User talk:Jorge Stolfi/Archive 3

General apology on behalf of the New Page Patrollers
I just wanted to extend an apology to you on behalf of all new page patrollers; there is no way that Urostealith should have been tagged for speedy deletion by anyone. (I have since declined that speedy). I hope this doesn't scare you off from writing in the future; we need more people like you creating content in those areas. Happy editing, NW ( Talk ) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ISSUE CLOSED

Vainakh medieval towers
I understood my fault. This will never happen again. Should I change something on already existing works? Nakh 09:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ISSUE NO LONGER RELEVANT

Using [ ] in article names.
Hi, i've looked at your question a bit and i found the following:

 [2.2.2]Propellane

It should override the Article name. Cosmetic only: no real solution though and on the Vector skin it's not properly aligned. Jarkeld (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ISSUE CLOSED

Journal of Applied Electrochemistry
Hi Jorge. Me again. I noticed that you are editing more widely. You do seems to write well, and many of these articles need fresh eyes to make them more intelligible. So your service is very welcome.

I wanted to pass on some comments on referencing journals. I would guess that tens of thousands of chem journal articles appear each year (J. Phys Chem. A-B-C published ~45000 pages last year). Many journal articles are quite specialized. I raise this point because referencing journal articles requires a plan, otherwise Wikipedia entries will be overwhelmed by references. See WP:SECONDARY. Within the Chem editing community, the gradient seems to be: textbooks < monographs < reviews < journal articles. Journal articles are usually cited only when they describe discoveries of historic interest. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My message more plainly is that just that if you dont know the journals and the work, I recommend against cite primary references. Because chances are that you are citing something that is inappropriately specialized.  The reason that I raise the point is that many well intentioned editors feel pressure to cite references.  References can always be added subsequently by experts after the basic article is framed.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I see your point too.  I just wanted to make sure that you know the situation.  Most publications are not b.s. but most are extremely specialized and not very useful to a reader of an encyclopedia.  I am sensitive to the problem because within WE, the removal of citations can be highly controversial.  Some large articles are simply dumping grounds of hyper-specialized cruft.  I reworked the fluorene thing.  I hadnt realized that one can get the dipotassium derivative.  Maybe that aspect should be even more amplified.  Anal-retentive point: few carbanions are really anions - the alkali metal is alway stuck tightly on carbon.  At least that is my impression.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CONTINUING DISCUSSION

Benin na pt
Olá Jorge, poderia por gentileza dizer qual o título que você quer que fique no artigo Benin ou Benim, uma vez que você criou o artigo como Benim no título e no texto colocou como Benin. Veja a discussão no artigo da pt. Um abraço Jurema Oliveira (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ISSUE CLOSED

Putting editorial guidelines in articles rather than talk
Your comment at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough piqued my interest.

On the whole, I agree with you. Talk about articles should go on the talk page. There are two provisions here, I think.
 * If it would create a legal issue that would not be laughed out of court.
 * If it would warn readers that an article is incomplete (in the sense that its active editors know it is incomplete, i.e. are adding stuff) beyond what readers should expect from Wikipedia not being complete or perfect.
 * Caveat: One can use a sandbox. There are many practical difficulties why this is not so.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that edit markup such as (as I do, and use it solely as an example) which means please translate a fuller article from the Hungarian, should not appear on the article's page. The especial thing there, if you look at it (and it is just an example not a special case) is it says "once doing so, must be placed on the talk page." So we have a situation where while the translation is in effort, to obey the rules, we damage the page, and whence done, our efforts are essentially hidden, and no-one knows it is a translation unless they look at the talk page. Which is not for plaudits (which are welcome nonetheless) but so editors can then ask "why did they write that" and then, even if they cannot read the original themselves, ask the editor  which is usually quite clear from the edit history, and if they have got that far they will do that   "what did you, or what does this, mean?

This comes about essentially because on watchlists talk pages are included with their pages. I agree with you it is an entire mess. Many people do not watch or care for the talk pages, which is why I think these have slowly migrated to the article pages, which was never their intention. For example, you never see at the top of a page "this page has measres not expressed in both Imperial/US Customary and metric measure. See WP:MOSNUM. Love and thanks, ." I totally agree with you that these kinds of templates, and especially with the last they take a LOT of work to make (not mine), should be seen and not heard

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * UNENDING DISCUSSION

Please stop moving tags off articles
See Template:Unreferenced and others, where the documentation clearly backs up what is obviously the long-time convention, which is that these tags go on articles, as opposed to on talk pages. Please undo your disruptive rampage of trying to reverse this convention. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If anything I said encouraged this, I can only apologise. It was meant to be a discussion, not a green light, and would have WAAAY long way to go before achieving any consensus. Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * UNENDING DISCUSSION

Talkback
Or do nothing Si Trew (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ISSUE CLOSED

Orphan tags
Very well, I see your point on the tags. Thanks for the input. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ISSUE CLOSED

Re:Conversion to templates
Thanks for the note. To save time, I would bluntly say that I am aware of most pros and cons of using and not using these templates, and defend both sides depending on the situation. If you indicated the article in question, I could be more specific. The crucial argument to me is usage of Citation bot, which identifies and fixed typos, completes the refs (which saves my time greatly as I cite articles every single day), links doi and isbn, and produces consistent output. Typos are inevitable, and they sometimes obliterate a ref, which results in uncited, and potentially deleted, material. Linking doi and isbn is crucial for quickly accessing the reference. I am also aware that the bot is blocked these days and has glitches, and that this is a temporal situation. Materialscientist (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, often it is a waste of time and non-templated refs are fine. Usually my conversion starts like that: I see a ref without a link (inconsistently formatted too), find a doi or isbn for it, then, an easy way for me is to type and let the bot complete the ref - this way I don't waste time and have things correct and neat. Another issue is consistency - WP respects the right to have refs as the editor wishes, but honestly, I often get confused by different styles when move from article to article. Some citation styles take me many minutes to understand (had a discussion with one math professor on that recently and can give you an example - a mix of two types of Harvard and a superscript notations which the author claims is perfectly valid). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * UNENDING TEMPLATES

Vandalism and warnings
When you revert an edit for vandalism, you should add a warning to the user's talk page. Multiple warnings are a requirement before administrators will block the user. I added a warning on User talk:132.239.90.141, since it seems clear to me that was vandalism. I did not do so for User talk:128.54.40.243, since I know nothing about alkenes or alcohol. If you are sure that was vandalism, you ought to add a warning. See WP:Template messages/User talk namespace and the comments at the top of WP:AIV. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ISSUE CLOSED

Removing infoboxes, moving school pages
Hi Jorge, it appears you've been moving quite a few school articles in the Winnipeg area. You've been here for a while; I assume you know about WP:NCCN? Also, removing the infoboxes goes against the ethos of Wikipedia- can you explain your rationale for doing so?

I'm hoping to hear back from you before you more any more schools or remove their infoboxes. tedder (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to reply in your talk page about that. I see that you have reverted my edits in the Glenlawn Collegiate, Winnipeg page. Indeed, Random Page took me to Frontenac School, Winnipeg, which was sort of messy. I looked at other sister pages and found a lot more mess, some AfD corpses, and so on.  I decided to be a good citizen and cleanup that little corner of Wikipedia, namely one school district in Winnipeg. If I knew how much work it was going to be, I would have not started.  Anyway, as for the infoboxes: forget the guidelines for a moment and compare the pages with and without them.  Half of the information in the infobox (such as telephone numbers, principals, school boards) is not appropriate for Wikipedia ("Wikipedia is not a diretory", "Wikipedia is not an internet provider") Area codes might be OK in the sense that they are coordinates, but then should be handled as such. The fields which *are* pertinent can be written much more compactly, neatly, and legibly in a couple of text lines. But the worse drawbacks of infoboxes are rather invisible.  First, the infobox clutters up the source code and makes it much harder to edit. The Wikipedia Usability Team report indicates that wikisource complexity may be one reason why Wikipedia is not recruiting any new editors, and is slowly losing old ones. I have been looking at the statistics myself and the symptoms are scary.  Worse still, when one article of a certain type gets an infobox, everybody assumes that *all* articles of that type *must* have infoboxes; and, moreover, *all* fields of *all* those infoboxes must be filled.  Thus a thoughtless 15-minute decision by one editor creates a problem that may take an astronomical amount of work to solve — a problem that would not exist if the article did not use an infobox! This is the case of school infoboxes, in particular: just estimate how many schools there are in the world, and how much editor effort it would take to provide all the respective articles with infoboxes and fill all their fields. Note that the casual editor who creates a school article will not insert the infobox, and he will not know how (or will not dare) to edit its cryptic syntax; so it would be the senior editors who would have to provide infoboxes for all those articles. Note also that while a complicated wikisource will scare away bona-fide novice editors, it will not make any difference for vandals. Note finally that a school infobox that does not list its team mascot or the president name will seem "defective", and editors will feel compelled to fill that "defect"; whereas, if there was no infobox, no one would miss that information. So my removal of the infoboxes had two justifications: first, make it possible for me to get all those articles in a reasonably clean state with the minimum amount of work; and second, make Wikipedia slightly better, by improving the appearance of those articles, by making them easier to edit by the interested parties (mostly the students of those schools), by removing useless artifacts that might consume lots of work from my fellow editors, and finally by throwing a little stone against the advancing army of Vogons who are trying to turn Wikipedia into a huge pile of forms, stamps and guidelines. The last goal may be a losing battle, but I am sort of used to that. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. It isn't "minimal". It's a way to see standardized summary data. What about moving the articles to arbitrary names? Please get consensus for this type of change. It isn't minor. tedder (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, I am not going to fight about those articles. I honestly believe that removing the infobox (plus all the other cleanup I did) was a big improvement.  If you disagree you can easily undo it all.  But just look at the two versions and consider whether (a) the rollback would improve the articles, and (b) whether it will be worth *your* time to clean up the original versions and their infoboxes (which seem to contain obsolete data). As for infoboxes being "standard", that is precisely the point. Infoboxes are not a "consensus" in any meaningful sense of the word.  A few editors invented them; everybody else *assumed* that they were official policy (because they *look* official, like any bureaucratic form), and now use them, and defend them, mainly because of that assumption.  So the word "standard" is quite inappropriate; "virus" (or "meme", if you prefer) is a more accurate term. As for the renamings, the new names are quite in line with Wikipedia practice for disambiguation of geographical names; except for the fact that the ambiguity is only expected, not yet actual. I would bet that there are quite a few schools called "Glenwood" or "Marie-Anne Gaboury" in the world, and it seems best to give them local names from the start than wait for the conflict to arise. Imagine what would happen if a student or teacher of a "Glenwood School" in Sacramento or Auckland decides to try his hand at Wikipedia by creating an article about his school, and finds that the name is already taken. By the way, looking at that set of articles, I got the impression that they were all created by someone from the staff of the Louis Riel School Division, Winnipeg (LRSD).  The Collegiate articles appear to have suffered subsequent edits from local students or teachers, but the K-9 ones had just basic data lifted from the school websites (which are all hosted at the LRSD site), all in the same pattern and style. Moreover only 1/3 or so of the K-9 school pages were created, and that "project" appears to have been abandoned over a year ago. My guess is that the editor gave up when two of his K-9 articles were killed by the AfD gang in october 2008. Those two articles were turned into sections of the LRSD page; but since their infoboxes were retained, the result was awful, and that solution would not have worked for the remaining K-9 schools. By the way, I just edited the LRSD article too. This is not a new edit; I merely saved the edits I had done last saturday but had forgot to save. You may notice that I had removed the infobox from that page too, but all I said above about the school infoboxes (including the pledge not to fight about them) holds for that page too. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity: "everybody else *assumed* that they were official policy", how do you know? Paradoctor (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I exaggerated. I should have said that 'most' other editors assumed that. That is just my gut belief, based on diffuse experiences — such as what I myself had assumed about the "officiality" of infoboxes and other Wikipedia features, before I learned what "consensus" really means in Wikipedia. As for why I lost respect for the latter, see for example straw poll. That is a poll about where the unreferenced template should be placed.  About 30 people voted, obviously mostly people who had collaborated on the template's design and who therefore can be assumed to be favorable to the basic idea. You can count 9 votes for "top of article", 10 for "bottom of article", 13 for "talk page". So the final "consensus" decision (top of article) not only was based on a biased sample of less than 0.01% of the active editors, but it was actually the *least* voted of the three options. The supposed "consensus" about the notability guidelines was similar: less than 200 editors voted (out of perhaps 10,000 regular editors of en.wiki). Presumably those who voted were mostly people who took the trouble to read the proposals and discussions, and therefore were largely editors who were in favor of the idea of deleting "non-notable" articles.  Even so some of the items in the poll passed with little more than 50% of the vote. That is definitely not what "consensus" means in real world contexts. Ditto for the "consensus" decisions in the AfD that led to the deletion of thousands of articles (like those on the Winnipeg elementary schools) whose *only* fault was being "non-notable".  Indeed, the deletion poll is carried out on the AfD rather than the article's talk page, it stays open for 7 days only, and the deletion (unlike any other edits) cannot be undone by ordinary users. All these features bias the outcome in favor of those editors who keep the AfD in their watchlist — who are obviously deletionists for the most part.  So the AfD "non-notability" deletions, too, are determined by a minuscule and extremely biased minority of the editors.  Indeeed, every editor who created or improved one of those articles is an emphatic vote *against* the notability rule.  So much for Wikipedia's "consensus".  Sigh, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "my gut belief": Ah, so it was just a case of our guts growling at each other. ;)
 * I can see your problem with consensus, but you seem to formulate it in terms of vote counts. The important thing to note IMHO is that consensus is not the same as harmony, or even majority. The problem is, there may not be a viable consensus decision. What do you do in this case?
 * Infoboxes: Is this really worth your time? If they annoy you, why not simply suppress them? Paradoctor (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * UNENDING DISCUSSION

lanthanoid --> lanthanide
Apologies again, I have had to change "lanthanoid" back to "lanthanide" per this discussion. It should be back to how it was before I came along! Cheers, Jdrewitt (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ISSUE RESOLVED

You comments
RE: "If the *contents* of those bios is consistently inappropriate or malicious then treat that as any other mass malicious edit. If those bios seem to be valid, then he is doing nothing wrong, so do nothing. (If *you* think that all BLPs must have explicit references, then adding those references is *your* problem, not his.)"

Okip BLP Contest 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I note you have not commented on the final !vote of this RFC. I encourage you to do so. Okip   12:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * UNENDING DISCUSSION

Biographical infoboxes
Hi. I see that you have written about this subject. I wonder if you can give me any information about discussions that have been held in the past in the Science projects about this? P.S. I am an editor working in the Classical Music-related project, currently under considerable pressure to agree to the use of these boxes, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers. Thank you for any information you are able to give me. -- Klein zach  00:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NO LONGER RELEVANT. MAY HAVE FAILED TO READ THIS MESSAGE

BLPs
Your summation at the bottom of the discussion is a work of genius. I would publicly add (and will later) my support for that position, but I do not want to interfere with its prominent position at the bottom of the article. You hit the nail on the head.Trackinfo (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just dropped by to give you kudos on the long essay, too. I keep myself out of WP internal politics, the high blood pressure that comes from dealing with bureaucratic-types isn't worth the sweat, but it's good to know there are at least a few deep thinkers about big questions such as yourself. Carrite (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * THANKS

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * you may want to cut down by half what you wrote. maybe move it to the talk page. I actually didn't read it because it was so long, I think many editors will do the same. Okip  03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NO LONGER RELEVANT

Unsourced BLPs
"That explains why no one here seems interested in statistics that prove that unsourced BLPs are harmless, or in the damage that deleting them might do. "

Can you explain / point me to where someone has explained what "damage" you think may occur? Active Banana (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I completely disagree with you about Wikipedias notability requirement. Wikipedia has the full right to declare what the requeirments are for an article to appear within Wikipedia. And if one person has been covered by reliable third party sources and has an article, and another person has not been covered by reliable third party sources and does not have an article - I do not see anything wrong with that at all. Quantity over quality is a flawed strategy and/or goal. Active Banana (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With your wide aspersion of "Wikinzi" I have all I need to know about how much value to place in your comments. Thank you again. Active Banana (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for absolutely confirming my opinion about your ability to construct sound positions based on actual facts. Active Banana (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * UNENDING DISCUSSION

Orphaned non-free image File:Wokiwiki-Main-2010-01-15.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Wokiwiki-Main-2010-01-15.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). PLEASE NOTE: Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.
 * IMAGE USED IN A WARNING ABOUT IMPROPER USE OF WIKIPEDIA BY ANOTHER SITE

Deleting comments
What's up with this edit? You removed three edits. AniMate 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I already restored them. Try and be careful in the future. AniMate  23:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There was something glitchy going on at that thread around that time -- I noticed others that were deleted, and I had to reinsert them back in.  It seemed like an edit conflict with a page break was causing some weirdness.  One of my comments got posted twice around the same time -- at the bottom of two different section breaks.  Odd.   Minor4th  • talk 03:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ISSUE RESOLVED

Admin abuse article
It's probably no bad thing to comment on the The article that was just deleted. Without getting into a long debate, it's an important point of principle and I didn't comment on it during the debate itself.

In writing an encyclopedia, we aim to summarize what is reported in reliable, credible, independent sources. We could choose another policy but that's the site policy here. Its importance is that we can then largely be sure we aren't relying on people's say-so as a basis for articles, but (ultimately and checkably) on the work of reputable, and recognized writers on the topic.

I cannot speak for others, nor whether or not all matters are "done precisely right" (a vague term that gets dozens of differing opinions). What I can say is that I reviewed the sources provided, and without any kind of "mean-mindedness" this is what I found:

I found that the article authors and others at AFD cited a number of media pages and said "this shows topic X got attention" and "this shows topic X is being discussed by the media". When I checked carefully I found that they didn't show anything of the kind - my analysis of what they did show is at the discussion. In other words what really took place was people wanted to have an article on X, felt we should have an article on it. To support that view, reports of different matters in the media were then inaccurately described or mis-cited (not claiming deliberateness or bad faith, just that factually they were not being accurately described when claimed to evidence "admin abuse as a topic has gained significant media coverage").

As a reference site, that's plain wrong. It's a good example why Wikipedia is strictly source based. Imagine we allowed that on all articles - would anything be capable of being trusted? Now, as a matter of fact there may well be some abusive admins. There may (or may not) be a culture of admin abuse in some ways or areas, or for some definition of "abuse" - again, not saying there is, just that there could be. But the one thing I am sure of is that, if there is, then by the precise standards I would apply to any topic and the standards of the wider community as I understand them, it's not apparently got any significant attention at all by the wider world.

A couple of weeks back I deleted an article, and redeleted, on the basis of zero evidence of "world taking note". I undeleted it when it turned out the subject had had an obituary in the New York Times, 1975. That one piece of evidence was enough to show the world did take note - very few people get those. If the evidence is there, for real, then that would be what counts.

But Wikipedia is not for "I think this was wrong so I'm going to write an article about it", or if it is then the same standards will apply as elsewhere. FT2 (Talk 06:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * STERILE DISCUSSION

Proposed deletion of Leroy Milton Kelly


The article Leroy Milton Kelly has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Run-of-the-mill professor, h-index around 10, no claim of discoveries given in article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PERSON WAS CITED IN ANOTHER ARTICLE, BUT NO USE FIGHTING

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate
The Hope Diamond, an article you have edited recently, has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * MINOR CONTRIBUTOR

Merge discussion for Spindle (computer)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Spindle (computer), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * NOT IMPORTANT

New Page Patrol survey

 * NO LONGER RELEVANT

File:Carbon Monoxide timings Jorge Stolfi 2009-05-17 20-30.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Carbon Monoxide timings Jorge Stolfi 2009-05-17 20-30.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 03:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * IMAGE HAD BEEN UPLOADED FOR USE IN BUG REPORT, OK TO DELETE

Dispute resolution survey

 * NO LONGER RELEVANT

Disambiguation of Brother Islands
I'm dissatisfied with the recent rename of Brother Islands to The Brothers (islands), California. I understand the need to disambiguate the California pair from other similarly-name islands. However the current name, it seems to me, is not in the spirit of Naming conventions (geographic names). The comma gives the impression that Brother Islands is a settlement. Are you open to the possibility of renaming the article yet again? —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't presume to decide which is most important -- I live an hour from the San Francisco Bay ones, so I'm biased, and I know it.  I'm still debating how to disambiguate the article.  There are other similarly-named islands in California, but no settlements there, so I'm leaning towards moving the article to "The Brothers (Contra Costa County, California)"  Best regards, —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion. As far as your other comment goes, I'd like to see more consistency, but I think we've achieved about as much of it as is practical in a project like this.  As you point out, there is a non-trivial cost associated with the minor edits involved in improving Wikipedia's consistency. —Stepheng3 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DISPUTE RESOLVED

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * NO LONGER RELEVANT

Proposed deletion of Antônio Houaiss


The article Antônio Houaiss has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability and no references 3 years after request.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I am One of Many (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * REFS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED