User talk:Epeefleche/Archive 2

Phishing Alert
Those who happen by this page may wish to be on the alert for efforts to hack into their private email accounts.

As happened to one wikipedia editor, as described in short here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth in lead
Epeefleche, wanted to get back to you on message about place of birth in the lead of articles. Most of the high-quality biography articles, ones rated Good Article or Featured class, seem to omit place of birth/death from the parenthetical opening to the lead. Manual of Style (biographies) appears to support that practice as well. I agree with the omission because it makes the leads cleaner looking. Place of birth/death can be listed in the infobox and should be integrated where appropriate into the body of the article or farther down in the lead if important enough. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban on Wjemather
I have closed the thread and imposed an interaction ban on Wjemather. I doubt the advice is needed but: avoid interacting with him, even though the sanction is technically not two way. FWIW I feel there was no consensus to block him at this time, esp. as it is something of a "one-off" since the last block he had (and I am inclined to mark it down as a last chance). Hopefully by not interacting that simply solves the problem. Cheers. :) --Errant (chat!) 00:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at    :Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 11:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Brunette Models|concern=A7
I don't agree that Brunette Models is proposed that this article has been deleted. This team is very significant in Poland. Is played in Europe, the U.S. and worldwide. It is one of the precursors of ambient-style music in Poland. Sorry, does the proposal to remove is because Brunette Models has a Jewish origin and he has problems with the organization of the Nazi Redwatch? Maybe the same person suggests the deletion of Wikipedia, and that other one portal?
 * Brunette Models on REDWATCH website

Thanks and regards! Γραφή (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC).


 * No, I'm not seeking to delete the article because of an anti-Semitic leaning on my part, driving me to delete the article because the band has a Jewish origin. And no, I am not seeking to delete the article because of any personal bias on my part in favor of Nazi organizations.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Aerolit
As I see you ventured boldly into a whole hornet's nest of underdeveloped band artciles. After some thought I agree with your work: if someone cares about them, they must take care. Otherwise wikipedia may quickly turn into a source of misinformation, since it is often blindly copied in multitudes, especiallty for little known topics. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, your take is correct.  I'm a fan of bands, and fully supportive of us having good articles.  And, as you can tell, my primary focus on wp is content creation.  Having articles on bands that do not meet our standards waters down the helpfulness of the project, IMHO.  But I would always prefer to have support for notability discovered, and an article kept.  And this area is one that does appear to attract more non-notable articles than many other areas.  Your note is especially appreciated, of course, as we have different views as to one particular band article.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pancake images
You're welcome. And thanks for informing me of that; I wasn't aware that MoS had a guideline for that. What's ironic is that I myself don't generally care for sandwiching images like that, but in trying to make the images work in that article, I thought they ended up looking all right. Can you link me to the relevant MoS page? I'll look it over and remove some of the images if need be. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your discretion and even-handedness. I particularly appreciate the MoS link, largely because I have now discovered the Picture Tutorial, which shows me how to co-align images, which I've never gotten around to learning how to do. Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FL?
I noticed your name and Sportswoman of the Year Award pop up on my watchlist. I think this could be an FL without a tremendous amount of work, though the scope needs to expand and include the 1980-1992 professional and amateur award winners. Interested in working together to get it there? Courcelles 10:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Sounds like a fine idea.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll try to get the other tables in by the weekend. Courcelles 16:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I owe you anything on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Shopping centers
I've declined your A7 speedy deletion requests of La Molina Plaza, Istana Plaza Bandung, and Hyatt Plaza. Shopping centers are not eligible for the A7 speedy deletion criterion, as it is specifically limited to companies/organizations, among other specific categories. You are free to take them to PROD/AfD if you still believe that they should be deleted.--Slon02 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, shopping centers are companies, partnerships, or some other form of organization (e.g., LLC or LLP). The shopping center tenants pay rent to the landlord organization.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in; I saw this after reading the reply to my message above. My guess is that whether or not a mall is a company would depend. Where I used to live in the US, most malls were owned by a larger management company, like Westfield Group.  This would mean that each mall is actually the branch of a company (like a single location of a corporate owned store, like Walmart).  Oddly enough, it almost seems like that means it's not eligible for A7, because the criteria specifies "organization", not "organization or its sub-divisions".  That is quite a counter-intuitive idea--it would mean that an article on something like Tax Working Group of the Second Accounting Division of the U.S. Division of Multinational X would technically not qualify under A7.  Unless you already know of precedent, perhaps it would be helpful to seek clarification from WT:CSD, and maybe even a re-write of the policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon for companies to have subsidiary companies, to firewall risk. A subsidiary would be an organization.  In any event, either way, it is an organization.  The organization is the entity that signs the contracts -- such as lease agreements to the shops.  Hence this sentence in Yahoo Finance describing the company: "Westfield Group, through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail property group in Australia, the United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom."  --Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

List of hurdlers
You are a very active wikipedian, but please, butt out of a subject you do not know. This list IS poorly maintained, but there are legitimate entries here that need to be researched and have articles written, not arbitrarily deleted based on policy and your lack of knowledge. I have restored two such entries, one that had an article, the other that legitimately should have an article under WP:Athlete. Leaving a name here will possibly encourage an editor (maybe me but I've got my plate full too) to write an article about this subject. The point being, do further research before you delete content. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BLP. For a name of a person to be in a list of people, it should have a blue-link or a ref.  The burden is on the editor seeking to restore the blp's name to a list -- and the name should not have been added to the list in the first place (I see some of these redlinks hark back to 2005), in accord with wp:LISTPEOPLE, if it lacks both a wp article and appropriate refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven   Talk  14:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bashar al-Shatti
( X! ·  talk )  · @181  · 00:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Maybe this kitty :D

ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 

GA Thanks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Jason Kipnis, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

 * Thanks for signing on with the project, and feel free to post articles for clean-up there! 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Outcome of the discussion at user request for comments
Hello, Epeefleche. The RFC/USER discussion at    :Requests for comment/Epeefleche has been closed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter April 2013
 Membership report The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 357 active members. We would like to welcome our newest members, Thomas Cranmer, Mr.Oglesby, and Sneha Priscilla. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

By John Carter

Featured content and GA report Since the last report;

Grade I listed churches in Cumbria was promoted to Featured List status, thanks to Peter I. Vardy, and the image above of the Church of Saint Ildefonso was promoted to featured picture status.

Also these past months, the DYKs on the main page included St Mary's Church, Cleobury Mortimer by Peter I. Vardy; Marion Irvine by Giants2008; Margaret McKenna by Guerillero; Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity by Epeefleche; St Edith's Church, Eaton-under-Heywood by Peter I. Vardy; Vester Egesborg Church by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; Undløse Church by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; St Martin's Church, Næstved by Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, and Dr. Blofeld; St. Peter, Syburg by Gerda Arendt and Dr. Blofeld; Østre Porsgrunn Church by Strachkvas; Church of Our Saviour (Mechanicsburg, Ohio) by Nyttend; Dami Mission by Freikorp; Mechanicsburg Baptist Church by Nyttend; Acheiropoietos Monastery, by Proudbolsahye; T. Lawrason Riggs, by Gareth E Kegg; McColley's Chapel, by Mangoe; Oświęcim Chapel, by BurgererSF; Second Baptist Church (Mechanicsburg, Ohio), by Nyttend; Church of the Holy Ghost, Tallinn, by Yakikaki; Old Stone Congregational Church, by Orladyl Heath Chapel, by Peter I. Vardy; St. Joseph's Church, Beijing, by Bloom6132; Church of St Bartholomew, Yeovilton, by Rodw; and St. Michael's Catholic Church (Mechanicsburg, Ohio) also by Nyttend. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Help requests Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Frgewhqwth and unsourced material
I thought you might like to know that I've opened a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents—hate to poke my nose in, but I thought the situation merited it. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 23:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, in reference to your question to Fregehqwth, I extended his block to editing his own talk page, after I saw that he was abusing that privilege. Nightscream (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Hannock
Holy shit. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Theatre
Hi. Please don't change "Theatre District" to "Theater District". The vast majority of legit theatres in Manhattan and New York City use the older spelling. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See consensus here (a page that you just edited, in fact), WP:UCN, and WP:ENGVAR.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You're just floundering around on a subject you don't know shit about
You edited Morosco Theatre, and its just an article to you, but it happens to be the first Broadway theatre I did a show at. Go edit something you understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What in the world are you talking about?


 * I made these edits to the article. Where is the floundering you accuse me of? What in that edit do you feel suggests a paucity of knowledge, resulting in a deficient edit?  Rather than an improvement?


 * And what is your comment about, to the effect that I "don't know shit" about the subject? And that "its just an article to [me]."  What in my dearth of knowledge impeded the accuracy of my edit?  What is wrong with the article just being an article to me?  Isn't that normal?


 * And what's the point of "it happens to be the first Broadway theatre I did a show at"? Are you suggesting you own the article?  And others, who do not have a personal involvement with the subject of the article should, as you put it "go edit" articles other than ones as to which you have an attachment?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "I'm curious" you say, that the New York Times called it the Mark Hellinger Theater - well, they fucked it up, because before it was sold to be church it was the Mark Hellinger Theatre. Face it, you really don't know anything about this subject, and you're just hoping against hope that some evidence will come to light to support your position.  Well, I'm here to tell you that I've spent the lasyt 30 years of my life working in the theatre in New York City (Broadway, Off-Broadway and Off-Off-Broadway) and it's irrelevant if the spell-checker flags "theatre" as being a misspelling, that's what it's called here.  If you had a semblence of a clue, you'd know that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You really are clueless, aren't you? Pity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to my above questions.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are a little pissant.....
...aren't you? Fuck you, asshole. Your Asperger's is not a "get out of jail free" card. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BMK -- This post by you follows (among other similar posts) your above post here. I understand that you probably didn't mean to cause me pain, but I feel that this and your prior posts were hurtful and uncivil. I've tolerated them in the past.  But you have simply continued, with this most recent post.  Please strike out your uncivil comments.  Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS is a *guideline*
and not policy, and need not be followed robotically. WP:IAR allows us leeway to improve things if we can. Do not edit war over style formatting, it's not exempt from 3RR. Just don't go there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are the one edit-warring. You keep reverting from the first format chosen in the article.  Which was completely appropriate.  And what MOS calls for.  There is zero reason to ignore MOS.  And to change it from the first format used in the article, to boot.  IAR is not license to ignore MOS without any good reason, just because you like it another way, and edit-war to change the format from the original one.  For what appears to be no logical reason -- you are just adding needless words, that add nothing, and are non-MOS.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For keeping on on recent edits to Daniel Squadron. Thanks! :)--108.30.93.184 (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Russell (tennis)

 * Nice work expanding this! Keep up the good work.  Ruby  2010/  2013  19:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on reflist
Thanks for the support that you have extended on the Template talk:Reflist discussion. I thought that it is almost obvious that one would like to split references into two columns (at least). But other than you, nobody else even acknowledged my findings or justified it. Criticism is always welcome but definitely it should be of substance rather than reflecting a sense of rigiditiy. I primarily edit Wikipedia when a gap becomes apparent to me. Since you are a senior editor, I would be glad if you guide me when the situation demands.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
Hi Epeefleche,

Sorry to bother you -- I undertand you are an expert on NPOV issues.

I was told (I think?) that I have been engaging in a slow edit war since Januay 29, 2014 with two other editors who have reverted material I added to an article. I believe the material I added is in accordance with Wikipedia principles and I do not understand why my edit is being reverted.

Can you offer any advice on the talk page in question. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Taj Anwar
If you have time, could you please help edit the Taj_Anwar page? 24.97.201.230 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ntrepid
Hello Epeefleche, A while ago you did some good work on this article; I wonder if you could have a look some time at the very recent additions, which don't seem very clear to me. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lucas.tej
Hi Epeefleche, I stumbled upon an article created by this editor, only to find many non-notable/borderlines. Due to the number, I wondered if you'd like to comment, and if so would you consider commenting on the creator's talk page? Widefox ; talk 11:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Cal South
Hi, you recently deleted my Cal South article because there weren't any primary sources. I don't know how to undelete an article. Could you please do it for me so I can add sources? If they don't fall under Wikipedia guidelines, then you can feel free to delete the article. Thanks.--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I would suggest you check with the sysop who deleted that article, Tawker, and ask him/her for assistance. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks :)--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the difference in edits before you click undo. I have added credible references that you're deleting on the Cal South page.--Bowser2500 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page -- fresh off your recent three blocks, and operating on final warning, you continue to violate wp:v. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you did not heed your warnings, and are now blocked for the fourth time in the past two months. Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo
Dear Epeefleche,

Why did you undo all of my work of hours? Indiggo's wikipedia has to be neutral and fair to their accomplishments. All my sources were relevant and from reputable sites. What you are trying to do is diminish and minimize their work. Please, revert my changes.

Thank you, Dany4444 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are a single-purpose editor, who upon being created immediately started editing -- in similar fashion -- an article at AfD where there has been edit warring in the past, and ducking sock behavior. You can't add uncited material, as you did.  You can't add material using wikis as a source, which you did.  You can't add other non-RSs, as you did.  You can't add material that is not supported by RSs, which you did.  I already left you information on your talkpage as to your errors and how to edit correctly. Also -- have you ever edited before, under a different name or IP address?Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will delete all the wiki references. Thank you for pointing that out. I edited trying to give a most accurate image of the Indiggo duo.

Many thanks. Dany4444 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you ever edited Wikipedia before, under a different name or IP address? --Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I have never edited Wikipedia before. I am trying to do constructive editing, verified, and with significant and just facts. There were many errors. I'm just trying to help and present a neutral point of view that highlights the American facts.

I started editing because I was surprised by the differences from wikipedia and other sources.

Many thanks. Dany4444 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry your editing led to an indef block. Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
sorry about reverting the edits on university of education didn't look closely enough and thought it was vandalism, my apologies.

Gamemaster eleven (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Welcome to wikipedia.  Enjoy your time here. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"American University of Asia"
Not an A1 either. I suggest we take it to AfD, so that anyone Google-ing up "Wikipedia American University of Asia" can find out we have deleted it as the complete scam it obviously is. Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Caos Emergente
Hello Epeefleche. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Caos Emergente, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Article survived a speedy deletion request in the past. Try WP:PROD or WP:AfD instead.''' Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Malik. But the speedy you refer to, if I am reading the history correctly, was removed by the article creator. Which is a no-no. If I'm correct, the incorrect removal of the speedy shouldn't I would think obviate a speedy here.  Thoughts?  Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the speedy tag because at the time the A7 criterion did not apply to events, so the request was groundless (I asked the user to take it to AfD, which he did not do). Frankly I do not care much about those old articles of mine, no one updated them in seven years so they are pretty useless. I will not oppose any deletion requests, speedy or otherwise. If you find any more bad festival articles like those, please don't spend the time to notify me, just go on and delete them. Mushroom (Talk) 09:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mushroom. @Malik -- under the circumstances, can we restore (and act upon) the speedy? @Mushroom -- alas the notification is automatic, when I prod or speedy an article.  Feel free to ignore or delete it.  Best. Epeefleche (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Epeefleche. I've deleted it. All the best, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

KROK International Animated Films Festival
Frankly, a simple Google search would have been enough to verify the importance of this festival, and the fact that many of the top directors in the field visit it. I feel that your speedy deletion nomination was negligent. Esn (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The visitors do not connote notability. When creating articles, please consider using RS refs, and reflecting notability. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. I've opened a discussion about the deletion of these types of articles at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

85th Street (Manhattan)
I believe that the 85th Street (Manhattan) article should be redirected to List of numbered streets in Manhattan. Not that it's notable, but it's extremely short and duplicates the entirety of that section. I will open a discussion at WT:NYC shortly so that other people may weigh in on this. Epicgenius (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. We have different views.  Best. Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would urge you to reconsider the AfD you started here, on the basis of the comments at that AfD. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for -- after nominating it for AfD -- reconsidering, and for reviewing it at DYK. Impressive. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi there. I'm not sure if you're aware of this discussion on school notability. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 10:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 85th Street (Manhattan)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

John's Korner Bar
Couldn't you send this to AfD instead of CSD - then I can vote "delete" ;-) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   19:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for sparing you the pleasure ... Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Intermediate School 318
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:1RR
Actually, you just broke WP:1RR on Tuqu'‎, Halhul and Dura, Hebron.

Please help me  ...and self-revert. (I´ll absolutely hate to go through all the work of reporting you ....;P) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Did I? Apologies if I did ... and I will revert if appropriate. But ... I was confused -- I thought if they were different articles, and you seem to be an editor who focuses primarily on that area and knows what you are doing, and certainly would not be reverting me and thereby violating 1RR yourself, that they must be outside 1RR (by being in different articles?).


 * Or was is that you violated 1RR? On three articles, by reverting my addition of a map to the three articles. In which case ... if I revert, and you then revert (to avoid 1RR), then the articles would be back to precisely where they are now?


 * Plus -- on the Dura article, though you reverted me by reverting my addition of the map, as you reverted my additions of the map to the other two articles, all I did (so far) was fix the separate point you raised, in a manner that I would think would satisfy your voiced concern, as to the title. (Perhaps you're confused on that, as I see you wrote, which is not the case (at this point): "you adding the map twice...in 3 articles".)


 * Help me here ... tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You inserted the same stuff twice. In 3 articles. Which I reverted, and will certainly not take out again before 24 hours. You have broken the 1RR rule 3 times!! Now, I can discuss wether the map should be in the article or not, but NOT before you  have reverted. Until then I  will be occupied with drafting 1RR my report ...on you. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Help me understand. I will self-revert if appropriate.


 * What did I insert twice into the Dura article? Not the map. And the title was only deleted because it was over-inclusive, as you pointed out, but I fixed that. Are you asserting that because I fixed your indicated problem with its prior form, it is a violation? That would not make sense -- it totally addresses the issue you raised.


 * As to the map -- you deleted it three times. On three different articles.  Is that a 1RR violation? Or not -- because 1RR only applies to you reverting more than once in the same article?


 * As to my adding the map twice to any one article, that's not two reverts. The first addition isn't a revert. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." When I added a map, I didn't undo the actions of another editor.


 * Let me know your thinking.


 * Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes: you adding the map twice...in 3 articles: that *is* a violation. If, you like me, only edited each of these 3 articles once during these last 24 hours: then you cannot break the  1RR. Adding, or subtracting the same stuff both counts as reverting.  Have you not seen REVERT? If not, it is about time. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As you probably know (because when I do edit in that area I often see are active in it), I only edit in this area on occasion; 1 RR doesn't impact the vast majority of the articles I edit. So maybe I need a refresher.  As I understand it, you are saying that we only worry about 1RR within any one article.  OK ... if that's so, then you certainly haven't violated it here, by deleting the same map from three different articles (once each).  In 24 hours.  But as I understand it, you are saying that my first addition of the map in any one article counts as a map (we are agreed of course that my second addition of the map, reverting your deletion of it, is a revert).  Thing is, I'm reading the rules, and see them as saying just the opposite.


 * "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." But when I add an image, I'm not undoing the action of another. Is there an interpretation that says otherwise? If that were the case, and not only reverts, but rather any edit to an article, were counted, it would be a different rule. Perhaps I'm confused -- if you can point me to something that says the first edit is a revert, where I add an image that was never in the article, I could understand that interpretation.  But from what I can see, that's not at all a revert, because I am not undoing the action of another when I add an image.


 * Plus -- on Dura, don't you agree that I didn't add an image? If so, you can't seriously be upset that I addressed the title issue in a manner that addresses your voiced concern? Maybe you might take another look, and let me konw. Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, you did not re-add the image in Dura (my bad), (though  I´m not happy with  the divisions as they are now: Biblical period, then straight  to Tenth century....as if there wasn´t anything in between?) ( BUT: you haven´t broken the 1RR here, AFAIK, you have only broken the 1RR on the two other articles) You are are reading "revert" far, far, too narrowly,  look at some of the latest 1RR cases! (say, this)  Please understand: Adding material, or removing, both counts towards 1RR. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing up that Dura was a mis-understanding.
 * So, as I understand it, the issue is now whether when one adds an image for the very first time ... whether that is a revert. Which, if it were, would mean that -- after a subsequent deletion of the image (by you), a revert of your deletion by me would be a "2nd" revert.
 * My understanding is that the first act -- the addition of the image, for the first time, into the article, is not a revert. Admittedly, I've not devoted as high a percentage of my time on wp to editing in the 1RR area as it appears you have.  But reading the policy, I don't see it saying what you assert.
 * And the example you gave is different -- it involves two clear changes to other editors' edits by undoing their edits. The addition of the image in the first place, in contrast, was not an undo of an edit.
 * But if I'm told that you are right and I am wrong, I will happily self-revert on those 2 articles. Let's see what input we get on the policy talk page here. One sysop has opined already; and kudos to him, btw ... he and I have had some sharp disagreements in the past, but he did not let that impact his honest view. Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As of
Interesting to chat to you about English usage. In case you haven't already done so, can you be mindful of the closer's comment here? You took that to AN/I awfully quickly. Next time, please consider a longer discussion first. There's enough drama on the project already without whipping up more. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I considered the circumstances before bringing it to AN/I. The rate of changes being made by the editor.  The fact that I had attempted discussion.  The fact that despite discussion, and examples, and my request that he desists, the dozens-of-changes-per-day were continuing unabated. The fact that I don't have the tools to address the mass-reverts needed. And, considering that, I thought AN/I appropriate, as I needed its input. The closer's comments were accurate as of the time of the closing -- because, as you know, the editor changed his behavior ... but only after the AN/I was filed.  This is one time that an AN/I worked, and prevented further needless drama -- and the thoughtful discussion was all drama-free, and contrary to your characterization no drama was "whipped up" ... we all know what that sort of event looks like, and this wasn't it. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, all fair comments. Where do you think the content discussion about the matter could best be concluded? --John (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt there may be more than one place. But the locus of the current discussion seems most appropriate at the moment.  The AN/I pointed to the editor's talk page, allowing the discussion to take place there (as it did), so a summation of the consensus view of the discussion would I would think naturally take place there.  Best. Epeefleche (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Fleadh Nua
Can you please take this to WP:AfD instead? Sorry to make more work for you, but this may be controversial. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll first trim some uncited/challenged cruft, and tag it for notability. Let's see if someone comes along to evidence notability.  If not, I'll consider PROD or AfD. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

International Islamic Relief Organization
Please keep International Islamic Relief Organization on your watch list. It was removed from Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government along with other deletions two months ago without anybody noticing. I have reverted the edits by the anonymous user. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Excelsior Recordings
Hi, I like to draw your attention to the article Excelsior Recordings where I am in conflict with another editor. Root of the conflict is the adding of a significant list on artists without own article. Now the other guy is falsely templating me for edit warring, it seems time to call in some back up. Knowing that you do a lot of work on lists and on music, you seem a useful guy to approach. I hope you want to shed your light on the matter. The Banner talk 11:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ynet survey of the greatest 200 Israelis
Hello Epeefleche,

Although I thank you for your good intentions of adding to the biographies of the 200 Israelis on Ynet's list of the greatest 200 Israelis the fact that they appeared on the list, I found the mentioning of the appearance on the list to be inappropriate in a biographical article. Here are my two major issues Bottom line: the survey was done as part of the entertainment section of the web site, not news. It therefore does not belong in encyclopedic biographical articles. You saw what happened when articles about the surveys were created: WP:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis and WP:Articles for deletion/200 greatest Israelis. Again, please accept my apologies for removing the effort you went through to put that information in 200 biographical articles, but I believe that placing this information, which was created in the name of fun and games, in a serious biographical articles actually reduces the quality of the biographical articles. Sincerely, Yonideworst (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Anybody can create a list. Unless it's mentioned by others, it's considered Original Research and therefore not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Unlike a prize such as the Israel Prize or the Nobel Prize that are mentioned by numerous secondary sources unrelated to the prize organizing committee, I have not found any secondary source reporting on the list
 * 2) But the bigger issue is the significance of the surveys. In order for the survey to be valid, the sample has to be random. Because this was a survey that was limited to just people who visit the YNET site, the population is NOT random. Therefore, it is not a survey of who the public thinks are the best Israelis, but rather who YNET readers think are the best Israelis, making the survey even less meaningful.
 * Thank you for gracing my page with such a long and detailed post in your 277th post ever.
 * You seem familiar. Have you ever edited wikipedia under a different name or IP address? Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt about it, you are a far more prolific contributor to Wikipedia than I am. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that it has very clear policy guidelines, so disputes should focus on adherence to the policy guidelines, and not on individual Wikipedian experience, or lack there of. Yonideworst (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem familiar. Have you ever edited wikipedia under a different name or IP address? Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One of those very clear policy guidelines is that editors must declare their editing history, so could you please answer Epeefleche's question.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll record here why I am deleting these "n-th greatest Israel" items, which frankly I have found embarrassing since they first appeared. (1) The poll was extremely unscientific and did not even accurately survey Ynet readers, since it is well known that allowing subjects to self-select strongly biases the results. (2) The choice of which people were on the list at all was mostly made by the newspaper. (3) Everybody past about rank 20 would have gotten very few votes, and over rank 100 barely a handful, so those positions are meaningless even within the overall sample. (4) Polls like this are severely skewed by social media, where people urge others to vote for their favorites musicians or whatever. (5) The report is incorrect, eg. "Leah was voted the 152nd-greatest Israeli of all time" — in fact nobody voted Lea 152nd-greatest anything. The actual meaning is that Leah obtained the 152nd fewest votes for being one of the 3 greatest Israelis of all time, which is quite different (and even less interesting). (6) As stated by the admin who deleted the articles on this poll, there has been precious little coverage of this poll by secondary sources (for this poll, Ynet is a primary source). Actually it was just one of those bits of ephemeral fun that newspapers have sometimes and certainly did not deserve to grace 200 wikipedia pages. Zerotalk 11:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Bare url source and no page number on book source- added to a good article
Hi Epeefleche. I think you added this bare URL source to a Good article (aphthous stomatitis):. Do you feel like filling it out properly, it being a GA and all...

Also this book I cannot see any preview of online:



Did you see any preview? It looks like the source was found with a google book search of "rembrandt" toothpaste "canker sores"

If you know the page number, that would also be v helpful since the article is moving to FA soon. Many thanks, 188.29.81.212 (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi -- are you editing under more than one identity? Thanks. I will try to look for the info you asked about in the next few days. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a dynamic IP these days. Many thanks for offer to look up requested information. 188.29.81.212 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from an IP number, have you also edited under a name? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I now only edit as a "dynamic" IP because it focuses me on content building and insulates me from a lot of the nonsense on WP. Not true dynamic ofc as no proxy, but the IP address is re-assigned every few hours so I don't usually have to read talk page messages unless I happen to check back again.
 * If you can't find the page number of that people's pharmacy book, it could be safely dropped from the article since the newspaper source (which I can read online) will support all the content of that section. But at the FA reviewers are bound to ask for page number of a book source. 92.40.89.201 (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As to the preview, the page is 122. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from an IP number, have you also edited under a name? Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

None of your business. 188.29.94.194 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Cornwall_Centre_(Regina,_Saskatchewan)
I believe that you may be interested in this topic.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Campus Watch
Not a reliable source for living people, along with FrontPageMag and its other Horowitz clone sites. Known for fringe opinions, etc. and is effectively a self-published source by a partisan interest group. As with ZMag or AlterNet or similar sites, it is usable for citing its own opinions in relevant articles, but not for claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * North -- that may well be; I haven't checked those refs, so I couldn't say.
 * The problem I pointed out to you is that, at least in your last few edits, you repeatedly deleted material that was appropriate. You also repeatedly did it either with: a) completely misleading edit summaries; or b) incorrect edit summaries, such as indicated that a clear RS was not an RS. That's not appropriate. Furthermore, please stop deleting dead refs just because the link is dead. They should be left as-is; a bot may fix them. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the dead link at your request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks.  Here is some background for you on the subject: WP:BADLINK. Epeefleche (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And actually, I googled it and was able to fix the broken link. I'll try to be a little less hasty next time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Please consider my comments above on the other issues, as well.  Best of luck. Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

School AFDs
Hi Epeefleche,

Seeing as each and every School AFD has been closed as Redirect, Have you ever thought about just redirecting them yourself?,

I don't have any issues with you nominating them its just I thought it may be quicker redirecting yourself that's all :)

Regards, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Davey. I have.  My problem is two-fold.  One, some editors -- even at the recent AfDs -- disagree.  Second, from time to time the !vote ends up in the school being kept.  Given that, I'm not so Bold as to redirect on my own -- without any other editors looking at the redirect proposal (as happens at speedy and at PROD). I understand that others are so Bold -- and I don't disagree with them having a different view.  But I can see, under the circumstances -- and especially since the school AfDs are never closed as a SNOW as best I can recall -- a Keep !voter arguing that such a redirect is a stealth move, and therefore not as appropriate as a speedy or PROD (which go nowhere) or AfD. All that said, if another editor wishes to redirect, or to close AfDs as Snows, that's not something I have an issue with. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be bold if you don't want to. I have no problem with your AfD nominations. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest I suppose not being bold on something like these are good as no doubt you'd get one tool who would simply revert!,


 * Anyway was just a suggestion :)
 * Happy Editing,
 * Regards, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. Frankly -- I wish there were a more streamlined way.  For example, making Speedy or Prod available ... the closing sysop can always then redirect.  That would allow for at least one other editor seeing the change.  Another improvement would be if people were to SNOW close AfDs in the schools area, that are clear redirects.  Either or both of those would be an improvement. Or, a bolder editor could redirect primary schools and elementary schools that don't appear to warrant an article.  Best. Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A bolder editor might (I certainly  do, but  only  when I  come across them by  chance), but  they  probably  have better things to  do  than scour  the cats for nn but  albeit  inoffensive school articles lurking  in  the depths  of the encyclopedia. Such  articles are generally  created by  SPA who  are hardly  likely  to  return to  WP  and complain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Useful template
Per my response, I would invite you to check back in a few days and see what you think. In the interim, though: have you seen gender? -> . Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki. I'm happy to not post in that discussion for a few days (other than a short post I will make now, responding to one part of your comment/query).  And I'm not stalking your edits (hopefully you are not stalking mine, as we've discussed), so I don't expect I'll have any independent views on changes. Though I imagine others may do so, and may have views.  Thanks for keeping an open ear.  As to gender, have I used the wrong one for you? If so, please understand that it was not intentional, take "he" as meaning "he or she" as the context may require, and feel free to call me "she" if you like. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)