a pleasure to help! Best - Dr Strauss   talk  16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elephant-Inside-Out-Gillian-Higgins-2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Elephant-Inside-Out-Gillian-Higgins-2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer
Hello DrStrauss. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
 * thank you for the tips! I've been reviewing pages for a couple of hours - I'll have a look at the guide!  Best  Dr Strauss   talk  20:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed
Hello, Kenny Britt is now cited with references! Calli2010 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello that's great!  You may now remove the PROD tag as well!  Thanks  Dr Strauss   talk  07:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: this discussion refers to the article Kerry Britt, not Kenny Britt but it has been preserved as such due to the discussion further down the page. Thank you. Dr Strauss  talk  16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

E-Security
I wanted to inform you that I removed your speedy deletion tag, as 'not a dictionary' is not one of the listed CSD criteria. (That would be a valid rationale for a PROD deletion tag.) The page had been redirected by another user, and I restored the redirect. If the page creator reverses that I may start an AfD discussion. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry I never thought of just turning it into a redirect. Will do in future!  Thanks  Dr Strauss   talk  07:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of E4B
Hi! The page "E4B" I created was a simple redirect to Boeing E-4, I did not contribute to the current content, I actually consider replacing 'my' redirect by this content (and not some "E4B may refer to ..." page) slightly wrong and I have no objections at all to deletion of current content! Greetings from Vienna --Wda (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for the info, if the PROD is contested it may go to articles for deletion, in which case you can voice your opinion there.  Best - Dr Strauss   talk  15:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Kerry Britt AfD
Thanks for help- can you also give suggestions on what more I need to add to suffice as notable references for acceptance of page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calli2010 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello which article are you referring to?  Just for housekeeping, when you comment on a talk page remember to sign it with four tildes ( ~ ).  Thanks  Dr Strauss   talk  15:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK i will remember. So someone else wrote on the talk page "Nothing for actual independent notability and substance and not satisfying the applicable standards as she's not significant as an actress and also then our policies as we're not IMDb, overall not enough for acceptance". I have linked everything with references along with articles. Please help, any feedback/suggestions are greatly appreciated thank you! Calli2010 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * please could you provide the title of the article in question so I can investigate? Thank you.   Dr Strauss   talk  15:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It was regarding the page of Kerry Britt. thanks Calli2010 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ah ok, further up the page you referenced Kenny Britt (an article which neither of us has contributed to) as opposed to Kerry Britt which is what was confusing me. I am pinging  and  to notify them of this dispute as they are the other major editors involved (if you mention or refer to an editor it is common practice to write  to notify them).  Irregardless of the links you have added (all but one are from IMDb), the article still merely lists a few films which the subject has participated in - it doesn't even say she is an actress, so I would actually be in favour of deleting the page.   has linked the page where deletion of the article is being discussed in the deletion template at the top of the article page.  I think that that would be the most appropriate place to discuss this.  Thanks  Dr Strauss   talk  16:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK if it's less hassle I can just delete the page, I don't want to cause any problems. Calli2010 (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * How do I go about deleting page? Calli2010 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would highly advise letting the article run its course through the AfD process as it may turn out that the article could be improved. AfD is a standard process and you're not causing any problems.  However, if you do wish to delete it anyway, please blank the article and put  at the top and an administrator will delete it for you.  Only administrators can delete pages due to the potential misuse the tool could bring.   Dr Strauss   talk  16:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK I will let it run its course, I just am new to this and don't know exactly how to properly place links etc. but thank you so much with all your help and feedback on this. Greatly appreciated!! Calli2010 (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine: if you need any more help don't hesitate to ask! Thank you for your contributions and I recognise that the markup may be a bit difficult to comprehend at first but take a look at WP:CHEAT and that might help. Dr Strauss  talk  17:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I updated more references to the Kerry Britt page besides the IMDB links, would these new updates suffice? Thanks for the help Calli2010 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Imagine (song) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Imagine (song). Since you had some involvement with the Imagine (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Greater Peterborough UTC
I wonder why you added a second stub template to Greater Peterborough UTC when you were reviewing it? CalzGuy (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Undone. Apologies for that.   Dr Strauss   talk  11:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Badakhshan province
Hey, I removed it because there was no source for the history provided - the only source given was ''Nancy Hatch Dupree / Aḥmad ʻAlī Kuhzād (1972). "An Historical Guide to Kabul - The Name". American International School of Kabul. Retrieved 2010-09-18.'' which refers to the history of Kabul, not Badakhshan (what the article is about). The text even refers to "territory south of the Hindu Kush" - Badakhshan is in the northeast! Plus it was pretty randomly placed. I'm sure someone just straight copied and pasted it from another one of the Afghan-related pages. I will undo the revert but let me know what you think.77.98.4.100 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologise if that's the case: from a glance it appeared to be unexplained or at least ill-advised removal but I have no expertise in this area so if the article is more factually correct with your edit then by all means reinstate it. Thanks  Dr Strauss   talk  15:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've added an explanation on the talk page so hopefully it's clearer now. 77.98.4.100 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Perdix (drone) has been accepted
 Perdix (drone), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  17:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC) : thank you for the promptness of the review! I have one question though: does the article now have to go through the patrol process or does that automatically patrol it? Thank you - Dr Strauss  talk  18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * I've found out.  Dr Strauss   talk  19:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Testavoyre
Hi DrStrauss.

Why did you do this? Cordially. Jean Fume (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello I marked it for speedy deletion because its content is duplicated at Meygal.  It would actually make more sense to do a redirect in retrospect: I'll do that and tell me what you think here.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  18:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand. I have created this page as a stub in order that others users complete this, but, all things considered, it seems not there is room for that. Cordially. Jean Fume (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jógvan Hendrik Samuelsen
Hi. Just a tip. If a blank articles shows in the history that it was blanked by the author, it should be tagged with {{db-g7]] (one author requested deletion or blanking), rather than 'no content'. It does have no content, but the author blanking can be important in the deletion history if the article comes back more than once. When assessing if a repeatedly created article is to be 'protected' from creation, an author blanked one is not counted in the number of creations. Peridon (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi {{ping|Peridon}} I'll bear that in mind: I thought that only the user who blanked the page could put the {{db-g7}} but thank you for the heads up! Best - Dr Strauss   talk  22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blanking by author (signed in, that is...) is taken to equal request for g7, but anyone can then put the tag on - otherwise the admins probably wouldn't know it had happened. Blanking by IP is dubious mostly, but if an initial signed in creation is followed by a load of work by one IP, that IP can usually be assumed to be the author. Any amount of work by others doesn't count if it is purely gnome work - categories, typos, tidying links etc. If anyone else had added actual content (not including vandalism), then G7 is not appropriate and AfD should be considered, or suggested to the author, after reverting politely. AfD if it isn't really worth keeping, but suggest it if the author seems determined. It gets a consensus one way or the other. Strictly not a correct use of AfD, but I do it sometimes. Get told off once in a while, but don't take much notice. Peridon (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Those Korean battles
They are notable. I'll try to get some references from offline sources - actual books - into them this week. I recall at least one non-trivial mention of at least one of the battles, and I should be able to get it tomorrow or so. If not, we can AfD it next weekend.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  22:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi I don't recall saying that they weren't notable but rather that the article did not adequately convey that they were notable.  To pass WP:GNG notability must have a few sources - the articles in question fell short of the guideline but if you can reference them that would be good.  Tag it with {{In use so people know that it's a work in progress.  Thank you!   Dr Strauss   talk  22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Maggie Siner
Hello Dr. Strauss, I noticed you placed a banner on the article on Maggie Siner, requesting citation. Would you be please more specific and explain which statement/part of the article you request citation for? I have been as accurate as I can and I have personally interviewed the artist. Most of the material and info is also present on her webpage which is a source. Thanks a lot. Morningbastet. Morningbastet (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello I've just added specific  tags.  Thank you.   Dr Strauss   talk  14:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Hello I added the requested citations, the biography comes from her website, and her attending the school can be verified on the Alumni search page. As for the citation that she is Jewish, this is just the fact...and we do not see how and why this could or should be "challenged", or to be verified. She is and she told me so. Thanks. Morningbastet (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC).

Tramlink pages
Hi, please take care when patrolling pages such as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=pagetriage-curation&user=DrStrauss&offset=20170115110100&limit=3 these] - they were bad pages, being the results of WP:CUTPASTE moves. I have [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redrose64?offset=20170115214500&limit=5 reverted those improper edits], and who made them. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Davidson (Marketer)
I saw this page was scheduled for deletion. It looked like it was considered as self promotion and flagged for posting a link to a company originally founded by the BLP. I am notifying you that I've removed the PROD tag you put on. Apologies if I've not done it correctly - happy to be advised - but my reasoning was as follows - the BLP did found the company linked to and worked there for 20 years. He now longer works there. He no longer owns any stake in the company. His charity work is funded by the fact he founded and sold the company. He applies a practical marketing approach to his charity work using similar principles to how the company operated when he was there. The link was for reference therefore not gain. I'd welcome advice on how to better improve the article. I've not created an article before...just done occasional edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.227.243 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Stub tags
Hallo, please take care not to add stub to an article which already has a specific stub tag, as you did here. It just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. Pam D  08:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still happening. Pam  D  16:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * AARGH! I'm so sorry - I will make sure I check in future.  Is there a setting which can warn me when doing it or is it just a case of checking manually?  Thanks  Dr Strauss   talk  16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And please don't remove stub tags when the article has no real content other than a list of subtaxa, however many. These lists merely provide links to other Wikipedia articles; they don't tell the reader anything useful about the topic of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the advice but while there is no set limit for stub sizes, the articles you are describing as "lists" are not the same as stubs and should be added to appropriate list-based categories. Such articles require little expansion and according to the guidelines that means they aren't really stubs which is why I removed the stub tags.  Thanks,  Dr Strauss   talk  14:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT - I was using AutoWikiBrowser which automates several clerical tasks including stub addition and stub removal. Its policy on stubs is mentioned on the stubs page and as AWB is promoted as a useful tool by Wikipedia it implies that its guidelines have broad consensus.   Dr Strauss   talk  14:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles such as Mangora (spider) are absolutely not lists; they are articles on taxa, such as genera, which happen to include lists of subtaxa, such as species. Aphonopelma is an example of a non-stub genus article, and the Mangora article will, hopefully, one day be expanded to match. Should the list of subtaxa be very long it will be moved to a separate "List of ..." article, which would then be marked as a list. An example is List of Theraphosidae species.
 * There is absolutely no consensus that I know of at WP:WikiProject Tree of Life or any of its descendant wikiprojects to say that a long list of subtaxa makes a taxon article not a stub; it clearly does not.
 * I would also point out that when you correctly remove a stub tag, at the same time you need to change the assessment on the talk page; they need to be in step. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly WikiProject Tree of Life has a different policy from most others, I apologise if this is the case and if AWB does de-stub some articles not in line with your policy please revert them, but I shall continue to use it to make stub edits because nearly all other WikiProjects seem to take to this without any opposition.  Dr Strauss   talk  16:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's important always to review edits made by AWB or any other automated editor system. It's not just a matter of policy, but also of commonsense: Mangora (spider) is a stub; Aphonopelma is not. Why? Because the former tells readers nothing useful about the spiders in the genus – no description, no distribution, nothing. The latter isn't very good, which is why it's only start class, but at least says something about the spiders. I guess that other kinds of article don't look like these two, but articles about groups of organisms often do. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * as I said, I reviewed the edits and didn't find them in contradiction to Wikipedia's general stub policy but I didn't check the specific WikiProject's policy as I assumed it would be in line with the general policy as with most other WikiProjects.  Dr Strauss   talk  17:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that WP:STUB is very clear: A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion. If this were taken literally, then even Aphonopelma is a stub. It goes on: stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub. So there's no way to defend the argument that Mangora (spider) isn't a stub based on general policy. The edits clearly were in contradiction to WP:STUB. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:STUB also says that an article is a stub if it is "capable of expansion". Mangora_(spider) is essentially a page of links and isn't capable of significant expansion and therefore is not a stub. There is a way to defend that argument because I'm doing it. Dr Strauss  talk  17:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DrStrauss, you are wrong. If new research is published, it will be able to be expanded. In fact, I bet that with current research, it could be expanded. RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 18:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RileyBugz, not too sure about that one - we can't keep something tagged as a stub just because there might be some further information on it - there will be much more information to be added to Sunflower in proportion to the article but we don't stub-tag it because it isn't a stub. If it could be expanded with current research then somebody with knowledge in that area should improve it to prevent tagging misunderstandings.   Dr Strauss   talk  18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I am just saying that your argument that it doesn't satisfy that criteria is invalid. Also, WP:STUB also says,"is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." This means that sunflower, for example, is not a stub because it provides reasonable coverage. But, since the genera in question does satisfy this and the other criteria, it is a stub. RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 18:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * but it doesn't satisfy the criterion for expansion and WP:STUB does not specify whether an article has to meet all of the guidelines listed or simply one of them so clearly the guideline is insufficient or contradictory because we both have equally strong cases IMO.  Dr Strauss   talk  18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It says "and," which means that it has to satisfy all of the criteria. RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * exactly my point. It fails the criteria of expansion capability as it is essentially a parent category and therefore does not qualify as a stub!   Dr Strauss   talk  18:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It has to satisfy all of the criteria, and it does. RileyBugzYell at me &#124; Edits 18:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * clearly our differences on this one are irreconcilable as our interpretations of WP:STUB are completely different. I think it doesn't, you think it does.  Kind of reminds me of this!  Not to concede, as I still think my edit was justified, but I think we've exhausted all lines of argument on this.  Thanks!   Dr Strauss   talk  19:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * well, the discussion between you and took place while I was asleep, so I certainly don't feel we've exhausted all the lines of argument, and I'm amazed that you don't understand why you were wrong. You wrote above of a genus article It fails the criteria of expansion capability as it is essentially a parent category and therefore does not qualify as a stub! Sorry, but this is simply nonsense.Mangora (spider) is an article about a genus of spiders. So it should be expanded to contain exactly the same information as any proper genus article, and can be expanded. Look at Araneus or Latrodectus. Sections that are needed at Mangora (spider) and can easily be added include Description, Taxonomy, Distribution and habitat. It's not a category of any kind. It's an article about a genus. The only difference from Panthera is that it's a lot harder to find information about spiders than mammals, and there are many fewer editors working on spiders. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

the article you refer to has more than 500 words and consists mainly of links and is therefore not a stub. Don't call other points of view nonsense because they are just as well-sourced as yours. Of course, expansion on the article is always welcome and let's hope a spider expert editor appears. Dr Strauss  talk  08:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems pointless to discuss this with you, since your point of view is based on a strange mis-reading of WP:STUB. It's particularly odd to write expansion on the article is always welcome when the whole point of a stub template is to signal that expansion is needed. Anyway, no more from me: just don't remove stub tags from articles about groups of organisms where the main content is just a list. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * you have provided no more evidence to suggest your view isn't a strange misreading of WP:STUB but as I say, we are exiting the top three tiers of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement which makes any further interactions futile but I'll remember your advice and assess each case in future in conjunction with WP:STUB.  Dr Strauss   talk  12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead section of Mangora (spider) has the following text:
 * Mangora is a genus of spiders in the family Araneidae.
 * There is then a section listing the species. It doesn't matter how long that species list is: whether there is one entry or 500, an article about a genus should give at the very least a description of those features which characterise the genus, and which serve to distinguish it from other genera in the same family. This article has no such descriptions: it is a stub. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And if this isn't clear at WP:STUB it needs to be made so. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * my point too. WP:STUB is somewhat fuzzy and by its own admission refuses to offer a hard and fast rule.  While I welcome flexibility and am generally against over-regulation I think this would be helpful.  Please note that I will now be archiving my talk page as it's over 50KB, if any further discussion is necessary, please start a new thread.   Dr Strauss   talk  13:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Constructive criticisms
apologies for the mistakes and thanks for the constructive criticism - we live and learn!! Best wishes Dr Strauss   talk  09:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies
Well, I am very sorry for my rude behaviour lately. I was completely out of my mind. And I am really sorry that I misbehaved. Actually I hadn't read the whole term and rule thing earlier. Wikipedia has been great help throughout my academics and profession and so do you as you are part of this great giant. I positively hope that you will accept my sincere apologies regarding my talk. FHSyed (talk)
 * that's okay - thank you for your apology and we're all proud to be Wikipedians! Best  Dr Strauss   talk  10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Woodall-Patton House and Post Office
I object to your tagging a new article with "refimprove" when there is not one iota of unsourced information in the article. This is just one new case of it; I have previously reverted your similar edits on other articles. It happens that I am an experienced editor and know that I can and should simply revert your edit. However, I imagine that you are editing in New Page Patrol and are imposing your incorrect judgement in new articles created by new editors. Based on half a dozen instances of this (and without anything like a full review of your work, but still), it strikes me that you are not doing a good job with New Pages Patrol and you should stop participating there. -- do ncr  am  19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * your editing experience makes not one iota of difference in my judgement of articles. The issue with your article is that references on that page do need improving because all of the non-infobox material relies on one source.  I take exception to your aggressive tone and I have been doing a good job at new page patrolling - the objections on my user talk page are drops in the water as I have made a large amount of contributions there (see my log).  From your userpage I can see that you've been here since 2005, which suggests that you should now that telling an editor to stop contributing good faith edits is completely against one of the core principles of Wikipedia and I will continue to contribute to the New Page Patrol.  Feel free to remove the tag on the page once the references have been improved.   Dr Strauss   talk  19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm... as per the refimprove documentation, you are 100% wrong. It literally says: Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material, even if all the material is supported by a single citation.
 * For someone claiming to be an expert new page patroller, it's baffling that you haven't read the documentation... in any event, One source exists for the problem you just described. Note that the documentation for One source also states Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality. Therefore, your tagging of Alberta Highway 519 was false as it is a stub, being expanded, and has no issues with verifiability nor neutrality. This is not an aggressive tone whatsoever, but more specific templates for the issue at hand are available and should be used when possible, despite your belief that a large number of contributions makes you 100% correct in this regard. -- Acefitt 23:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to be an expert new page patroller, only that I am doing a better job than suggests.  We all make the odd mistake from time to time but I am just saying that the number of complaints I have received is still small considering the number of pages I have patrolled.  Thank you for your advise on templates, I shall implement it.  I have read the documentation by the way.  What I find baffling is that  finds it necessary to forego constructive criticism and go for scathing criticism, particularly as his userpage advocates editor retention and decries a culture of bullying, ironically to which he is participating.   Dr Strauss   talk  08:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Category: J-Rock artists
May I ask what this was supposed to accomplish? Article pages should virtually never be moved into the category space. Right now it looks like a list on a category page. The individual members on that list are not actually placed in the category - the category is currently empty, and eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD as an empty category. I'll hold off deleting it for now to give you an opportunity to address this, either by way of adding the category to each of those pages or to move the page back to article space, but it cannot exist as-is. VegaDark (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * thank you for the feedback: I'll add each page to the category later today: I've done one to prevent it being eligible for CSD 1. I've done it with AWB. Best -  Dr Strauss   talk  14:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:J-Rock artists has been nominated for discussion
Category:J-Rock artists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Xfansd (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Image removal Suggestion
Hi, as per the discussion, all images of Herd of Sheffield elephants have been orphaned and are now eligible for deletion. You can see the list of images needing deletion here (except for the first and last images which are unrelated). Could these be deleted as the one week period has now expired? Thanks in advance. Dr Strauss  talk  09:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On it. Edited to add - and done. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * wow, thanks for the promptness! Best wishes  Dr Strauss   talk  18:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: removing the RfD template from a redirect that was nominated for discussion at Redirects for Discussion. You're welcome to comment there, as it's still open. Cheers.

Thumbs up, btw, for the handy trout button at the top of this page – I think I'm going to steal the idea and place one on mine. – Uanfala (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * gah, sorry for that - I didn't mean to bypass the community discussion and wasn't aware at that time of the hierarchy of CSD --> PROD --> AfD but I have since. And thanks for the vote of confidence with the trout template - I thought something more visible was needed than a mere topicon :) - it's transcluded at the top, feel free to use it.  Best,  Dr Strauss   talk  22:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll snatch the trout template straight away – if I'd had such a template earlier, I'm sure my talk page would be looking prettier, with probably half of the posts featuring a friendly picture of a fish to spice up the boring text.
 * On a side note, your ping didn't work – pings are processed on an edit-by-edit basis, and if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent (see mw:Manual:Echo). I only found out about this quite recently. – Uanfala (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)