User talk:FeatherPluma/Archive 2

hey
i am digging your editing. but i edit a kind of strange mix of things .. are you kind of following me around? i am not threatened or freaked out or anything, am just curious to see you pop after me a few times. like i said, i like what you do. :) Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * but then again you have an eclectic list anyway. who knows how you come across things. who knows how i do! so could be just random. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jytdog: No, not at all. I recently found the med artic changes page tho. That we hv sim interests beyond med sci is seriously coincidental, but again a pattern may emerge b/c I look at new pages (using that list) or recently changed pages disproportionately. I tend to move rather slowly and to reference very heavily, and to macerate on an individual page or several concurrent pages for a while. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * gotcha. like i said, i am glad to see you when we overlap. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi, Namecheapblues: Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Primary effusion lymphoma
 * added links pointing to Nucleus and EMA


 * Plasmablastic lymphoma
 * added a link pointing to EBV

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done FeatherPluma (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear,

It was not my intention to break any rule. It was my first edit, thus the mistake happened. I will surely more careful next time to prevent my edit from being removed.

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomany79 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Biofrequency Chip
Hi FeatherPluma. Thank you for your contributions to the Biofrequency Chip article. Best. Aenfinger (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC):
 * Hi, Aenfinger. You are welcome, and thank you for this very gracious note. I went through the text in detail to make sure I didn't find something that would sway me toward a change of opinion at AfD. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you!

Bomany79 (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC) 

Re: Chrisoula Christou
Re your message: The article creator recreated the article after I deleted it. This version is much better than the first as there is some claim towards notability, though a little tenuous. I removed your CSD tag. I think it would be best to take it to AfD for now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ribosomopathy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TERC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Mestizos in Guatemala
 * added a link pointing to Guatemalan


 * Ribosomopathy
 * added a link pointing to T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia


 * White Guatemalan
 * added a link pointing to Indigenous

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All done FeatherPluma (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hello, Erp. Thank you ! FeatherPluma (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well deserved. See also. JimRenge (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, JimRenge. And thank you, appreciate the feedback ! FeatherPluma (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Bfpage &#124;leave a message 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Cleveland Clinic
I'm trying to figure out why there is so much blanking going on in this article recently. Do you have a clue? Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Bfpage. No clue. Personally I am looking at it because it was tagged on the page that lists med article changes, and it showed several IP activities. Upon looking at it, it comes across as promotionally tilted. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're doing a great job cleaning it up. Let me know if you need any help.  I've issued the 'first' warning to the user who keeps blanking content, and the next time it happens, they can get a second warning.  If you know how to do that, please do and if you want me to do it, let me know.  Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 19:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Munir Ahmad Khan
Great edit summaries! . Thanks for the laughs! Those odd links and piping are very distinctive, no? Now, maybe I can get that shut-eye I need! - 220  of  Borg 01:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Hi,  Blue Rasberry , Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Personally I would have preferred that both the USNWR and the other rankings both be omitted for the policy based reasons I've given on the Talk page, but the content is perhaps more reflective of a mid-road view now. I suggest that if we have to have these data, their limitations and informational contextualization needs to be touched on briefly. Using the material you had organized (thanks) I've made the explained edits, and I will let others take it up from here forward. FeatherPluma (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that ratings need context and there is no context for the ratings currently on the page. I worry about giving context because it seems WP:UNDUE. I am still thinking about this. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, We are caught between needing to either hold a pure line by redacting all this data as failing WP:RS or failing WP:UNDUE (redaction on account of criticizing the data sources, or their subjectively assessed weighted impact - as I say this was my first inclination, and purist preference - but which I now think will rapidly degenerate into painful tooth pulling detail with the various dentists we will meet on the road) or alternatively incorporating the numbers but pointing clearly but nimbly to their limitations. Have another look because I think I managed to incorporate all the relevant proferred data from both sides, and provide considerable context of limitations without getting unduly detailed or emotionally engaged, and I was pleased that I was able to do so using sources that are reasonably current and professional. I judge that the ratings now have adjacent, adequate, WP:NPOV, reliably-sourced contextual shaping as of this iteration. Let me know what you think, perhaps after taking a compass read or two with your colleague as well. Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the page seems to be stable for a while now, and I am getting ready to archive this thread. I wonder if your colleague is satisfied enough with the present article wording? There were some aspects to trying to think through how to deal with this that were interesting. Let me know if you think there's something I might enjoy looking at again, now or at some point. Otherwise, I won't push back in to this article. Thanks. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

James 3
Thank you for your input and corrections. JohnThorne (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, JohnThorne: And thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Royals
Wedding of Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, and Sofia Hellqvist.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks; happy editing. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I read the RfC and its responses so far. I have no immediate particular input that is policy based. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Chagai-I
Hi FeatherPluma.

It was about 2.5 years ago you made some biggish edits to Chagai-I. Perhaps you might be interested in some of the latest edits there? 220  of  Borg 14:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, 220 Looked quickly and edited a bit; may look again if more time. P.S. Plagiarized from your use of WP color logo to enhance this page's previously bland logo. It was futile to resist the urge to upgrade. FeatherPluma (talk) FeatherPluma (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi back, I didn't get a 'ping' that you mentioned me here! I usually use . Yes "Resistance is Futile!", but I stole that 'logo' from someone myself.
 * I saw that you edited there. But, there is more 'fun' going on there again. I queried about normal quote rules etc at the Teahouse and then brought up the issue of the same editor altering sourced quotations there too. Consensus there seems to be that it's a big non-no. Didn't stop that editor though. When I last reverted them, after giving a very detailed description on their talkpage of what they were doing that they shouldn't, less than 4 minutes later a new IP turns up at Chagai-I. They used very misleading edit summaries, and  then  revert some of the quotations back  to the inaccurate wording with another misleading summary. See here and then here where the IP actually changes the quotes. I have therefore made a WP:RFPP here. - user:220 of Borg  of  Borg 20:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to acknowledge your close, helpful attention to these details and also thank you for pointing to . FeatherPluma (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I think the editor has stopped their shenanigans, for now. This sort of editing really annoys me, especially when they can't be bothered to explain. Came across an editor once, ≈87,000 edits never/rarely communicated, like this person. IIRC turned out to be making un-sourced BLPvio edits everywhere, and slso socking, got banned.. 220  of  Borg 20:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then again who do these edits remind you of? 220  of  Borg 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree - thoroughly disheartening. However, on reading all the changes carefully I can't quite work out if this is very clever stupidity and rather stupid cleverness - if purposeful, leaving this unclear may be part of their ploy (I really need to stop reading MI6 stuff). Anyway, it has pulled me in and I have started sniffing at the referencing more closely, which turns out on first approach to be unsatisfactory. The article has never had adequate grammar or readability and there are several sentences that are of imprecise haziness. I am not in the mood for a big overhaul of this article right now, but I will get back to it. More to follow, I would suspect. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good morning! (though a rather late one for me). Just booted up my PC and saw that you were editing per my above message. Sorry for 'dragging' you into this. This editor can obviously speak English, but I wish they would communicate rather than the very occasional edit summary. I'm pretty sure they are editing while logged out and using very misleading edit summaries from IPs that almost all geolocate to one area. If it keeps up an SPI or AN/I report may be necessary.
 * • I'm seriously wondering if they might be a blocked/banned user or just an unknown sleeper sock of one? (see edits by )
 * Per above, moving back in the edit history, I just found that a lot of 'Chagai-II' text (that's the second Pakistani test) was previously at Kharan Desert, until removed in June 2012 here. If it was the same editor that added it there, they obviously don't understand what is appropriate for article 'specificity'  and seem to be, almost, spamming the 'glories' of Pakistan's nuclear tests on multiple pages. And the most recent IP edit to 'Kharan' looks, strangely familiar, as in multiple blue links to barely related pages, like  linking 'mountainous' to Mountain ranges of Pakistan. Oh dear that took a long time! I started soon after I was 'pinged', but was running about and kept finding 'evidence' of my suspicions.  - 220  of  Borg 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaah! Aaaaaah! (in case you missed the first cry!) They are still at it, look!!  220  of  Borg 04:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your related edit is here 220  of  Borg 05:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oy! I added that  template you removed here! >;-/ (mock anger). Doesn't matter!  - 220  of  Borg 05:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the template was partially dysfunctional then (some type of technical glitch) I redacted its usage, although this can be on a temporary basis.
 * Following on your general notice on the article Talk page, and taking account of the situational profile of serial edits, I added a specific request on an editor's Talk page, pointing to a request for a proper explanation on the article Talk page, as well as articulating a plan of action. I realise that there are additional text problems, but I think it may be best to approach these in sequence, giving the editor ample room to explain themself. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate, I had a look at your message, too polite I think! However, I am becoming more suspicious as time goes on. The editing behaviour I am seeing is very similar to an editor that I had never come across, until I saw their name in the edit histories of multiple Pakistan nuclear related pages, an editor who is now banned. Possibly not related, but see this on page 27 at "Uranium infrastructure", and compare it with Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. Almost exactly the same (esp. here before I edited it), not 100% sure when/who added it, but will look further. Now I have to get some more sleep (UzT), so gone for a 3-4  hours at least. Have 'fun'! - 220  of  Borg 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OMG! It speaks! PeerBaba has actually replied to you  at Chagai-I's talkpage. I have already commented. They haven't addressed the issue of their "eccentric" caption. 220  of  Borg 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up. The actual source for the editor's turn of phrase may be a conscious or subconscious harkening to "When Mountains Move – The Story of Chagai" . That said, at this point I have become somewhat skeptical of the image's claimed provenance on its upload summary page as a Government of Pakistan Press Release. A google search of actual Government of Pakistan web pages was unforthcoming (although perhaps the search tool may not function perfectly), and my other attempts to confirm verifiability have been unsuccessful. Please see the article's Talk page. Sometimes where there is smoke there is fire. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifically to that image, did you note who uploaded it? Fill in the blanks here: Iro_b_y11 and win a set of steak knives engraved with the Wikipedia logo!  220  of  Borg 18:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I notice that you have been devoting extra time to trying to clean up this disaster of an article, and I wanted to express appreciation for that intense effort. If non-constructive reversion of these efforts continues, whether competency-based or otherwise, I am in favor of sanctions. The editor's reply does not address the problem properly, but I do see a tiny ray of rational connexion within it. I provided a very detailed response to the editor's reply concerning the image caption, but obviously the work product now needs to get to the article page, and not pander further to any strange unencyclopedic notions. Accordingly, I tagged the article as being under (re)construction. I would think that we could get it cleaned up fairly quickly if non-constructive reversion discontinues. Again, expressing thanks and appreciation. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to feel like it's a big waste of time, I (and you) have better things to do both in real life and on WP than try to 'help' or educate someone who is likely a sockpuppet who will be blocked, then come back with another sock or IP to revert to their preferred version of  Chagi-I or related pages. I've been through this before with editors blatantly lying "No I'm not so and so who was banned no." "No I'm not that editor who was banned for recreating their Autobiography six++ times, But he is a very famous person in his village and deserves a wiki page. That is why I created his page" (3 times using different accounts and multiple IPs). This seems to be more common with Indian subcontinent editors than another, but that is just my perception. (See Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil/Archive for  the one I was thinking of, or see Ali Raza Jaffari and its' draft Draft:Ali Raza Khan Jaffari for a recent potential example.)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I was a bit more off-line yesterday and today than normal. (likely tomorrow too, at least in the morning (pre- 05:00 UTC) when I am limited to my tablet.) We should get a few more 'expert' editors involved, but I think the Pakistan Wikpedians Noticeboard is pretty dead. I think  on the Indian side may have been involved on some related pages, if not this exact page.


 * Re a possible (becoming likely) SPI, you may also be interested in my and s' 'investigation' on his talk-page, latest diff. here. He listed 4 IPs that are likely related and I found another 8. All making similar edits or reverts, and all geolocating to Nevada, especially Los Vegas.
 * Another thing I found out IIRC, is that apparently all Indo-Pak pages are subject to ARBCom Discretionary sanctions (A decision dating from 2007, nearly 8 year ago!). that means only one revert per 24 hour period is allowed (Have to check that, per Sitush's comment) That's another possible path for  'whacking' the editor, though it could boomerang on me/us. See the warning template,  . (You know I started this message over 12 hours ago! Did some other things in the meantime and am now finishing it at 4 am AEDST!) - 220  of  Borg 18:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the Chagai tests, sorry. If I have edited any related article then it would probably have been gnoming. I don;t think the WPIPA sanctions include a 1RR restriction, although of course such a restriction could be imposed on any contributor under the umbrella of those sanctions. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it may have been a BLP of a scientist, or test location, I can't recall. Anyway, I have dropped the appropriate template on PeerBabas talk-page. 220  of  Borg 20:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Related pages
I was going to put this on Chagai-I talk after your last comment there but thought it better here. There is a 'new' editor at Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. I think they may be related to PeerBaba in 'some' way. And, I see that you have 'seen' them at Project-706. Btw and  should work as 'pings'. Somewhat shorter than what you have used. 220  of  Borg 18:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I rather like: The best is yet to be, The last of life, for which the first was made:''"
 * Hi, : I took Chagai-I from 51967 to 32219 bytes; I have consolidated 75 references to less than 40. It would be nice to edit it further, but I am a little tired of the topic for now. I will make a few more clean up edits to Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction and to Project-706, and then move on from Pakistan for a while. I have some perceptions about the significant time it takes to undo thick layers of overlinked and verbally repetitive text. I hope the "new" editors will not regurgitate things in quite the same tendentious style. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel! Keeping rampant 'nationalistic' editing in check is very tiring, and I am several hours overdue for sleep as well. Did you notice 60s singer Cilla Black has died? 220  of  Borg 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A sad moment, indeed. Would but time passed less, and less methodically, for it wistful maketh us. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Would but time passed less, and less methodically, for it wistful maketh us", now who said that? I 'Goggled' it without result.
 * "''Grow old along with me!
 * Rabbi ben Ezra, by Robert Browning. 220  of  Borg 05:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Did AKK was born after his father's retirement?
Did AKK was born after his father's retirement? unsigned edit at 2015-07-28T15:29:50‎ by 103.230.105.29 (talk)‎
 * Sorry, I do not know. You may need to ask the cable guy. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pol Le Gourrierec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Interlude (interactive video)
This is a procedural transparency note. This article has had a long history on the AfC pathway but had not advanced from draft to mainspace. I followed the various AfC recommendations, step by step. I trimmed from 16683 bytes to 12760 bytes, a good proportion of which is hidden text, that can probably be removed. I also rearranged and reorganized the text elements. Having extensively followed all of the AfC suggestions, rather than submitting through another AfC review, I advanced the article to mainspace as it now seems to me to be reasonable for dissemination. This will also avail it of a greater use pool for any upgrading needed. Because I sidestepped further AfC input, I hatted the text as a new article, for procedural transparency and also to promote review. I have placed this section here on this Talk page for potential input regarding the process change, that I made, away from the AfC pathway. I propose to remove the hidden text once there has been an opportunity for mainspace comments. This note is not about any proposed changes to the article itself so much as a placeholder for any concerns regarding the process I followed. I do not see people doing this much, but my searching didn't find a prohibition either. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Natural skin care page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=677533731 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F677533731%7CNatural skin care%5D%5D Ask for help])

Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Natural skin care page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=677682276 your edit] caused a DOI error (help) and an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F677682276%7CNatural skin care%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * Done FeatherPluma (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

your comment on levels of evidence

 * You are welcome! Thanks for letting me know you saw the comment. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eg (Kristiansand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kvadraturen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

About (Die Wahrheit über Hänsel und Gretel...
If you want it deleted, just blank the page and then place Db-g7 on it. (I removed your entry from WP:RFD since it was malformed, but per your statement, it should be eligible for G7 speedy deletion anyways.) Steel1943  (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. That's what I've done before for this kind of situation but the guideline seemed to read differently today. Sorry about the malformed entry, I was wrapping up loose ends in a rush. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Glad to help! Steel1943  (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681055324 your edit] to Batavia, Dutch East Indies may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * of Aldermen) was formed in 1620 and the local rural administration (  lang-nl|College van Heemraden) was formed in 1664 but became fully functional in 1682.<ref name=
 * Already caught that. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681678574 your edit] to Batavia, Dutch East Indies may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Already caught that too. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Small word of advice
Or rather a tiny request. Could you in the future please make edits in one go, rather than saving every edit separately each time? If you're covering multiple sections, consider using the edit button above the page title. The following template is more directed towards new users (which you are definitely not), but it contains some useful arguments against micro-editing. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Please don't be offended; it's just somewhat inconvenient to work with huge lists of edits in the page history. Thanks! - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I am not offended at all with your nice request. Why on earth would you imagine I might be? Granular editing is generally thought to be considerably easier to comprehend as the thought chain emerges quickly by rapidly comparing the diffs to the summaries on the history tree page. I acknowledge your opinion.  FeatherPluma (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD
You may be interested in Articles for deletion/Oktopost.  DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thank you for the collegial notification. I've thought for a few days where I want to go with this. The short answer is you are right. I will place a brief comment on the AfD page in support of deletion. I dutifully reread the Times of Israel article. Looking carefully at how the content is put together and at the sourcing used leads without reservation to your point. It is essentially a press release, although it is not marked up explicitly. I did look for fresh sources for Oktopost but like you found nothing of note, including in book sources. Policy speaks to deletion. So, up to a certain level, that's the final answer. --- On the other hand, as an intellectual exercise, here is a different take. I put this here as the AfD page need not get cluttered with this real world, swampy reality. We have articles on 14th century Catholic bishops, notable by policy. We have articles even on coadjutors who were denoted as being the planned successor of the bishop, but who died before taking up the earmarked appointment. Again, by policy. Policy, not intellectual rigor, defines notability. And what we have here, I think, is that the "bigger entities" in the same general market segment, such as Hootsuite, Sprout Social and Spredfast have articles which are fundamentally no better referenced. These articles do have longer reference lists, but the individual references (I looked at these quickly, one by one) seem to be problematic. (Paradoxically, the strongest, seemingly independent review of Sprout Social is the PC World article tucked in under Further reading.) A thematic remediation of this domain of articles would bring them all together, but there isn't an accepted, simple conceptual vocabulary, such as "Social media aggregator / analyzer". These products are happy to point to each other but then claim distinctions, some of which are probably hairsplitting nothingness (but we don't have WP:RS that speak to that). Oktopost claims for example to be "built from the ground up for a B2B focus" (whatever that means exactly), rather than B2C. Perhaps all the hand wringing we do as a community over this particular type of technical non-notability might be the principal contributing spark for overt and less overt paid editing ("the Elance / Upwork etc. effect"). This is the knock-on effect of our policy of rigidly non-original commensalism. Community commentary has sensed that our policy is also indirectly supporting the sources we use ("the Elsevier effect"). Current proposals to address these two unintended effects may or may not go forward, and if adopted, may or may not alleviate them. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I have changed my input at AfD. I added another reference to the article, as indicated at AfD. I acknowledge that the length and scope of the new source's material is perhaps insufficient to salvage the article. I understand you may dislike the article in toto, but I will also look again tomorrow to see if I can identify further sources and to see if I can pinpoint specific content that is unduly promotional. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Miss World too
I borrowed your good work and put it here: and hope you agree. thanks. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. For sure, no problem. I made a minor change from "Miss Earth" to "Miss World" as I thought you would be OK with that, (even altho it's under your name) but then changed it back when I registered your preamble when I took off the blinkers. Consistent with this being original research there are several errors and discrepancies, such as the inelegant tabulation of both 111. Rhodesia and of 112. Rhodesia & Nyasaland. These tables are meaningless in the worst possible ways (plural). FeatherPluma (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally meaningless, like the judges list, medal tables and Historical Significance junk. (See Miss World 2013) Happy if you want to edit my comments on a nom-I trust you. Legacypac (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI
FYI and  Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD Typo
A couple of places in your most recent post to the Years of Death AfD you've typed GNG where I think you mean GRG. David in DC (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx so muchly; I got on it b/c of your heads up !! FeatherPluma (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. It's a mistake I've made before, too. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=701351510 your edit] to Lascaux may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 76}} Most of the major images have been painted onto the walls using mineral pigments, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-12224.pdf "Discovery of Unusual Minerals in
 * Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lascaux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montignac. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sumita Misra (January 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sumita Misra and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Sumita_Misra Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Sumita_Misra reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting (for the future when I probably forget what this was all about) that this was a resubmission on behalf of the original editor, done to provide a "safe glider landing"; the resubmission was couched politely as failing WP:N. Templates sometimes are not the way to get the message just right. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the neutral invite. I read the page with interest. I agree with much of what is being said ("on all sides" !). I do not have a specific new viewpoint to bring to bear, although I will follow the comments again in a day or two. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC):Done. Looked again. Nothing to add. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!
Thank you. This is a very kind gesture indeed which is acknowledged and deeply appreciated. (I hope my turn of phrase has not been abrasive. There are some things I am good at, but there are also situations where I have occasionally been told by others that I come across as being earnest.) On your closing comment, a friendly consensus !!! FeatherPluma (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are the rules we play by. And we play nice!  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are full of pleasant surprises. You really did earn the sweet treat.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 03:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Wolfgang Luthe Reference errors on 26 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:Wolfgang Luthe page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=701716504 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F701716504%7CDraft:Wolfgang Luthe%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * Done. Took a while. Sort of really basic article that I am chipping away at on occasion. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Radoljub Kanjevac A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for a very nice message. Also, throughout the work, I appreciated your thoughtful encouragement. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill / February 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the policy and I carefully thought about it before deploying the corrective action. The problem is you used a mainspace template, which, for your future reference, is deployed on the article page. Your conceptual contribution was fine, and I left that completely intact, but you used a format that forced the Talk page to FOREVER show the message you added unless somebody (me) detemplated your addition. I made as minimal a change to your input as was feasible to remedy the situation. If this brief answer leaves you confused or still irritated, I will be very happy to help you get a better grip on the issue. Happy editing. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification, will avoid using templates on talk pages in the future. Template used was with few=true (i.e. few links). Re-introduced a non-template version that expresses point. Have a nice day. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Further checking has now pinpointed an underlying systems issue here. Unfortunately, although you did indeed add the "few" modifier to the template coding, as is explicitly suggested on the relevant page, the orphan template does not actually currently respond to that parameter. I discovered this by checking your code, and then going on to test the template myself in a sandbox preview. So despite your "few", the template rendered a "no links" message. You can check that in the page history view. My initial response was to the template rendering as seen on the Talk page; I did see your section header "few" but the penny didn't clunk. I will now edit my comment to conform to the message you intended and which you have now reformatted. I am glad you reached out to question the situation. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Zacapa 20160218
Hi. Can you move Zacapa (municipality) to Zacapa, Zacapa, so it's consistent with all other city/municipality/department capitals, please? This is the only one out of place. Regards, --Nice warm places (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Thank you for asking. It's a good enough question and I put some thought now into what we should do. What I find, however, is that of the 22 departments in Guatemala, 12 are in the same municipality-department name-sharing doublet situation as this article. I find that only one presently follows the convention that you state is otherwise universal. I looked at all 12, and Jalapa, Jalapa is the only article on a Guatemalan municipality/city that shares its name with its Department which follows the style you suggest. WP:NCCS does seem to approach this country by country, although Guatemala does not itself have specific guidelines. While there is some support for your suggestion in the WP:NCCS guideline, there are several other factors. First, WP:NCCS makes it clear that the style is ultimately discretionary. Second, although conformity of style is spoken to, there is also support for "doing what English does". Despite the song, English seems to me to tilt toward "New York City" rather than "New York, New York". Third, Jalapa, Jalapa is actually an exception based on a specific circumstance: its name is shared with multiple entities around the world and so this form was more completely disambiguating than other options. Fourth, presumably to attain conformity with the plurality of other similar Guatemalan city-Department "doublets", this article and the associated redirects were changed from Zacapa, Zacapa to Zacapa in 2005. WP:NCCS also speaks to a preference inter alia for conformity but makes perfectly clear that the issue is a case basis decision. Fifth, and most convincingly, the short-term primary issue at hand for this article since the edit by PaizSosa edit at 2015-10-28T15:29:45 (or before, depending on how the content is weighed) has been the mix up of municipality/city and Department. Ultimately, moving back to Zacapa may be reasonable, as the long-term issue at hand would then be the plurality of style for Guatemalan, or possibly Central American, places in this situation. It also avoids the issue of municipality versus city that potentially otherwise arises. However, I am not going to do this for at least several weeks so that the distinction between municipality and Department can properly take seed. I will make a note to come back and reconsider making that change in a few weeks. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * . You piqued my curiosity. So I looked at Belize, where there are no identically named towns/districts; Costa Rica, where none of 5 city/province doublets of 7 total provinces follows the convention you tout as universal; El Salvador, where 1 of 9 doublets, out of 14 departments total, follows that double name style; Guatemala, where 1 of 12 of 22; Hondurus, where 1 doublet of 4 of a total of 18 follows the "universal" style; Nicaragua, where none of 10 doublets of a total of 15 follow the "universal" style; Panama has 0 of 2 doublets of a total of "10 plus 3" provinces and regions. Based on WP:NCCS, and as a result of this review, no, I am not going to rename it Zacapa, Zacapa. The 2005 article and redirect name changes had it conform with the plurality; I will certainly consider taking it back from Zacapa (municipality) to Zacapa, after a seed period. This definitively answers your interesting question and so I am closing out this discussion unless you have new points to make. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you FeatherPluma, very much appreciated!--Nice warm places (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)