User talk:Hydronium Hydroxide/Archive 2018

WikiLove from User:Gaioa
 Hello Hydronium Hydroxide, Gaioa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for advising me into correct procedure for page reviewing! I'll leave you this message so that others can know how helpful you were to me! Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

World War 2 UK Demobilization Centres
You comment on my Talk page incomplete since it looks like demobs. I am not sure you read it, because it is indeed about Demobilization centres, which in the United Kingdom were of two kinds: disembarkation centres and dispersal centres, which are both listed.
 * It looks like the last fragment was dislocated from the first sentence and it should actually have been "Tagged as incomplete since it looks like demobs were done elsewhere...". The dislocation may have been due to a bug in the page curation tool, or perhaps user error. RAF appears to have demobbed at 100 Personnel Dispersal Centre, Uxbridge and 101 Personnel Dispersal Centre, Kirkham and elsewhere. For the RN, it appears that demobilisation was performed at each of the shore establishments. There also appear to be demob centres that were set up overseas (Singapore, India, ...?) that catered for UK service personnel. Did these listed centres thus apply only to the Army? only to National Servicemen? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 22:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. More research needed, methinks!Shipsview (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Andy Neal
It looks like Andy Neal article has been removed without a consensus. It has more than 20 references, at least than 7 of which were from notable media on Wikipedia. Which administrator should be contacted to undelete this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccchambers (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ( I've moved and sectioned your comment; please don't toppost on talkpages ) Consensus, as judged by admin, was to delete, per Articles for deletion/Andy Neal. It is not sufficient for the sources to be reliable, they must also (in aggregate) establish notability. I examined all the sources carefully, and per the AFD, at least 3 of the reliable media sources (1991, 1994, and 1997) were clear that Andy Neal did not have notability at the time of that article, and WP:SPIP probably applied. If you can establish there's been a procedural error (which I don't believe you can) or if you can provide evidence which actually establishes Andy Neal's notability (rather than desire for notability), then you could appeal at WP:DRV. ( In theory J04n could reopen the AFD but it's rather late for that ). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There will be additional media articles with notability information to provide to unbiased administrators so that they may submit for deletion review. One of the evidence of procedural errors would be the administrators favoring bias against desire for notability leading to insufficient weighing of the notable media reporting of actual notability. Also the article and references were mostly deleted too early before the consensus could be reached, giving insufficient opportunity for unbiased participants to easily view the entire article and take part in the discussion.  The deletion was based primarily on the subject's previous desire for fame. This is not one of the 14 acceptable reasons for deletion. The closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly because consensus was not able to be reached due to the early deletion of the preponderance of the article and its references. Additional media will be submitted, and because significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. Because most of the page was deleted without consensus, the page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted. There were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion due to the bias against and emphasis on desire for notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccchambers (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A few suggestions/notes:
 * Please indent your comments using one ":" at the front for each indentation level, and sign your post with "~"
 * I've fixed the advice above -- should have been WP:DRV not WP:RFU. Apologies
 * You should probably discuss with the closing administrator at User Talk:J04n first (unless he responds here)
 * One doesn't need to be an administrator to comment on an application at DRV, just an editor in good standing (admin status is needed for most closes, however).
 * I believe that there was actually no difficulty in judging the sources, since I posted a link in the AFD to the original version of the page, and (I'm pretty sure that) deleted the links but did not revdel previous versions, which meant that anyone examining the original version would have been able to access the scans. I also posted links to two reliable source articles, and an AnonIP posted a third.
 * I'd suggest not trying to argue that the page was deleted without consensus -- that's unlikely to get you far since it was. You're better off just establishing that notability can be met.
 * Regardless of the state of original sourcing, you don't need very many reliable sources to establish notability. Even 3 or 4 pieces of evidence would probably do if they were strong enough and actually reflected the claims being made (several of the sources did not).
 * You don't need to satisfy all criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:ARTIST and/or WP:ANYBIO (WP:BASIC lists presumed notability, though presumptions are rebuttable; a main line of argument in the AFD was that the reliable sources themselves rebutted the presumption of notability of appearing in those reliable sources).
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Neo Pastafarian Church of Costa Rica listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neo Pastafarian Church of Costa Rica. Since you had some involvement with the Neo Pastafarian Church of Costa Rica redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Orophilous
Hi there! Thanks for your correction on Zabius fuscus - I agree that omitting the word entirely is the better solution (or we could use the more common montane). However, "oreophilous" is also widely used in the English literature - see, for example,, ,. It's probably best if both words ("orophilous" and "oreophilous") are added to Wiktionary. Tevildo (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Harrison Hong
 Hello Hydronium Hydroxide, Shobhit102 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the review and the advice!  Shobhit102 |  talk  07:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Trance / translation to english

 * Ah, a skim of the article made it feel as though it were translated, and that the English used was non-idiomatic -- possibly due to an initial translation pass. Examples include(d):
 * "sensational spelling form"
 * The use of bottom-top „“ quoting rather than matched "" quotes or italics.
 * "The unit also played..."
 * "Trance was then finally laid to rest as a functioning outfit "
 * Yep, credit is required.If translating as a new article, can do it in an initial comment (eg: Translated from [:de:Trance (Band)] . For an existing article, and/or as an option for a new page, use Template:Translated page on the talk page.
 * Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Kitzingen Airfield
(copy from my own talk page) Jan, I've reverted your WP:CUTANDPASTE move. If a page cannot be moved over a redirect, then use WP:RM. That said, I don't believe that such a move should take place since it looks like the standard name for the location with code KZG is ...Airport rather than ...Airfield. Please discuss/confirm at the page (or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft if you don't get a response). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That goes down quite badly here. Why couldn't you _first_ talk/discuss and act afterwards? Now you make me leave the matter in disgust. I feel very poorly awarded for my well-meant efforts, and consider your behaviour rude, impolite, and disruptive. You certainly removed all my motivation for improving the article - I'll NOT bother about it anymore. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way, but there was nothing to discuss in this case first before reverting as it was on technical/procedural grounds rather than as a content dispute. The pretty-much universally correct response to a cut and paste move is immediate reversion since the alternative is needing to get an administrator to muck around with historymerges, which is far far more work for less win. Changes you made to the page will be sitting in the page history. (I've also just looked at your edit history -- I'd assumed you were a new editor due to the way you did that pagemove, but you're not...). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Who said "assumption is the mother of all f_ck_ps" ? You certainly illustrate that! Bah bah bah. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My guess is that could have been a longtime editor who for some reason seems to have assumed that the correct way to move a page was to cut and paste it, which resulted in the pages needing to be _nf_cked_p? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't guess! KNOW! It was so easy to exchange a few words first, instead you preferred to bluntly revert my hard work. Have it your own way! Bye bye! Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Saint Therese Little Flower Catholic Church
Hi Hdyronium Hydroxide, Thanks for reviewing the page I have been one of the contributors to. I should have used the sandbox as a new user of Wikipedia. I am having problems deleting ANY of the images... If you could assist me please in deleting the images on the right column EXCEPT the top two images... I would greatly appreciate it. ALSO please delete the redundant images, like you suggested of the multiple images of the signs that say Little Flower Church. Also only one image of Saint Jude Shrine would suffice instead of two. When I select EDIT on other pages I have been able to delete photos but I do not have that option on this page. Again in the small gallery box for Lumenarium please keep the four images but delete them from the right column and if they are duplicated in the general gallery below the small gallery for Lumenarium. There is more to write on another day in the body of the article. Thanks for your help. ExorcisioTe (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC) '
 * Thanks . I think you're probably using the visual editor (which may have its quirks) rather than editing the wikitext source (which is as powerful as it can be, but probably less user friendly when it comes to doing more complicated things). It's worthwhile you having a try at puzzling out the wikitext way first (see WP:IMAGES for help/guides, and make sure you use the Preview button and verify before saving). In this case it should be fairly straightforward. Each of the image definitions are either individual lines wrapped in gallery tags, or defined as [[File:...]] If you still can't work it out, let me know and I'll fix things up. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for the help from a new user of Wikipedia... just like a little kitten needs nurturing, so do I.

ExorcisioTe (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC) 

General Authority notability
I just came across your comment on the deletion nomination for da Silva. I think in general your point about general authority notability works. One point is some Catholic diocese have well under 100,000 Catholics, in fact I believe a few have under 10,000, so the ratio of Catholics to bishop is complex. On the other hand, since there are now over 16 million Latter-day Saints, your calculation there was a bit off, but generally workable. A bigger issue is that an although it was never fully announced, at some point between 1997 and 2007 there was a move away from strict time limits for the 2nd quorum of the 70. For the first ten years calls were rigidly 5 years. However after the start of area seventies, they began to creep longer. Starting in I believe 2016, but I could be off by a year, The Ensign and Church News began refering to the 1st and 2nd quorums as General Authority Seventy, and beginning in April conference of 2017 (if I have the years right, I could be off by one), newly called seventy were designated Area Seventy or General Authority Seventy. Another development is if I followed everything correctly Robert C. Oaks was called to the presidency of the 70 but never made a member of the 1st quorum, always technically in the second quorum. All that said you may wish to weigh in on discussions over the deltion of Claudio R. M. Costa, Jorge F. Zeballos and Hugo Montoya among others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll probably not look at things properly until tomorrow, but in the meantime... Are there structures (areas or otherwise) that equate to dioceses, how well does the role of a general authority map to a bishop, and do GAs get posted around or are they normally head of the same organisation while they remain a GA? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 22:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some equivalanecy between an area and a diocese in terms of size. Both varry a lot. The Brazil and Mexico areas currently have over 1 million Mormons in them, so Claudio R. M. Costa's time as Area President puts him as direct head of over 1 million Mormons. That said, the areas, like almost all Mormon organizations, are run not actually by a single president, but by a presidency. Area Presidencies change every August, although some changes occur at other times. Some times in an August a given Area Presidency remains intact. This page gives a better idea. Costa has served as president of the Brazil North, Brazil, and South America North Areas. In about 2005 the Brazil North and Brazil South Areas were combined into one area. So when he was president of Brazil North Area it probably had about 300,000 Mormons in it. As a member of the Prtesidency of the 70, he along with 6 others presided over all the General Authority and Area Seventies, and he had specific responsibility for the Idaho Area. That probably had on the order of 800,000 Mormons. General Authorities main role does not derive from their specific assignments, but from their call to direct the Church as a whole. I would say in this way they are like Cardinals, but my understanding recently has become that Cardinals do not per se have a role in directing the Catholic Church. Some do based on their offices in the Church, but the only technical duty of Cardinals is to elect the pope. In the LDS Church the general authorities develop policy. This is partly carried out by being the ones who lead the various organizations of the Church at a policy creating level, it is partly carried out through leadership meetings where they train local leaders. It is partly carried out through general conference where General Authorities give talks to the whole Church, which are then printed in Church magazines and closely studied by members, and it is partly carried out by speaking at various local meetings (such as stake conferences) and in other ways addressing the Church. Sometimes also general authorities write articles that are published in the Church's magazines. Currently Costa is the assistant executive director of the the missionary department. This means he is the number 2 man in actually implementing the Church's plans for its missionary department. He is also in the Boundary and Leadership Change committee. Since Mormon congregations have official boundaries, and attending the congregation where you live is highly emphaized, drawing boundaries is one of the key functions of the Church. While these boundaries are proposed at the local level, the stake which has about 10 congregations (generally between 5 and 17, although most between 7 and 12), these boundaries are then scutinized at the general Church level, and sometimes adjusted. Plus various policies on boundaries exist. He is also the Area Assistant in the North America Southeast Area, but I think that assignment will end as of tomorrow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, obviously meant a tomorrow -- will get to it when I get to it. Am still mulling over the arguments -- equitable treatment between some level of major and minor belief systems should apply, but the second part of WP:RELPEOPLE is of questionable validity (though probably greater wisdom). If GAs were deemed to be at least noteworthy, then one issue would be that the Areas do not have articles as without such scaffolding a bunch of of the GA articles are destined to become orphans once tenure ends and they are removed from the navbox of current GAs. At the risk of being mergist, there are probably few enough GAs and WP:LISTBIO/WP:CSC could apply for a list with capsule bios (including retired, deceased, and excommunicated GAs), even if only some/few get a full article of their own. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp
Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp needs some attention as there's been an article in the Herald Sun about a possible suspect here (paywalled). Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi!
Posting here just to make sure you see what I posted as a reply on my talk page (in case ping does not work). In short story, I did it to prevent a possible vandalism with redirect wars and then overload with mass nominations, while giving a benefit of doubt to the one who restarted the articles (as stands now, they all fail notability guidelines, but maybe they can be improved). Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Responded at talk page ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)