User talk:Garchy/Archive 2

Alien Megastructure
If you're going to change the db, please do it properly. A10 is not a valid criterion unless you specify the article. I looked for an article on alien structures and couldn't find one. If I had found one I would have redirected the article rather than asking for the speedy. And please note that I did not call this vandalism, as I made clear on the talk page. WP:G3 refers to "blatant and obvious misinformation" which this appears to be. I have no problem with changing the speedy to a more obviously appropriate one, but I couldn't see what that would be. Meters (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like another user took care of it and redirected it to KIC 8462852 - I should have taken more time and done that myself than simply changing the code in haste, apologies for the confusion. Garchy (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. If I had found that article I would have redirected myself. Meters (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Green Line (MBTA)
The article Green Line (MBTA) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Green Line (MBTA) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Bossa nova
Hi I'm Josiah Kok. Sorry for late reply I'm actually new to Wikipedia but few months ago I was reading the bossa nova page. And I realize Francis Lai didn't compose any bossa nova,  He was a film score composer. So I dedicated to remove his name from the page. Thank you for telling me about the edit summary. Quick question how do I message anyone? (So can I edit anything on Wikipedia next time ?). Thank Josiah Kok (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to your message
I did add reliabale references... please refer to the following text... ==In Christianity== The Holy Bible tells of how the virgin Mary is blessed to believe in the fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord. In the Holy Gospel, this is described in the book of Luke... specifically Luke 1:44-45 ... Makaria is translated from the Greek μακαρία ... Jesus Christ's mother is extremely blessed according to these written words. THANK YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.126.225 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello - my issue isn't with the fact that you are using the Holy Bible as a reference, but rather that you did not fill out the references correctly. Please refer to WP:CITEHOW for information on citing literature correctly (publisher information, specific year and specific edition, etc.). Thank you! Garchy (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

AIV Helperbot
Regarding your edit summary here, the Helperbot does not remove declined reports.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the clarification, I just learned something new! Garchy (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for Paolippe
Thx a lot! --Paolippe (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikihounding
Go wiki hound and wikilawyer somewhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.251 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talk page comments. Also, spend your time constructively editing and you won't have this problem. Garchy (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guadiaro (town), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cab and A-7. 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) 11:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for The Help
I appreciate the help with Martha Mayer Erlebacher page. One of my favorite things about editing Wikipedia is knowing that there are other Wikipedians to help when I get stuck. --KatieBU (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

 * Once a template has been removed - by *anyone* - it is never appropriate to re-add it.  Continuing to do so is considered disruptive and it appears that you are edit warring on this article. Toddst1 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Did you look at the page history? The user deleted the PROD (actually just reverted it) without address the underlying issues. If you're going to accuse anyone of WP:3RR you may want to alert User:Bjerrebæk. Garchy (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did.   Referring to other editors as vandals when they are clearly not vandalizing - rather misunderstanding policies - just as you appear to be - falls under the category of WP:NPA.   Reporting each other to AIV is just plain bad form. Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly haven't attacked any editors, that would be bad form. I reported the user to AIV as they were vandalizing my talk page (and as you will see, they still are...) - I do seem to have mistaken PROD with AfD, hence my frustration with them removing the template. The edit you are pointing out the user is in fact vandalizing my page. Garchy (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's not Vandalism by any stretch of the imagination.  WP:AGF is not optional.   You don't have to agree with him/her but you're both going about this the wrong way.   Head to the talk page and sort it out.    You should withdraw your AIV report.   Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Level headed advice - I'll remove the AIV report, not worth wasting the time. I nominated Anne Hellum for afd - not trying to target the page, I just want some form of consensus because I don't think it fits WP:NACADEMICS. No point in pushing the point further. Thanks for the insight. Garchy (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Feedback
Just wanted to say thanks for the positive feedback on the Sue Austin page I started. It was my first foray into Wikipedia and I'm really hoping to be a regular contributor, especially on the area of disabled artists. JTdisabilityartsonline (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary
I'm not saying what the user did was an overall benefit, but this was by no means vandalism that you reverted. Please don't use that to describe edits that aren't obviously detrimental. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello - please refer to this users talk page, as this has been an ongoing problem with this user and they have been blocked for this before. They have been asked numerous times to work with other editors on tagging, not on their own mission which goes against the Manual of Style. This user is visibly not here to build an encyclopedia - your point is valid, but since this is a problem user and the issue goes back numerous times this is being dealt with as disruptive editing - as you'll see an admin has already blocked this user. Thank you for your concerns, but please take a full look at each case individually before warning another experienced user about a case they are handling. Garchy (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Distuptive would definitely be a better description, and you do have a valid point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Northeast megalopolis
You misunderstand me, I wasn't objecting to the assertion that Megalopolis still exists, but to the assertion that it was founded "with the hopes of spanning all of Greece in a massive urban sprawl". – Smyth\talk 16:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did misunderstand that. Thanks for clearing it up! Garchy (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Garagepunk66
Who do I speak to to initiate an SPI? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, to open an SPI case go here - There is a section titled "How to open an investigation". Hope that helps. Garchy (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll get right on it! 68.232.71.82 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Smiley
Sorry about using your time, I know at some point it was part of the rave scene and I just wanted to add an article in without knowing about that source was unreliable. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No apology needed! I was actually going to write on your Talk page to let you know it can be re-added with another source - I found one that could be considered reputable, so I'll add in a sentence about the rave culture, feel free to modify it as well. Garchy (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation Garchy 120.147.37.23 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Garchy (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Can you please check your edits for the recent death of Donn Fendler? According to the Bangor Daily News and the Portland Press Herald, he died on Monday, October 10th, not Sunday, October 9th. (The Bangor Daily News makes specific mention at the end of the article that they had previously reported his death as being October 9th but had amended the date. So it appears that an incorrect date was initially published via news outlets).

Sorry I'm not familiar enough with the editing process to do the edits myself.

Thanks. SpacemanSpiff27 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for letting me know! You're completely right, all news sources have amended it. I'll go ahead and change it in the article with the proper citation. Garchy (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Garchy. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Jacobi point
Hi, you put a speedy deletion tag on this article about a millisecond after I created it, obviously without doing an actual check on whether it really duplicated some other article. If you take a look at them, you'll see they have nothing in common except the name of the mathematician. I appreciate your enthusiasm as a new reviewer, but please temper your enthusiasm with discretion, by slowing down to be more careful. Thanks. Please remove the speedy deletion tag. Loraof (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm flattered you think I'm a new reviewer - we all technically are "new" reviewers since this right has only been out for about 2 weeks now. My apologies for redirecting your page incorrectly, which I in fact did check first (but was obviously incorrect about). I'll replace the CSD. Also, please remember that as soon as an article is placed in the Wikipedia mainspace it is held to the same requirements as all other pages. If you would prefer to work on the article prior to submission you may do so in your sandbox, or you may want to consider placing one of these tags so that other reviewers know it is a work in progress. Garchy (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Foreign domestic price
The reasoning on your PROD notice sounds a lot like WP:A11 to me. Cabayi (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering the same thing, but I didn't want to CSD it unless I was confident - feel free to replace it! Garchy (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI...
Mesh (band) was a WP:CSD. Guy (Help!) 02:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up - I checked the deletion log but must have missed it was an exact recreation of the xfd. Garchy (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Slideshow source
Hi, you recently reviewed my submission for the increased limits factors article. Could you expand upon what the issue is with a slideshow source in particular? In my view if it's literature from a conference/seminar sponsored by the organization that would be the expert in the topic, that seems reliable? The slideshow would have counted as professional education for credentialed actuaries. https://cas.confex.com/cas/rpms12/webprogram/Session4766.html I'm not completely clear on what it is about this article vs. say the loss development factors article that makes one qualified for publication but not the other. I understand not everything needs an article - just having trouble figuring out the line here. Thanks for you help! -KaJunl (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for reaching out for help! It looks like the issue is with identifying reliable sources - while PDF's and slideshows may not be a bad idea as external links to content it shouldn't make up the majority of the references in the article. Are there more scholarly writings or a scientific journal entry that mentions this? I just don't see enough in the article yet to qualify as a standalone article, but through a web search I can see the potential for more. In this link  there are 5 references at the end to books that may help - remember, books can be used for references on Wikipedia as well! Happy editing :) Garchy (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Cecil Yarwood
My article was rejected because I cited the subject's research in the context of describing his research. Dr. Cecil Yarwood is listed under the Wikipedia article List of Mycologists, I'm describing his work. If I delete the citations, it would be plagiarism. The articles cited are peer reviewed scientific articles published in reputable scientific journals.

And the honorary degree is an award. How else can I describe it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mycologists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cecil_Edmund_Yarwood

Readbothsides (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Readbothsides

Draft:Exchange Bank of Canada‎;
Hi @Garchy. I have reviewed your points on declining Exchange Bank of Canada's page and updated the page references so they are more specific to the bank. The original first line reference was the list of domestic banks in Canada (which did include EBC so I'm not sure why you mentioned it didn't). I understand if you took it as a "passive" mention. Part of the notoriety of EBC is that there are only 30 banks in Canada and three were created just this year (unlike the US where there are literally tens of thousands of financial institutions). With that said, I now reference the Canadian Treasurer magazine article, which I think you'll agree is a better reference from the significant and specific  point of view. Cbeixc (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for making changes to the article! With the addition of the Canadian Treasurer magazine article I think this significantly improves the chances of the draft passing - in my searches of EBC I could see that it was notable enough for an article, but it was not evident within the earlier draft. I see another editor has it under review as we speak, so good luck! Garchy (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPEGRANT
I just stumbled across you again looking at some of the WP:RFPs. May I suggest you watchlist User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable where template edit requests are listed. Many of the requests come in poorly formed, phrased in general terms and lacking sandbox versions. It may provide you with a source of requests for which you could provide sandboxes and testcases which would help you meet the permissions threshold pretty quickly.
 * ping, , just in case they disagree.

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the helpful advice, that is a great idea for me to gain more experience within the template environment. Garchy (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Research Administrators Certification Council
Hi Garchy, I'll admit, I am somewhat at a loss now as to what to do with this page. For the first two times requesting publication, I was instructed to make edits reflecting the organization's external notoriety using third party sources. I have thoroughly done so by citing every source that mentions this organization (RACC), save one recent article from NCURA magazine. Now, all of a sudden, when I resubmit for consideration it's being deemed advertising. As a nonprofit, RACC gains very little by having this page here. We are a certifying body only, much like AICPA is for Certified Public Accountants. However, I find it very odd that there is a published Wikipedia page that is about one of RACC's trademarked certifications (Certified Research Administrator), which wouldn't exist without RACC. How can that page exist and yet the body that created it not? Any advice on how to solve this chicken and egg problem would be appreciated. —Amgray19 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Amgray19 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you for reaching out. Regardless of whether a company is for-profit or non-profit an article can still read promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this article does not sound like it is neutrally toned or reflecting only the facts. This line, for example, "RACC was formed as a private, non-profit corporation in 1993 with the primary purpose of certifying that an individual, through experience and testing, has the fundamental knowledge necessary to be a professional research or sponsored programs administrator." sounds like it came directly from the RACC website (I know it didn't, but it sounds like it!). It could be condensed to encyclopedic form to this: "RACC was formed in 1993 as a private, non-profit corporation". The intro sentence, "The Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC) is a non-profit organization established to certify that individuals, through experience and testing" already establishes what it is this council does. While Wikipedia does not have specific rules against this, an issue that is arising could be that you are closely tied to the RACC, which can make it harder to maintain a neutral-tone when writing an entry. As for the the fact that there is a page created for the RACC's trademark certifications, it is odd - but happens all the time! As Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia there are many times a page exists for one subject but not for a closely related other - however, this should not be used as an argument for article creation, otherwise things would be fairly chaotic :) I hope this helps! Garchy (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:47:39, 8 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by RobbieIanMorrison
Hello Garchy. With reference to your draft article review last week.

First, let me thank you for taking the time to outline your objections. That was very helpful. Nothing is worse than being turned down with standard boilerplate.

I accept the criticisms regarding style (Wikipedia is not a scientific journal) and unrelated references (not all references appear to be directly correlated to the topic). The style can be worked on and the unrelated references can be deleted (they were there to provide context but are not needed on reflection).

But I do take issue with the idea that the article provides an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps you don't spend time on the computer science pages, but there are many articles listing software and covering all manner of applications. To give just one example, take the list of optimization software page with a section on free and open source software. In my view, the only distinction between this page and the rejected page is that the individual projects in the optimization page have articles of their own. Moreover, the criticism of the draft page being large and unwieldy is due to the fact that there are a significant number of open energy system projects (31 in total) and that they (with the exception of reegle) do not have stand-alone articles (nor would most warrant one).

The WP:NOTCATALOG policy is not explicitly against lists. It states that Wikipedia is not "simple listings without context information" and that "information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose". I feel the article fulfils both these requirements, however imperfectly.

This is the first time I have approached a reviewer. On previous occasions (eight in total) I have either responded by addressing the identified shortcoming or, on one occasion, simply abandoning the draft. In all but one case, I have broadly agreed with the comments from reviewers.

In this instance, for the reasons above, I am asking you to reconsider your decision. I would also like you to look at the software page cited earlier for comparison. I am not sure I hold out much hope, given that you quoted SNOW as an informing principle. But I would be interested in your response.

With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again . On reflection, I withdraw my request for a reappraisal.  Instead I have decided to:
 * add more structure to the article, separating the models into their respective categories (for instance, electricity, energy, top-down)
 * improve the use of citations to reliable published sources, both primary and secondary, and duly align the text
 * remove the embedded URLs
 * I will then resubmit in the hope that I have satisfactorily addressed the issues that you raised and simultaneously made the article more encyclopedic. With best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. It's great to see you improving the article, I'd be happy to take a look and provide any suggestions going forward. I hope my decline, with the criteria "not suitable for Wikipedia" did not turn you off, as that was not my intent (that specific type of decline tends to come across as harsh, hence my extra comments). I do see there being potential for a standalone article on this topic given the work you are willing to put into it. I would also have another editor take a look at your draft, as my comments/suggestions are certainly not the only viewpoint on Wikipedia, I'm sure. Happy editing! Garchy (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . Thanks for your encouraging comments.  I would like to improve the draft and submit again.  I must say it takes a while to really understand the content, style, and validation requirements of Wikipedia.


 * I would like to take you up on your offer of an informal review at some time in the future (certainly some weeks away). The AfC process itself would benefit from having more than one formal reviewer, but I guess that is simply too resource intensive.  I do note that some reviewers ask for a second opinion on occasion.


 * Notwithstanding, the articles covering software on Wikipedia seem often to fall outside the formal requirements for Wikipedia. They seldom quote independent sources (even for scientific software, the bulk of the academic literature is written by the developers themselves) and instead rely on software documentation in some form for most of their information.  They can involve long lists and large tables, detailing the key features and comparative attributes for a given class of software.  I think that software articles have developed their own conventions and should be judged, at least in part, by those conventions, and not by the more formal encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia.  Alternatively, one can argue that such articles have no place in Wikipedia, but they are, nonetheless, very useful and quite common.  I suspect they generate quite a lot of traffic too.


 * Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You have happened upon one of the constant struggles of Wikipedia, which is creating articles for a core audience while ensuring they are readable and easily understood by the larger Wiki community, something which is nearly impossible in some cases to do! For scientific or scholarly subjects I tend to refer to "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics." Some subjects simply cannot be written this way without losing large amounts of information or mincing words, which is an issue you may find since this subject is expansive. In that case there may be other editors who can help pull the "net net" (boy do I hate that term) out and condense the subject if need be. Are you familiar with WikiProjects? There is a Wiki Project for Software that may have editors who have more experience than I do in article creation for software articles. I'm of course still happy to lend my assistance, just thought a few experts in the subject may provide another viewpoint. Cheers! Garchy (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again . Thanks for your response and information. I was not familiar with the Wiki Project for Software.  The project has related style manuals: Manual of Style/Computing and WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style, both of which I have just read.  The former relates to software and hardware but is mostly about terminology, while the second concentrates on theoretical computer science.  Neither offer much in the way of guidance for the draft page I am working on.  I take your point about the tension between precise and accessible language.  It is something many technical writers struggle with.  Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 20:47:01, 16 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ruth L Jones
Hi there, I understand now why the page I submitted titled Christine Kinsey was deleted, but I do not have a copy of what I wrote, much of which was not duplicated from copyrighted material. Is it possible for a copy of the text including its citations to be restored so that I can rework it and remove any text that infringes copyright? This is my first wiki page, and I am learning the ropesRuth L Jones (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm happy to help you figure this out. Did you create the page using a different username? I can't seem to find any article created under your current account. Generally, any admin would be happy to userfy the article for you (moving it into a special area where you can work on it in peace), but depending on the amount of copyright violations they may opt to not restore it (if the bulk of the article is found to not be usable due to copyright they may suggest you start again fresh). Garchy (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the only user name I've had on wikiRuth L Jones (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the name of the draft article you are working on? Thanks! Garchy (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It is called Christine Kinsey, thanks!-- End of message -->Ruth L Jones

216.195.16.205 at it again
You blocked this guy once before. Looks like he might need more attention (let me know if I should request this elsewhere) User_talk:216.195.16.205 --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! I'm not an admin so I won't be able to block, but we can report this activity at WP:ANV - Admins usually require a warning be issued prior to a block being implemented, so I'll see if that works first :) Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I read the "you may be" as "you have been" in your previous warning. Thanks!  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:47:39, 8 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by RobbieIanMorrison
Hello Garchy. With reference to your draft article review last week.

First, let me thank you for taking the time to outline your objections. That was very helpful. Nothing is worse than being turned down with standard boilerplate.

I accept the criticisms regarding style (Wikipedia is not a scientific journal) and unrelated references (not all references appear to be directly correlated to the topic). The style can be worked on and the unrelated references can be deleted (they were there to provide context but are not needed on reflection).

But I do take issue with the idea that the article provides an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps you don't spend time on the computer science pages, but there are many articles listing software and covering all manner of applications. To give just one example, take the list of optimization software page with a section on free and open source software. In my view, the only distinction between this page and the rejected page is that the individual projects in the optimization page have articles of their own. Moreover, the criticism of the draft page being large and unwieldy is due to the fact that there are a significant number of open energy system projects (31 in total) and that they (with the exception of reegle) do not have stand-alone articles (nor would most warrant one).

The WP:NOTCATALOG policy is not explicitly against lists. It states that Wikipedia is not "simple listings without context information" and that "information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose". I feel the article fulfils both these requirements, however imperfectly.

This is the first time I have approached a reviewer. On previous occasions (eight in total) I have either responded by addressing the identified shortcoming or, on one occasion, simply abandoning the draft. In all but one case, I have broadly agreed with the comments from reviewers.

In this instance, for the reasons above, I am asking you to reconsider your decision. I would also like you to look at the software page cited earlier for comparison. I am not sure I hold out much hope, given that you quoted SNOW as an informing principle. But I would be interested in your response.

With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again . On reflection, I withdraw my request for a reappraisal.  Instead I have decided to:
 * add more structure to the article, separating the models into their respective categories (for instance, electricity, energy, top-down)
 * improve the use of citations to reliable published sources, both primary and secondary, and duly align the text
 * remove the embedded URLs
 * I will then resubmit in the hope that I have satisfactorily addressed the issues that you raised and simultaneously made the article more encyclopedic. With best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. It's great to see you improving the article, I'd be happy to take a look and provide any suggestions going forward. I hope my decline, with the criteria "not suitable for Wikipedia" did not turn you off, as that was not my intent (that specific type of decline tends to come across as harsh, hence my extra comments). I do see there being potential for a standalone article on this topic given the work you are willing to put into it. I would also have another editor take a look at your draft, as my comments/suggestions are certainly not the only viewpoint on Wikipedia, I'm sure. Happy editing! Garchy (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . Thanks for your encouraging comments.  I would like to improve the draft and submit again.  I must say it takes a while to really understand the content, style, and validation requirements of Wikipedia.


 * I would like to take you up on your offer of an informal review at some time in the future (certainly some weeks away). The AfC process itself would benefit from having more than one formal reviewer, but I guess that is simply too resource intensive.  I do note that some reviewers ask for a second opinion on occasion.


 * Notwithstanding, the articles covering software on Wikipedia seem often to fall outside the formal requirements for Wikipedia. They seldom quote independent sources (even for scientific software, the bulk of the academic literature is written by the developers themselves) and instead rely on software documentation in some form for most of their information.  They can involve long lists and large tables, detailing the key features and comparative attributes for a given class of software.  I think that software articles have developed their own conventions and should be judged, at least in part, by those conventions, and not by the more formal encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia.  Alternatively, one can argue that such articles have no place in Wikipedia, but they are, nonetheless, very useful and quite common.  I suspect they generate quite a lot of traffic too.


 * Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You have happened upon one of the constant struggles of Wikipedia, which is creating articles for a core audience while ensuring they are readable and easily understood by the larger Wiki community, something which is nearly impossible in some cases to do! For scientific or scholarly subjects I tend to refer to "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics." Some subjects simply cannot be written this way without losing large amounts of information or mincing words, which is an issue you may find since this subject is expansive. In that case there may be other editors who can help pull the "net net" (boy do I hate that term) out and condense the subject if need be. Are you familiar with WikiProjects? There is a Wiki Project for Software that may have editors who have more experience than I do in article creation for software articles. I'm of course still happy to lend my assistance, just thought a few experts in the subject may provide another viewpoint. Cheers! Garchy (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again . Thanks for your response and information. I was not familiar with the Wiki Project for Software.  The project has related style manuals: Manual of Style/Computing and WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style, both of which I have just read.  The former relates to software and hardware but is mostly about terminology, while the second concentrates on theoretical computer science.  Neither offer much in the way of guidance for the draft page I am working on.  I take your point about the tension between precise and accessible language.  It is something many technical writers struggle with.  Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

216.195.16.205 at it again
You blocked this guy once before. Looks like he might need more attention (let me know if I should request this elsewhere) User_talk:216.195.16.205 --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! I'm not an admin so I won't be able to block, but we can report this activity at WP:ANV - Admins usually require a warning be issued prior to a block being implemented, so I'll see if that works first :) Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 20:47:01, 16 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ruth L Jones
Hi there, I understand now why the page I submitted titled Christine Kinsey was deleted, but I do not have a copy of what I wrote, much of which was not duplicated from copyrighted material. Is it possible for a copy of the text including its citations to be restored so that I can rework it and remove any text that infringes copyright? This is my first wiki page, and I am learning the ropesRuth L Jones (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm happy to help you figure this out. Did you create the page using a different username? I can't seem to find any article created under your current account. Generally, any admin would be happy to userfy the article for you (moving it into a special area where you can work on it in peace), but depending on the amount of copyright violations they may opt to not restore it (if the bulk of the article is found to not be usable due to copyright they may suggest you start again fresh). Garchy (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the only user name I've had on wikiRuth L Jones (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the name of the draft article you are working on? Thanks! Garchy (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It was called Christine KinseyRuth L Jones

Elevations Credit Union
Apparently, you've never heard of sourcing. Also, "It has lotsa Google hits, I swear" is not an actual GNG criterion. --Calton | Talk 05:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG specifically covers whether something is notable enough to have a page, not whether it has enough citations or references. The "Google hits" are important because we are establishing SIGNIFICANCE through coverage, and satisfying the WP:ORG requirement which your tag relates to - you are confusing tagging an article for needing more citations and tagging an article for notability, these are two very different things. Garchy (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki page removed because of copyright
Hello Garchy, I seem to have lost the original discussion about this, I contacted you about a page I was working on that was removed. It was called Christine Kinsey. If its possible to restore it so I can continue to work on it, that would be greatRuth L Jones (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

AfC review of Cecil Edmund Yarwood
I'm sorry but I'm struggling to see the logic of this decline. The draft wasn't a BLP – the subject has been dead for 35 years. I can't see in what way it failed the minimum citation requirements. The references were all footnoted and there were no unattributed direct quotations or contentious material (and again, it's not a BLP). I'm also puzzled by the comment you left. There were plenty of third party references establishing Yarwood's notability against WP:PROF, and there is nothing wrong with mixing that up with relevant citations to an academic's research publications. Honorary degrees are highly prestigious and notable awards. I have to ask you, to you really' think someone is trying to unduly promote a 35-years-dead plant scientist?

I also note that the author of the draft queried this on your talk page but that you never responded. I'm sorry to say this but to me this all adds up to really bitey behaviour. I think we should count ourselves lucky that a potential new editor wasn't completely scared off and a useful draft lost. May I respectfully ask you to, in future, remember that AfC reviews are the first (and for many only) interaction hundreds of new editors have with Wikipedia and the community. It's absolutely vital that we approach them with WP:AGF and WP:BITE in mind, and diligently understand the policies we're citing if we do decline a draft. Encouraging good faith editors whose first attempt isn't perfect (who's is?) to continue is just as important as being on the lookout for promotionalism, SPA abuse, etc. Joe Roe (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting your concerns about my decline. Upon reflection and looking back at the draft I declined you are correct that it was handed improperly, although not in bad faith or in an intentionally biting manner on my part. I have not been as active on Wiki the past month and must have missed the notification on my draft page from the submitter. Thank you for taking the time to correct the situation. Garchy (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

your meddeling is unwarranted
cur | prev) 18:39, 27 December 2016‎ Garchy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,731 bytes) (-4,277)‎ . . (Undid revision 756869315 by Db54 (talk) these cannot be added back - blatant copyright violations, reverting back could result in block of user) (undo | thank)

you have no idea what you are talking about. since I live in this town and was involved in the commemorative book your assertion of blatant copyright is asinine  furthermore, the picture taken of pickwick players is my picture as a board member of the theater. UNDO your edit before I do AGAIN!.

the commemorative is just that - an uncopyrighted publication for a town's anniversary. Since you are claiming a copyright do depict the source of your information rather than making erroneous claims to a section that has been there for YEARS on wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the information about copyright issues on Wikipedia. When you read that you will see the burden of proof is on the person adding the information - any information that is challenged must be shown to have a proper citation and not be a copy/paste of information from another source. Unfortunately, we cannot accept "I live in this town" or "I was involved in the book" as a proper way to deal with this copyright issue. If you are in fact the copyright holder, or can speak on a professional capacity for the group that does, you can find out more information here on how to request permission to reuse the content on the Wikipedia page. You could also reword the material heavily and add proper citations so that it is not a direct copy/paste, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially not when mirrored directly from another website. Garchy (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

and I don't have time for someone like you who go around and make assertions " blatant copyright violations" where none exist! you go do your homework then get back to me! The researcher which is properly cited died in 2008. Since I took the picture I don't need to prove any thing to you or anyone else. 2 of those are my pictures and the third has been in the public domain for decades. Maybe you should re read your own suggested reasons. Essentially, when I read this nonsense you refer me to it is not even understandable. I put in useful information about the only museum in town and cited part of a work by a researcher which is not copyrighted nor the commemorative pamphlet. It's a tribute to someone who is dead but did good work on historical information. Incidentally, the color picture that references donna, is well known to me since we have been married for 30 years. If that is not good enough then you wiki do whatever you want but I am done with this and wiki for that matter.

Nabisco
In reference to the change I made to the Nabisco page: I changed the date from 1995 to 1895, it looked like a typo. I quickly checked up on the date and it appears that the 1995 looked correct so I changed it back. I'm still trying to figure out what the heck you changed since I IMMEDIATELY changed it back. I think you may need to find something better to do with your time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.146.97 (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can imagine, it is hard to tell when an IP editor is editing in good faith and when they are simply performing editing tests or vandalizing the encyclopedia. Typically, we look up references and verify information prior to changing something on the page - your edits appeared to be test edits, hence why I notified you about that. I'm not sure where the confusion is. Please assume good faith, and understand you may be notified again by others in the future for similar things - it is nothing to be annoyed by, it is simply showing you how we do things here and is intended to help. Garchy (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Meters (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know about the ANI thread I started on the IP who was attacking you and reverting your edits. Thread is Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Meters (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please leave the conviction of Liviu Dragnea on the wiki page.
It clearly, happened, it deserves its own paragraph so it is not hidden. I am respecting the MoS.

Not only that, the original text was missing a reference, which now it has. What exactly in the MoS do you think I am not respecting? Because up until now, the your revert is very subjective, while my contribution provides more value to the original text. - Mess110 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue is that it be mentioned in the article (which it is), but rather that it doesn't need to be littered throughout the entire lead and article - reading this may help you understand what I'm speaking of. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree but I sort of see your point. My main arguments are: the missing reference and the fact that it is a politician convicted for election fraud. I think the current representation is not really fair from all view ports. This is not a minority view, it is a fact. Mess110 (talk)
 * By all means improve the article and add in reliable sources, you just may get kickback from other editors on adapting changes in the lead. The lead is used as a general overview of the entire article, so not all content gets placed up there - especially if it is a current event, it usually gets added into the lead later. Hope this helps, Garchy (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does, thank you. This all could have been avoided if someone would have explained what I did wrong instead of reverting and pointing to some MoS heading which didn't actually say what I did wrong. Not everyone has the same experience editing wiki, for example, I only learned about the talk feature today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mess110 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

US Government websites are in the public domain
See Public_domain per. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can place that info back in, but can you please reword/rewrite it? I still think it's not great to have the information directly copy/pasted. Garchy (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already reverted once today on that page. Perhaps you could self-revert and we could copyedit it?   Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll reword and place back in now. Thanks for the heads up about US Government works. Garchy (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Federal Reserve is not US Government and is not public domain. The Fed posted most of the quote a month before the Treasury did. That means that most of the quote is copyrighted. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The link you posted reaffirms the link that reverted back to - the burden would be on you to prove that the cited link, which points to a ".gov" site, is not protected from copyright issues per Public_domain. Until then, I don't see either of these being "original research" nor a copyright issue. Garchy (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * says the federal reserve website is a U.S. government website so the IP edtor from Annapolis is wrong again.  Toddst1 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a mirror of . It specifically states "This website contains copyrighted material, trademarked material, and other proprietary information, including but not limited to text, software, graphics, logos, and button icons that are the property of the Federal Reserve Banks or third parties." 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like pretty standard "legalese" language, for protection. Either way, this would not violate copyright (even if it was) as it has been heavily reworded and adapted. I think you need to back away and perhaps utilize your passion on the next article - there is plenty on Wiki that can be improved. Garchy (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, now you crossed into the incivil. You removed it originally for copyright reasons (it was not even quoted). It was claimed that it could not be copyright because of it because US Government. Fed Reserve is not US government property, only authorized by US government. The direct website even specifies copyright reason. This is an important matter, and belittling others like that is unnecessary and contentious. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you took that as a personal attack, as I'm not belittling you. I'm just letting you know the community does not appear to agree with you, and that it is a non-issue. It is not a copyright issue - regardless of your argument, the text has been adapted. Even if it was under copyright it would be allowed on the page as it stands right now. I'm closing my argument. Garchy (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The community is not two people, nor can the community establish a legal status of the Federal Reserve that has been a public source of contention since its institution. A brief look at Google shows that people say that the Fed is illegitimate because it is not a full institution of the United States government that would fall under the oversight of the US Congress. And no, you cannot just copy and paste from a public domain source without quoting it. That is part of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you listened to my last two replies? The text that exists there now does NOT violate copyright, as it has been reworded. Even if there was a copyright -- which there is not -- it would be fine as it is, and it is attributed correctly. Please take this to the correct page and off of my talk page. Garchy (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Copyright problems/2017 January 27.  WP:TE on the part of the IP seems front and center at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Deflategate post-superbowl:
I believe you made a mistake in completely removing my edit from earlier today. Nearly 100% of the text I added was direct quotes from notable media sources cited in my edits. The topic edited was "media reaction" and that the media cited were major outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, Sports Illustrated, Yahoo Sports, and one other). It's hard to see that the few words I added that were my own were not suitably neutral.

If you felt that the wording was not suitably neutral, you should have edited that wording rather than removed from the page any trace of the how those major news outlets view the facts to be.

I don't wish to start a undo war, so I'll hold off briefly on re-instating the material -- but please reply to my talk page ASAP so that I can make sure the edits are sensitive to any legitimate concern you have.

I think you misunderstand the principles of Wikipedia if you believe that in a section on media reaction, Wikipedia should exclude from referencing any media reaction that takes a side. Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Concurrence from another editor, and consensus discussion
Hi again. This evening, on the talk page for deflategate, Tarl N. at 1:27 UTC clarified that his/her concern was really about the "consensus" thing, rather than the examples being added to the media section. So I think that basically means s/he agrees that it's okay to put back in those media position statements. I'd still like your concurrence before putting them back in.

As for the separate issue of "consensus", I believe I've 100% addressed Tarl N.'s latest concern that perhaps the scientists in the consensus were subject partisan thinking (see my reply to Tarl N on the deflategate talk page.

I was editing my talk response apparently while Tarl N was replying. Please see my latest additions to the consensus topic on the Talk page -- I think you'll find it convincing. If you don't I'll want to know why; I hope that if you still have concerns, I'll be able to address them as I think I a addressed Tarn N.'s partisanship concern.

If I can get your concurrence on the consensus topic, I'd like to add those edits about concurrnce (or similar ones with suggested improvements) back to their respective places (media reaction summary, response to Wells report summary, and of course the summary of the entire deflategate pageRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to DeflateGate "description of edit", deletion of my edit decreased neutrality of the relevant sections.
After replying to the note you left on my talk page, I saw this additional info in your "reason for edit" entry: undue weight - this article could easily find 6+ references saying the Patriots "did it", but there is equal coverage of BOTH viewpoints.

In the section I edited (post-superbowl coverage), prior to my edit, and after your removal of my edit, there is exactly one expression of opinion as to guilt or innocence "Boston Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy". If you were strictly applying a rule of balance, you'd have had to remove that reference also. (I, however, agree with your decision, presuming it was conscious, to leave that citation in place to represent relevant reaction at that time).

There is a different section I did not edit on pre-superbowl media coverage. The second entry in that list is from Dan Wetzel of Yahoo sports, complaining that the league was going too easy on the Patriots. If your goal is balance, then it is mandatory to make note that Dan Wetzel completely changed position, now siding with the Patriots. In the name of "balance", you left up an opinion that has since been recanted and removed (by deleting my edit) the reference to it being recanted.

Throughout the "media reactions" section, prior to my edits, there was no cited media coverage of the evolving scientific understanding of the incident. It's a more recent phenomenon that media coverage has since emerged of reputable scientists from all over the country finding that the data fits the "no air removed" hypothesis and is incompatible with a "significant air removed" hypothesis. That is very relevant to people looking for a more detailed understanding than just "some say they cheated, others say they didn't".

The New York Times also essentially recanted very specifically on the issue of what the Science says. They cited article that completely reversed the previous New York Times article claim that the science had worked against the patriots.

Two highly credible news organizations recanting, and one specifically recanting regarding what the science means, is newsworthy. That and the others represents a new and highly relevant trend. To remove such revelations as you did is a bit like removing the most detailed examination of climate change that concluded that it is man-made and including on equal footing opinions expressed based on no information or based on discredited information.

I feel you have put my good name as a thoughtful and careful steward of improved wikipedia knowledge by undoing and dismissing my edits. Can you please personally re-instate the material and mention that, to make a metaphor with NFL replay rules, "upon further review, your initial finding is reversed"

Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi - I replied on the article talk page. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pick a slide - as a matter of fact, check out my userboxes and it may give you a hint to my residence! I just want to ensure that the viewpoints are weighted correctly - I certainly think the "debunks" should exist in a critiques section or in-line within the article, but it should be cut down slightly and made a little less wordy, to ensure it does not come across to anyone as a non-neutral addition! Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I'm quite sorry I'm just seeing this note now. I believe "follow this page" was checked, so I don't know why I didn't get any notification of your change.  Any ideas?
 * I don't want to lose the historical aspect of the current "reactions to wells" section if/when creating a rebuttal/counter-claims section, because the chronology and details seem helpful to future deflagaToligists. Is there an appropriate way move some of it into a separate history page? Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that your reply to me was before I proposed a counter-allegations section. Did my explanation for why we should have a that broader topic (rather than just rebuttals) seem reasonable to you? I did intend to offer a much improved "counter-allegations" section to address concerns from Tarl N that I have taken to heart; now I'm not sure how to get substantive feedback on a future draft Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the problem seems to be similar to the problems that come up with articles that involve Israel/Palestine, Yankees/Red Sox rivalries, etc. - the issue is that there will always be a strong debate on either side - for both inclusion and exclusion, and both sides tend to not agree no matter how much they point out their side! I would say that the basis of adding information in about counter-allegations is completely ok - but you seem to be running into issues with other editors about whether the sources are reliable or not. I've been rather quiet in the discussion on purpose, as a New England native I don't want to come across as favoring a side due to a bias, which is certainly not the case. What I would do in your case is open up this discussion at WP:RFC, which will open this discussion to many others. It seems that we need more editors who are uninvolved with this matter completely, and can look at the references and the wording chosen from a neutral standpoint. I certainly think counter-allegations deserve a part in this article, but as you can imagine there will be much pushback about neutrality, so it should be handled the best way possible! Hope this helps. Garchy (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

Thanks for your Guidance!
Being new to Wikipedia, I appreciate your advice a lot. In return, Have a Cookie!
 * Thank you for the recognition, ! I hope you find Wikipedia a welcoming place and continue your positive contributions. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)



has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

92.98.240.112 (talk)

License plate articles
Do you not see that Gruberbomgardner and Bluebird207 have not been following these two rules?

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Wikipedia is not a catalog.

If they followed these rules, then they would not be frequently editing license plate articles to suit themselves and other license plate fanboys. They would not be turning these articles into repositories of trivia that interest only themselves. Instead they would accept that these articles are supposed to be for everyone to read, and edit them accordingly.

Just so you know. 2604:2000:2406:5D00:A410:A16C:1D82:FBD9 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with these rules - however, if you read each section in-depth you would see these do not relate to the pages you tendentiously edited. Garchy (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello
, if you really would like to help Wikipedia retain editors you should try participating at the Teahouse - It's not secret Wikipedia has a problem retaining editors, but I honestly think you're wasting your time on that IP. In many of your arguments you mention the pillars of Wikipedia, and respect to contributors - something this IP editor has ignored from the very beginning (I was the first editor to interact with this IP, and I tried your approach first to no avail). This IP visibly does not WANT to work with people, so please stop trying. I understand what you are trying to do, and it is admirable - but this IP is looking for food, so let's let the admins deal with it for now. Garchy (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm just a bit disappointed in the whole thing. There was some constructive editing - I was hoping that with time, they'd moderate the stuff that caused conflict. And then we do something to cause conflict. Sometimes I feel some admins are trying to bait. I don't think Deny recognition fully applies, as it's not a vandalism-only account. The edits seems constructive until Barek got in an edit war with him. Sometimes I feel this place is one rule for them and one rule for us - and sometimes I don't fully trust the admins to do the right thing, sometimes I feel some admins are trying to bait, and fail to assume WP:AGF especially with IP editors. But let's move on. Hopefully it's over. Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. Nfitz (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right about the longterm problem, I see cases where I personally don't think an editor should be banned indef for making one set of vandal edits (and yes, I checked the filter log too). I think my patience is just short with this particular IP, who unfortunately doesn't want to receive help even from editors (like you) willing to help. I think you're correct - time to move on, and hopefully this IP either gets their act together or retires - the worst thing we can do is give them a vendetta to start socking. Garchy (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ouch - makes one want to put the cape back on. :) Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the IP in question has now been blocked (I missed that somehow). One one hand I can see it, given he repeated the pudding joke (though it seems like an over-reaction for what I think is a pretty mild joke on his own talk page). But jumping from a 60-hour block to a 3 month block seems excessive. Before I put on the Spidey suit again, what do you think? We'd never do that to an admin, nor do I think we'd do that to a registered user that way. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I would let it go - this IP isn't worth fighting for - and in all honesty I don't think this block was excessive, as the IP has been instigating from the beginning. I'm sure there are more constructive things for the encyclopedia we can all do. If the IP wants to start editing, or wants to have a fresh start without all the baggage, all they need to do is create an account - they would able to, within the rules, circumvent the block, so long as they weren't using their new account to continue the abuse they've done on their IP. And since they are an IP, and not a created account, the talk page was never really "theirs", as it would be for anyone who edits from that IP, which with dynamic IP's can change within a matter of months. I wouldn't get too hung up on this cause, there are certainly other good uses for that cape :) Garchy (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, although account creation was disabled. I suppose one can always go to a library or something to create an account though. It just seemed rather bludgeoning at the end though, given it was their own talk page. Nfitz (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Keith "Clizark" Clark
Hello, You recently said that the page I created for Keith Clizark Clark did not have reputable sources. The main references came from Allmusic. My question is how is it not a reputable source when there is a Wikipedia page on Allmusic, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllMusic, []. He is listed on several of Snoop Dogg's albums which have Wikipedia pages as well. The first one is Paid The Cost to da Boss, Paid_tha_Cost_to_Be_da_Boss. The next one is, Da Last Meal, [] track number six. Also, Movie soundtrack, What's the Worst That Could Happen?, that has a Wikipedia Page and only has one source which is Allmusic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Worst_That_Could_Happen%3F_(soundtrack). The credit page of Allmusic for the credits is http://www.allmusic.com/album/whats-the-worst-that-could-happen-mw0000006703/credits. There are many more. Also, Keith Clizark Clark is listed as co-producer with Meech Wells on several Wikipedia pages and Mr. Clizark's name is not highlighted in blue. Please review.Rroneice (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Frontline Systems Inc. Page
Frontline Systems is a rather notable company, It's software has shipped in every version of Excel since 1990 and is referenced by Microsoft They were the first to introduct advance optimization software to the spreadsheet. Among other things Frontline has developed a Polymorphic Spreadsheet Interpreter (PSI) which enabled Excel models to be treated in much the same way as an algebraic modeling language like GAMS or AMPL. . Another thing notable about frontline is it's founder Dan Fylstra, who has been cedited as being one of the 5 founders of the software industry. I applogize i didn't have all of this in there I expected I would have a bit more time to keep adding to the article before it was deleted. There are more noteable things and more industry firsts for Frontline and I would love to keep adding is there anyway you can restore the article as a draft for me to keep working on? Best Regards TahoeBob (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi An admin such as  should be able to userfy that article for you. Be sure to include as many reliable sources as possible establish notability - the burden is on the article creator to prove notability through the page itself - read more here to get a good idea of what should be present on the page to establish notability. this specific section will show you what it takes. Many times users run into issues with sources that sound too "promotional" (many "news" articles online are in fact regurgitated press releases) - but it looks like Microsoft has some literature about Frontline that should help. Good luck! Garchy (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As requested
. The bill is in the mail.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Expect prompt payment, of course! Garchy (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeans Article
I'm new to Wikipedia and saw a bit of misinformation on the Jeans article. I created an account, tried to correct it, and added a source. You've reverted it and told me I'm being disruptive. Can you please provide some tips on how to correct misinformation like this? I don't have to be the one to do it. Perhaps you can fix it? Clearly, jeans could not have zippers if they were made before zipper flys were made among other problems from this section. Hlstd (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi And welcome to Wikipedia! First, thank you for taking the time to edit the encyclopedia and contribute. I'm happy to help. I reverted your edits because they appeared to remove a reference that was already being used and attributed to (perhaps add a new reference in addition to that one, instead of removing it). I noticed you had removed some information about the zipper fly - I think you are correct that this appears confusing, do you think changing the wording from "zipper" to "fly" is more accurate? I believe the information being given in that sentence is more about the location of the fly than about the zipper, but nevertheless you are correct that it is bad wording. If you need any other help please feel free to reach out! Garchy (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm thinking at this point I'm not cut out to help with Wikipedia. I do wonder if maybe I can just bring up the issue on the Jeans talk page and let better editors figure it out. The section I edited is about the creation of Levi's blue jeans in 1873 and the citations are from articles about jeans in the 1940s. It's just so bad.

Is a comment on the talk page a good strategy?

Is it customary for me to delete all of this off of your talk page after we are done communicating? Thanks again. Hlstd (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not give up on Wikipedia! You are certainly doing the right thing. Yes, I would bring it to the talk page of the article to see what other editors have to say - you have a good point about the references, and the article should be updated and fixed - you will certainly run into others (like me, I suppose) who are initially hesitant to changes to references - but read this and keep up the good work! Also, no need to remove any of these threads, they will be archived automatically in due time :) Garchy (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Hi Garchy, thanks for your comment. I've read the Reliable sources article, and it appears there is a degree of subjectivity involved. I will trust you on this for the moment. Best, Cgtx1986 (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Pleasant Street Portal
Could you explain your edit summary a little more fully? My understanding is that the IP is correct (though uncited) - none of the current aboveground structures in the park are actually part of the portal. Is that not true? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure - Evidence does remain of the portal above-ground, "The walled-off portal is located right here...right underneath that dead-center tree abutting the playground chain-link fence." The existing concrete structures next to the (vacant) church are also original to this filling in, hence the wedge shape of the retaining wall of the park. There's an interesting board topic on this if you're interested available here - while this park/intersection has changed much over the past decades they simply filled the portal in with soil, hence why the retaining wall (created to block the portal during the 1970's) peaks above ground :) Garchy (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I went out there today and I'm not convinced that your interpretation of that quote from the AB thread (of which I'm one of the posters...) is quite correct. Some of the retaining walls for the park next to the church were obviously built in the 1970s; however, they are just to hold the raised grassy areas in place. The retaining wall to block the portal is buried under the grassy part of the park north of the playground, and no part of that wall reaches above ground. (The retaining walls in that area are visibly newer.) However, there is one thing remaining that is obviously from the Incline: this emergency exit hatch marked SUBWAY KEEP CLEAR at the far northeast corner of the park. I believe that marks the far southwest reach of remaining subway tunnel. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for grabbing that picture, that's pretty cool. Do you know if that emergency exit hatch still goes down to the incline? I would imagine they would have had to leave some kind of access for emergencies, but I wonder if it's in the park or somewhere down in the tunnel. Thanks again! Garchy (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the grate is extremely tightly woven; I couldn't get a good picture inside, though it appeared to be relatively clear. My suspicion is that the hatch in front of the Majestic Theater is the main emergency exit, and this hatch does actually lead to the tunnel (with the incline walled off just outbound of it) but is less likely to be used. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bob Hilliard Edits
Hello,

Regarding my edits to the Bob Hilliard page -- was not trying to be disruptive -- just attempting to get rid of the biased article that is used as a source currently. Can we simply delete the birth date entirely until we can come up with a better source for that info? Or would you have any suggestions for a better way to proceed? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahstrunk (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You could certainly remove the date if you wanted - it was left in originally because of a referenced article that mentioned his age (and therefore at least a birth year could be added) - if you'd like to remove it until a full birth day can be sourced go right ahead. Garchy (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, great. I went ahead and deleted the birth date entirely and will re-add once we have a better citation. Thanks so much for the info!