User talk:Hydronium Hydroxide/Archive 2017

Revert on GFK
Thank you for reverting that edit. I did not intend to remove that material. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for confirming. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Patent insides
I respectfully disagree with your proposal to merge Patent insides into Print syndication. Although it's true that patent insides are a type of print syndication, the practice of shipping half-printed pages around is quite a bit different than other types of print syndication. We have a separate page for the Linotype machine, for example, rather than merging that into Typesetting. Pha telegrapher (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposal removed per Talk:Print syndication. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Moves of SvG sport articles from Draft to mainspace
Hi Nfitz. Many thousands of sportsperson articles have been moved to Draft by Musikbot per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram, with agreed cleanup guidelines as a result of the closing decision at User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up/Guidelines. Under the circumstances, closure at AFD regardless of notability is not grounds to move (and furthermore, the AFD was opened after the ANI closed).

I've added a cite for Pedrolia Martin Sikayun's club as that wasn't supported by the existing cite. At least some of the other pages you've reverted to mainspace have similar issues of missing sourcing, for instance Aye Aye Moe and May Sabai Phoo (2014 team membership?), Fadathul Najwa Nurfarahain Azmi (club membership?), or Luisa Marques (debut appearance?). Unsourced material should be sourced or removed if the articles are to remain in mainspace. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, a unanimous keep at AFD trumps any earlier mass discussion of hundreds (thousands) of articles. That aside, I checked with the person who moved them to Draft space, and he indicated that they could go back to mainspace. If you are aware of a lack of references in the articles (an issue that plagues many if not most of articles in Wikipedia), you are quite welcome to fix them! Nfitz (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Apology
I inadvertently pinged you just now and apologise for any inconvenience. I had intended to ping another user, by somehow picked up your name in error. Please ignore the most recent message from me. Regards BronHiggs (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Blake Shelton
Thanks for letting me know about that requirement that I was not aware of. And I never even saw the template you added to the talk page before. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. I figured the template would do to cover the crediting requirement instead. Initial edit summary crediting the original is normally ok, I think. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi, thanks for reviewing lots of the articles i created and requesting i receive autopatrol rights, ive had it for a while now, i suppose there are still some articles out there that i created pre ap....

Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 
 * Yeah, MusikBot immediately picked that up. Happily, that small run cleared your remaining articles from the queue (filter by user can a cheap way of clearing a few, but the queue remains undented). Thanks for the kitten. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Deteled 5 articles created by me
I wrote a response in the page of discussion, please read it--Vvven (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - responded. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Re - Omar Dallah
I can confirm that he was an international hockey player as well and did take part in the Olympics. Other info looks sensible but I cannot confirm it. He did make one small error, Dallah did not win a bronze at the 1984 championships but some websites report that he did. I have amended and added a reference for that error. many thanks Racingmanager (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Auto patrolled
Hey, what exactly does having auto patrolled privilege mean and what responsibilities does it have? I don't really know much about it.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . You might have gotten a bunch of notes that I and others had patrolled pages you've created. WP:Autopatrolled means that instead, articles you create would be presumed to meet notability and quality requirements for new articles without needing to be patrolled by others. It's nothing major for you (it's a bit of extra trust) but it helps keep the numbers in the patrol queue down a little (we're up to a backlog of almost 19000 articles). Your only responsibility would be to keep doing what you've been doing when creating new articles (properly written, formatted, and referenced; meets notability requirements; has cats and wikiprojects, ...) -- plus credit the original page when copying or transferring material from another wikipage per above. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK then. Yeah, if that will help lesson the work burden of other Wikipedia editors then sure. Sounds good.Bluesangrel (talk)

milhist
I was thinking of Cavaliers and Roundheads (assuming we have it). Did you say as much at RfD? (I don't mind being made a fool of: but I know nothing about about basketball, and all my history I get from 1066 and All That. It could go WP:WORLDWIDE basically because I had just assumed anyone with a haircut was on the "wrong" side) That it's WP:BASKETBALL. Si Trew (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't mention or edit -- figured you might like to revert on milhist and edit on RFD. Cheers ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Power analyzer
Hello Hydronium Hydroxide, You recently removed a page that I had added Power analyzer, stating that it was redundant with Wattmeter entry. I contend that they are not redundant, as a Wattmeter is actually a component of a Power analyzer. Wattmeters simply measure power and perhaps display power, whereas Power analyzers utilize built in Wattmeters to gather power measurements and then analyze those measurements, deriving much more useful results (30-40 parameters) than simply using a Wattmeter. With this in mind, can you please restore my Power analyzer page so that I can update it with the relationship between Wattmeter and Power analyzer. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamShearman (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I didn't delete (or for that matter state that it was redundant) -- I just flagged it with the Wikiproject for review based on the text that was there. The page was deleted by, who identified the page as an unambiguous copyright violation of http://tmi.yokogawa.com/products/digital-power-analyzers/. The deletion does not preclude recreation of the page without copyvio, however per WP:COPYVIO, such deleted articles won't be restored unless copyright provider permission is granted. Note, however, that the Yokogawa page itself explicitly says "Also called power meters or wattmeters...", so this does not appear to be an appropriate reliable source to establish the gap from (say) Wattmeter. That said, it would not have really have been an ideal reference even if it hadn't mentioned wattmeters due to being a company website. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Parona
I don't know, I did use parts of the Italian wiki page, but the parts from Giorgerini and Fioravanzo do not come from there, I don't know if it can be considered a translated page. --Olonia (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Dummy edit with appropriate link and details in edit summary might suffice? WP:CWW is the relevant guideline. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Rostov State Musical Theater
Thank you for your edits! Now the article seems to be more readable than it had been before: English is not my native language, so I myself could hardly make it any smoother. Lghtngshdw (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Lord Mayors of London
I don't seem to be able to use the lists as you have collapsed them at all. I use this list all the time and I find your change very alarming and inconvenient. I would like to be able to see the lists displayed chronologically, as they were before, but clicking on your up and down arrows doesn't seem to display them. Could you please explain how it is supposed to work? (I am mainly using the 16th century series - perhaps some part of the syntax is missing?) - Thankyou Eebahgum (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stephen Walsh (professor)
I think you are misconstruing the purpose and application of copyright. This sort of overzealousness removes useful information from Wikipedia, however if you honestly feel that there is a serious copyright problem and you are not inclined to modify the article to address the problem that you believe exists, then I guess you are justified in deleting it. Personally, I think this sort of copyright paranoia damages Wikipedia. I think there are more important things to accomplish than protecting Wikipedia from hypothetical copyright claims.

Unfortunately I cannot see the prior version that is alleged to be a problem. It was sourced, but rephrased, from the short bio at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view/158738-walsh-stephen which is a public page intended to inform the public about the university's professors. Although the page is copyrighted, it is an entirely within U.S. fair use to extract such information from it. Facts and ideas are not protected by copyright. Furthermore, noncommercial, nonprofit use is presumptively fair. I can't speak to UK copyright law, but the whole purpose of the Cardiff page is to publicize the quality of their faculty, not to keep such facts secret. It is irrational to imagine that the university would have a problem with facts being extracted from (with references cited) their publicity pages. Tetsuo (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I can't recall to what degree it was straight c&p rather than close paraphrasing; perhaps it should have been a subst:copyvio instead. That said, the review queue is ridiculously long, and editors, particularly experienced editors such as yourself, can assist by ensuring that their edits don't require others to investigate and fix problems, particularly uninteresting ones. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (ping ) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the reason for deletion was that the page was still a large c&p from the bio page, and the copyright detector used here: gave a confidence of above 70% (if I recall correctly) when checked. I get your reasoning regarding possible claims such as this, however Wikipedia is pretty stringent when it comes to this, namely due to the possible ramifications if a page was seen as a copyvio by the original author of the source. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

William Douglas Street, Jr.
Hello Hydronium_Hydroxide. Thank you for your note on my talk page, though I must admit I am somewhat puzzled by it in several respects.

1. The note requests that I help "establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention." while in fact a) Seven sources are cited b) There are in fact independent in the sense defined by the wikipedia link, being indeed "third parties" "not directly [involved with] the subject" -- these are not articles by friends or relatives but by journalists/reporters, and c) none of the five sources are a "trivial mention"

In addition, d) One source (albeit concerning the -- see below -- film) is UK based, and of note, e) One of the 7 citations, about the subject of the article himself, William Douglas Street Jr, is i) Based in Australia, establishing a higher standard than notability (see also below) but internationally so, I also note ii) News.com.au as noted in wikipedia's own entry "According to third-party web analytics providers, Alexa and SimilarWeb, news.com.au was the 19th and 27th most visited website in Australia respectively" and as far as news sites go, "SimilarWeb rates the site as the third most visited news website in Australia, attracting more than 18 million visitors per month."

So this is the third most visited news site in Australia covering this U.S. person, along with the Detroit press etc, so it's not exactly as if I've quoted some random person's grandmother and best pal, for "notability" now it is? ;-) In fact it seems to me that the definition wikipedia uses is meant, at least in part, to protect pages and biographies such as this, to protect them from a reflexive "well, I've never heard of this person so they must not be notable" because they define:

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice'[1] or 'note'[2] – that is, 'remarkable'[2] or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. 'Notable' in the sense of being 'famous' or 'popular' – although not irrelevant – is secondary."

Thus "while not irrelevant" it is "secondary" whether many people have heard of the person. Is the person "worthy of notice" as in "remarkable,significant,interesting, and/or unusual"? I'm puzzled by the notation that there's any doubt, given:


 * Their life-story "to date" as of merely 1989 was considered notable enough (in multiple senses, but certainly including the above, "significant/interesting/remarkable/unusual" to have a film created based on that person's life(the semi-documentary, partly dramatized "loosely based on" genre is well known and takes away nothing from this) How many people have films created based on their lives? It seems fair to suggest that of those in that very rare category (very small number of people on planet Earth about which this is true), most if not all, are "notable", but there is more:


 * The film won the prestigious Sundance Film Festival's Grand Jury Prize; but there's more "interesting,remarkable,unusual" (notable) beyond that

(In case you're wondering what my personal connection is to him, it's nothing at all. I did however see that semi documentary back in teh 1990s and remembered it some quarter century later -- and I'm pretty sure I remembered it because the story was so unusual, remarkable, and interesting -- so did some google, and also invested some significant amount of my personal time contributing to wikipedia) but there's far more:


 * There are surely others who have impersonated a  graduate from a famous institution (Duke University), there are surely others who have successfully impersonated a reporter, there might even be some who have successfully fooled others for a period that they ave a famous all-star football player, and there are a few who may have fooled a hospital into thinking they are a physician for as long as Street had; I think one would have a rather hard time naming many others (if any) who have done all of the above: impersonated not only reporters and so on, but also impersonated and successfully fooled people that he's a famous sports star and fooled others that he's an an attorney, plus convinced others in a hospital that he is a physician for long enough to perform surgeries(!) repeatedly-- which is highly notable, but made even more so given:


 * He did so without formal training but with such skill that: "Staff at the Detroit Human Rights Department where he posed as an attorney volunteer found him skillful enough that "if he ever straightens out, we wouldn't mind having him back."[4]"

Surely one cannot doubt from one or two of the above, let alone the combination of them all, that this person and their life has been unusual, interesting, and remarkable. Yet there is even more


 * While not proven(from the sources I have, though I can seek out more) the mere allegation, that worked as a surgeon at a Chicago hospital under an assumed name and to have performed 36 hysterectomies before being discovered -- the "mere" serious allegation, is certainly noteworthy enough -- it's a matter of public health, public safety, quality of oversight in hospitals and so forth, obviously. Even one such hysterectomy, let alone 5, let alone (apparently, so is claimed) thirty-six.

And, if it may please you, I just found another source New Yorker, which I think is safe to say is a sophisticated enough a magazine with enough movie reviews that they know the film is a dramatized documentary is, and wouldn't naively take as fact without doing some checking of their own, and they do refer not to "claimed in film" but instead refer to it as an actual fact about Mr. Street that is shown in the film, when New Yorker writes that William Street Jr, "pulled off an extraordinary series of impersonations (for instance, pretending to be a doctor, he performed, according to Harris, thirty-six successful hysterectomies), and was ultimately imprisoned for them." and I can add that as an 8th link.

In fact I will add this 8th citation from the New Yoker to the Detroit media and Australian top three new source and UK listing. And I certainly appreciate the encouragement to add more documentation, to be sure. But that is a different matter from suggesting there is nothing noteworthy here. To be fair, your note posted it as a question as to "whether" it meets notability for WP:criminal I have not put him down in that category.

I'm tempted to say that a human being, having 100 to 1,000 trillion synapses cannot be reduced to one or two categories; but that's not quite fair, and I fully understand the desirability for wikipedia to have categories for biographies and find the ones you added to be completely fine including "people convicted of mail and wire fraud" -- I just never claimed to be an expert on which categories, and do not wish that to be a cause to threaten the very notable article, and my over hour of work, to be threatened with removal, and there is much more to this person than what they were convicted of, not just what they were initially charged with and more broadly suspected of, but their unusually high level of skill, intelligence, and people skills and resourcefulness(all without having earned a GED as the 7th reference notes) -- and their "good side" (after all, they said they would hire him again for his legal volunteering since he did such a good job volunteering for the local government as a "lawyer") as well as the "bad side" -- all of which are notable and have valuable lessons for society (not just patient safety and oversight of who performs surgeries, notable if that was the only angle, but other ones too; the above relating to good and bad sides, low formal education and clearly very high levels of talent, that society and individual each and both, for various reasons, failed to channel more productively)

The definition of notability, does indeed to me to be there in part to protect exactly figures like William Douglas Street Jr. as protection from "I never heard of them" and to redirect to the opposite, folks who are "famous" but not that notable; probably some Reality TV "stars" are better targets, well-known, and "famous for being famous" but not very notable/noteworthy.

I would appreciate any advice on adding more broad categories; so long as the possible disagreement by you or others in the future with a Category I might add, is not used as a reason against the entire article. Finally, I would also, like to hear back to be able to feel at least some level of assurance that investing more time into this important article on this important figure, will not end up in a black hole of being (in my view, quite unwarranted) a removal. Thanks. Harelx (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * The templates can unfortunately be rather imprecise/generic (hence the more specific message added). Another user already added categories, and I and a bot added wikiprojects -- it was just a request for action on future pages not on this one.
 * In terms of sources, they either seem to stem from local Detroit stories, from an AP wire story taken from the Detroit News one regarding his sentencing (the news.com.au was a human interest story rewrite), or relate to Chameleon Street.
 * Notability is non-binary, and so is action on pages - there's a lot of shades of notability tagging. WP:SPEEDY, WP:AFD, and WP:PROD are all more formal than the tag I placed. There's also alternatives to deletion such as WP:MERGE and WP:REDIRECT -- and, for that matter, WP:IAR. The tag is in part a flag for extra pairs of eyes. Honestly, I'm still in three minds about the subject. Both he and Chameleon Street have some level of notability, with notability for CS more straightforward as its award and reviews are in its own right despite low levels of coverage, whereas CS contributes to the WDS's notability, and without it it'd be a lot less likely to meet the bar. I tend to lean towards merging/consolidating for marginal cases -- this article could be merged to Chameleon Street to provide context/background on the subject (YMMV).
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the clarification on the generic nature of the tag and update on categories added, since one concern I voiced was that while I feel the subject is certainly notable, that I'd be more hesitant on suggesting I have the perfect Categories all figured out for it, and didn't want the latter to be used as judgement on the former. I looked at your link about wikiprojects but while I can easily see what Categories have been added right from the William_Douglas_Street,_Jr. page, I'm not sure if I see a link to a wikiproject. Secondly, by speaking of a wikiproject, are you indicating there already is "is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team" on the WDS page or set of pages including it? I don't see a link to a team/project page.  Mind you, I think this is clearly notable material, but not *so* notable that it alone needs a large team of people to figure out every change, I'm just trying to understand what precisely the creation of a wikiproject associated with the  WDS page you seemed to indicate, refers to.


 * I know that on wikipedia WDS's being African American won't be counted against him, but I wonder if what is true of race is also true of socio-economic class? By this I mean, whether WDS's not being a college graduate, or even having completed his GED as one of the cited sources notes, whether this is taken as making someone less likely to be "notable"? Because if so I would like to clarify my view that not only is this not a mark against notability, but if anything makes his successfully impersonating so many people, of so many types for so many decades -- particularly including highly educated professionals as in those with a Law or Medical degree, only that much more notable, if anything.


 * I have increased from 7 to 8 sources, and I continue searching for others to add. Among the various books there are two links to Jet magazine, which had at least one mention, but google books won't let me preview more than a fragment for one of the two links; the other does and I'll probably add it; in addition to the source summary below, Jet would be another media source wider than Detroit or even the state of MI reporting on WDS; here, with some interesting additional information. In fact I will, since it not only contained arraignment for a 1971 case of a death threat extortion from the wife of a Detroit Tiger's player, but also an additional and more detailed source on matter already in the article, the successful impersonation of an all-star football player: "William Douglas Street Jr, the 20-year-old who red-faced the Detroit Tigers baseball organization by staging a convincing impersonation of the Houston Oilers' football player Jerry Levias before the imposter was found to be a fraud, is in real trouble.." over the then new 1971 extortion charges -- cited in Jet, the national magazine (over 1 million circulation as of 2012) that was founded in 1951 and became nationally famous for its coverage of the brutal murder of Emmett_Till in 1955. I will try to get the link to the google books copy right, if not I hope others can help clean up the citation or give tips on how to do so.


 * By the way, is there a firefox add-on you recommend for automating some things like that? It doesn't have to be as fancy as "jet-pack" tool as I suspect you may be using in your more advanced work on wikipedia, but just some automation.


 * I will add the national circular Jet link and some text on the successful (long enough to make them all "red-faced" anyway, as Jet put it) impersonation of the Houston Oilers' Jerry Levias.


 * In addition to


 * * the national circular Jet magazine coverage of WDS, and in addition to


 * * the Detroit media (as you noted) there's also


 * * the Mlive (which was a paper of Booth_Newspapers and publishing at least online fairly recently -- "updated 2016" the links says) and not limited to Detroit but Michigan-wide.


 * * Then the Australian paper is another. While I'm not sure what exactly you mean by calling it a "human interest story rewrite" I can at least clarify what I meant, which is that no matter what type of story we call it, it was still published in Australia (and one of the top media outlets there to boot) and that data point alone moves the notability needle significantly since just as not all Detroit stories are published in Michigan wide media (as this was) and not all of those in national media (e.g. Jet) but of those, far from all are mentioned at all, in any form of story, in non-U.S. media (important is that the news.com.au story is not a film review but an actual Australian paper story about WDS himself).


 * I think that's quite a lot as it is for the definition of "notable" that I quoted from wikipedia about (and I continue to believe that most of us would not want to be (or have our friends or relatives be) operated on by someone without an M.D. let alone without a GED either, and that getting away with it dozens of times makes it that much more notable. I suspect you feel the same about how operates on you, if I can add another note of humor to the above) But there's still more; the fact that WDS lacks a GED was noted in the Mental_Floss article (though I haven't yet included mention of the lack of GED in the article) and while I wasn't and am not that familiar with it, wikipedia's article on MentalFloss mentions that the paper magazine "has a circulation of 160,000" while the website "draws 20.5 million unique users a month" and further my eyes widened reading that it's total user base is over 150,000,000 according to the wikipedia page.

To the above we add


 * * MentalFloss (tens of millions monthly/150 million total)


 * So MentalFloss' coverage, along with not just the Detroit press and the Michigan-wide press, but more so along with prominent national Jet's coverage and by Australia's news.com.au ("the third most visited news website in Australia, attracting more than 18 million visitors per month") I think each moves the notability needle significantly, and together, very strongly so, imo.


 * (Edit: I'm surprised I didn't think to mention it earlier, but News.com.au, Australia's third most popular news source actually used this word in the title of its piece to describe WDS: "Notorious". And "notorious" is defined in the first dictionary definition google put up, as: "famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed."I also just added detail to the citations including dates now appear in the References section. So national or international media coverage spanning the 1970s..through 2008, to 2015, so far. "Notorious" indeed... Harelx (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC) )


 * I'll continue looking for other sources but would feel compelled to appeal if it was removed. While Redirect does change the user's experience, if it redirects to another article that has little or none of the original, then on the content rather than user experience side, it's as good (or as bad/unfortunate) as deletion. On the "merge" front, I don't have super strong feelings, so long as it's substantially the same length and not chopped down to pennies on the dollar as far as content. The more I research this the more notable it does seem to me, even more than when I invested the time creating it.


 * The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it's a remarkable piece of history, and while unfortunately the criminal side (extortion/death threat) has grown along with the level of cleverness and resourcefulness that comes out, it's a striking piece of U.s. history (even if under appreciated) touching upon race, socio-economic class, crime, possible mental illness (stories document that angle too being taken seriously by courts in his case, too) and public health and public safety (dozens hysterectomies without M.D. degree) and public oversight, as well as a brilliant mind (the comment that they'd take him bad "if he..straightens out" so good was his legal volunteer work while pretending to have a law degree but not even being a high school graduate) along with very unfortunate redirection of that same mental brilliance towards crime, and unfortunate lack of rehabilitation on the part of society, which had not years but decades to try to invest enough resources to reorient his energies, but evidently failed to do so.


 * Anyway, these are my my thoughts. I will have invested well over an hour and a half, approaching 2, between writing this, researching for it, and in another firefox tab, soon ready to click "save", my update of the  article with not just the Jet citation but also the extra info (a few sentences hand typed from the books.google quote) from Jet magazine. I hope you agree having that time spent on further improvement is more important than debating exactly where the needle is, so I sincerely do hope that the above plus the new Jet article and looking for more is sufficient to satisfy you of notability to keep this article, maybe even expand. Thanks. Harelx (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Apologies for the delay in response.
 * There's also this in-depth article from Ann Arbor.
 * I'm very familiar with news.com.au. The site is a portal for NewsCorp newspapers in Australia and few conclusions should be drawn from what a subeditor chooses for a headline. Their papers vary in quality, though most of their major ones are at the tabloid end, and NCA tend to have a bunch of tabloid stories too.
 * By "human interest story", I mean one where the audience has no knowledge of those involved or interest in them afterward, but their actions or attributes have momentary interest. Variants include news of the weird, the cute animal story of the day, etc. In http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america, at the moment there are quite a few stories that fall into this category; ones which have no relevance to the Australian public, and which did not have any independent initiation of coverage.
 * Re your "remarkable piece of history" para, that'd really require independent reliable sources to examine Street in the context of those themes, ideally outside of direct review of Chameleon Street. (Original research is to be avoided in articles)
 * I've removed the tag given that Jet was national and on the reasonable presumption that the Willie Horton extortion would have gotten wider press that isn't visible online. I still consider the subject's notability to be marginal, even under WP:NPOINTS.
 * That said, I'm but one editor, and everyone has their own subjective interpretation of WP's guidelines and standards. Other editors might retag it or formally propose deletion or merge. Still other editors might find him clearly notable.
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the link for William_Douglas_Street,_Jr. which is full of information, and quotes and specific names (In 1979 he posed as a U-M master's degree candidate in law and served as a volunteer at the city of Detroit's Human Rights Department. His Former supervisor Philip Smith said he was "brilliant" and "likable" adding "He probably knows the law better than most lawyers. He is able not only to cite chapter and verse, but is also able to put together legal documents and legal briefs better than most lawyers.")


 * And from whose parent page oldnews.aadl.org I found additional information including "Imposter gets two prison terms, kindly lecture" article with more quotes suggesting if anything I had under-estimated and understated the relevance to current legal and social institutions versus the wasting of a brilliant mind..and this is a Judge's words this time (Circuit Court Judge William F. Ager Jr. said "Everyone this court has heard from has been very much impressed by the talent, the ability and the intelligence of Mr. Street..this man could have a tremendous career ahead of him. He could have made a great lawyer. I hope when..released, that he followed different lines )


 * It will take some days to finish digesting that and adding, but I will add from those two additional news items. Further, I found an interview with the director where the director himself states (other sources seemed less solidly definitive) that Street performed hysterectomies..36 of them, without a college degree let alone medical degree) and without any "original research" that interview can be quoted also societal issues mentioned earlier, beyond Street, Jr.'s very high intelligence, "He’s showing that society is ready to bow down at what you’re wearing, or what you say your degree is."(the Director Wendell Harris Jr.)


 * I'm adding that as 10th citation and the other two -- the one you kindly provided and the other I found through parent website, I'll add another time. No worries about taking time to reply here. I just today found your reply, 3 days after you wrote it. Is there any way to get email notifications when a reply is made here? I seem to get email notification only when someone messages me on my talk page, not when I get a reply on someone else's talk page. Thanks also for removing the notice, and for your open mindedness. I have put in not only a considerable amount of time and effort which I'll continue to improve it more, but also very sincere in having thought carefully whether this is worthy of wikipedia's mission to inform humanity of noteworthy things..even if you aren't completely convinced yourself at this point, I appreciate your listening and tips, dialog and helpful link. (And tips on getting better wikipedia email notifications..?) Thanks. Harelx (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can set email preferences at Special:Preferences -- I think you want to tick Mention for both Web and Email. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this ! Still working on page, but this info helps me w/system messaging, appreciated! Harelx (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Gyan Publishing
Thanks for your improvements to South Asian topics. I've removed one of the sources you added in this edit to Dacca News. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and Gyan Publishing in general) is not a reliable source because it is circular. It copied from Wikipedia without attribution. See WP:PUS and User:Sitush/Common for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reviewed with follow-up on article talk. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DABRL re People's names
Recently you undid 3 changes I made to the John Richardson article citing MOS:DABRL. Whilst it appears that you are absolutely correct in what you did, as per those guidelines, I still feel a sense of uneasiness about leaving at least some of those entries in a disambiguation page for names. The worst example is probably John Richardson (rower) (born 1944), Canadian rower as this John Richardson is mentioned only once in a long list of names and no real information is provided on the person at all, it's merely a name acting as a placeholder. We can't even be sure that it isn't a John Richardson elsewhere on the disambiguation page. There are two other entries that are in lists also. I can't help but feel that the MOS:DABRL guidelines were intended to be aimed at words where the number of meanings was less than the number of people in the world of a given name. Under strict interpretation of MOS:DABRL it would mean that every person who is named in any article, no matter how unnoteworthy, would be required to have an entry on a disambiguation page, and the disambiguation lists for names are unwieldy enough (and usually poorly maintained as a result) as it is.

I want to reiterate that your changes, as current policy stands, are correct, but I would like to know your views on MOS:DABRL in relation to names. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it comes down to WP being a hyperlinked encyclopedia.
 * So, if there's already an existing redlink from multiple pages, then presence on the DAB helps enforce consistency and interconnectivity; there is more of a risk of multiple pages without this.
 * Although the reversion was procedural, the only redlink I find suspect is John Richardson (musician). John Richardson (rower) is not a good example. He's currently linked from three other articles, and if a stub were to be created with only the information currently on wikipedia, as an Olympic Athlete he'd be presumed notable by WP:NTRACK, and attempting deletion would almost certainly fail, even were such a created article to be a permastub. The footballer likewise has presumed notability, and the manager has many existing links.
 * In the case of such non-redlinked JRs as those of the Rubettes, Richardson's Theatre and 2000 AD, if it's reasonable for someone to wonder about them as a result of related articles or otherwise, their entries in the DAB signals that they have already been assessed as less likely to warrant an article. Indeed, WP:DABMENTION states "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included". It's not a must, but the mention would probably need to be passing and tangental. (Edit: ...for instance John Richardson (musicologist), who might well be lost if Petri Kuljuntausta were to be heavily edited. Note that the artist should probably also have a link from Frederic Mullally due to their collaboration on the comic strip Amanda, but establishing notability sufficient to bluelink appears unlikely).
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for those valuable insights. It gives me a much better feel for the process.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Theatre of Zambia
So are you going to put in the effort to expand it yourself, or are you going to be like everyone else in the AFD and just scream "it's notable" without making any goddamn effort to try and fix up an article that has been completely untouched since 2009? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , on the assumption that you're having a bad week, and not habitually unpleasant: I'll probably get to it eventually. If you'd rather it were done sooner, please feel free to consider yourself morally obliged to do it yourself since (contrary to your nomination statement) the topic exists, there's sources visible, and the article title is standard for en-wiki. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Flashpoint (DCEU)
Hi Hydronium. I did not know that principal photography must be done before a Wikipedia page can be written about it. You see, I am new to Wikipedia and there were many movies that have Wikipedia pages that have not started principal photography. Thanks, Mystic Mop. Posted by Mystic Mop (talk) at 00:53, 17 September 2017‎; sectioned by Hydronium Hydroxide at 08:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Commercial Radio Australia
Hi, HH - the Harv links are all redlinks - not sure if something changed to the format when you weren't looking but they need fixing. I'm not familiar with Harv citations and have a lot on my plate tonight, or I'd do it. Atsme 📞📧 01:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but every link on the page is working (have checked desktop on my computer, plus desktop+mobile on phone -- including the edit before yours). The problem looks to be on your end. Maybe something odd with cache? Incomplete load? Could you take another look? Do you get a different result on the main article from |the current version? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll look again, but it was down in the REFERENCES section which produces red error messages on all the Harv links - I'll copy one if it's still doing it. Atsme 📞📧 04:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, still there: "Who is Commercial Radio Australia?". Commercial Radio Australia. Retrieved 11 January 2017.

Atsme 📞📧 04:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ^ Inglis 2006, p. 8. Harv error: link from #CITEREFGriffen-Foley2006 doesn't point to any citation.
 * ^ a b Griffen-Foley 2009, p. 13. Harv error: link from #CITEREFGriffen-Foley2009 doesn't point to any citation.
 * ^ Griffen-Foley 2009, pp. 25-26. Harv error: link from #CITEREFGriffen-Foley2009 doesn't point to any citation.
 * ^ Griffen-Foley 2009, pp. 26,37. Harv error: link from #CITEREFGriffen-Foley2009 doesn't point to any citation.
 * ^ Moran & Keating 2007, p. 103. Harv error: link from #CITEREFMoran_.26_Keating2007 doesn't point to any citation.
 * ^ Alysen 2012, p. 238. Harv error: link from #CITEREFAlysen2012 doesn't point to any citation.
 * ^ Harrison 2013, p. 61. Harv error: link from #CITEREFHarrison2013 doesn't point to any citation.
 * Thanks. How bizarre. I've asked here for assistance. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect Costa Rican pastafarian
I welcome your BOLD decision to redirect the page, and agree with it, However I wonder if you could include a small reference to the costa rican version in the main page (perhaps under cultural relevance) That way, the page is redirected but the Costa Rican society is not lost completly, I believe that would please everyone, what do you think?Egaoblai (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, it looks like they still gather in some form. On the other hand, barely sourceable existence is not a particularly good reason for inclusion in FSM. As a joke -- a serious joke, but a joke religion nonetheless -- WP:10YT should apply. FSM/Pastafarianism is obviously notable; every group who thought it'd be funny to continue the joke locally, likely to be less so. On the one hand, I suppose you could list (in a listified sentence) at FSM all the countries that aren't mentioned elsewhere on the page but where there's a reliably sourced nominal presence -- I'm not inclined to do so but you may be. On the other hand, there's not a List of Pastafarian organisations or similar, and that would keep the chaff away from the main page, again if you were so inclined. On the third hand, it's questionable whether there's much merit in such a list, and it would need to be stated in the past tense due to minimal sourcing. Wait... those aren't hands, they're tentacles! ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Phoenix
Why are the awards table in this page being considered for merger? Did I do something wrong? Is the page going to be removed? ' Rodrigo1198 (talk)
 * Not sure why you thought a merger had been suggested. Length of the list page is on the borderline of split/nosplit, but all I did was mark it as reviewed, make some edits (lede, no main refs on the awards), and added the wins to Phoenix (band) since blank sections with just a main article reference are a bit ugly. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Radio Sutatenza
Just wanted to say thanks (genuinely) for your edits to the above article and to José Joaquin Salcedo Guarin, which you redirected and I am absolutely in agreement with the redirect, as he's just a WP:ONEEVENT person as far as I can see. The Radio Sutatenza article is very poor at the moment but it's on my list of things to work on, hopefully in January once the holiday season has passed: I have a book about the radio network and also a few articles from newspapers here in Colombia, so I'm hopeful of making a decent article about what is really quite an important part of Colombia's 20th century history (much more than you would think from the current state of the article). Thanks and Merry Christmas. Richard3120 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From what's visible on gbooks, it definitely appears to be internationally recognised as significant. Good luck with the expansion. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic edit to Derren Brown leading section
Hi Hydronium, I wanted to thank you for your great edit to the Derren Brown article. It is both articulate and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomred (talk • contribs) 10:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks -- the phrasing is from/via Brown, though (quotation marks now added). Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC).