User talk:Lowellian/Archive 2010s

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Heating and water
See Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 6. —Lowellian

Television ratings
You seem to know how to find ratings. Do you know how I can find ratings for the five episodes of Million Dollar Challenge (poker)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Medici bank
You know, there was really no need to move it. It was lower-cased because the topic discussed was not any particular legal corporation - none of the Medici branches was named just 'the Medici Bank' so far as I know - but rather a motly collection of shifting entities over the decades/centuries. So one can speak of the Medici bank but not the Medici Bank, if you follow me. eg. see the hits in Google books http://books.google.com/books?q=medici+bank&btnG=Search+Books. --Gwern (contribs) 20:24 13 January 2010 (GMT)


 * While the Medici Bank may not have been a legally incorporated entity in the modern sense, many modern historians refer to it as a proper noun entity; indeed, many of the sources in the Google Books link you gave do capitalize "Medici Bank" (even in plain prose, outside book titles). Moreover, the majority of the text of the article itself capitalizes "Medici Bank"; the page title of the article should be consistent with the text within the article. —Lowellian (reply) 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Thank you for being patient with me. I hope this is a good compromise : ). Tim1357 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I replied again. Tim1357 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Ayre
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show/GA1
Since you have contributed greatly to the article, I am letting you know that I have received WP:GAC feedback at Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show/GA1. Feel free to get involved in the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Stack
I replied here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping this article attain and retain its WP:GA status.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

plurality of Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
Regarding the singular vs. plural point you made on Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, you'll notice in Elliot's Debates that the plural is used for Virginia's Resolutions. Each paragraph is a "resolution"&mdash;this is especially clear in the subtitle of the Kentucky Resolutions. Furthermore, in the first sentence of an address that accompanied the Virginia resolutions, the majority specifically refers to "resolutions" (see Virginia Resolutions of 1798/Address), as do the states who respond (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc.). There's also a book called "Kentucky Resolutions of 1798", and an 1899 scholarly article refers to the "Virginia Resolutions" at the bottom of page 51. If you don't mind, I'd like to make the WP article consistent with this standard. --Spangineerws (háblame)  23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do you remember if your source also referred to a Kentucky Resolution of 1798 and a Kentucky Resolution of 1799, or was it just Virginia's that was singular?  In any case, it seems unlikely to me that both Elliot and Anderson (1899) would have purposefully changed all the contemporary texts to adapt to this standard.  Elliot quotes a number of state responses (as I mentioned), as well as the report of the majority, and Madison's report, and all of them refer to the Virginia Resolutions. And Anderson, for example, quotes the primary sources of the state responses in Contemporary_Opinion_of_the_Virginia_and_Kentucky_Resolutions/Appendix, and in all cases the wording is the "resolutions" of Virginia (reply of Maryland, reply of Penn., and reply of the minority of Vermont).
 * I've been studying this topic for a number of months now, but don't remember having come across this anywhere else besides the WP article. If you remember anything about your sources, please let me know; I've confined my research primarily to public domain works (for Wikisource) and perhaps the distinction is addressed in more recent works?  I'm not sure what to make of it. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Terese Nielsen
Hello,

I am letting you know that an article you have been involved in editing, Terese Nielsen, has been nominated for deletion as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists. If there is anything you can do to improve the article further, your efforts would be appreciated. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships
A user has criticised you at Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. A bot has copied his first post to Requested moves/current which is transcluded at Requested moves. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cape
Hi, now that The Cape is a disambig page, could you help fix the links that need re-pointing per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, The Cape

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaGa (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 September 2010

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas
Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it --- You have made the article Batman Knightfall), please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. )-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unintended consequences
Hi Lowellian. Back in May, you reverted a change in the title of this article. However, your revert was against the consensus on the talk page. Would you mind undoing your revert, without the caps in the new title ("Law of unintended consequences"), since administrator action is now required to do this. Otherwise, please discuss the matter on the talk page. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:YouTube video producers
Category:YouTube video producers, which you created back in 2007, has been nominated by another editor for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thom Merrilin


The article Thom Merrilin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No claim to notability of fictional character

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. Sadads (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Smallville season 10 airdates
If you disagree so passionately, then please come to the talk page and discuss it. I initially put up a template warning because I didn't realize that you were a seasoned editor (the "This user is an Administrator alerted me to it when I was saving the message). As a season editor, and an administrator, I would expect that you would be aware of when WP:BRD should be put into place. I understand why you keep reverting, but since there is clearly a disagreement I would ask that you simply bring it up on the talk page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My original additions, which I thought were common sense corrections to an article that omitted fairly obvious information, were reverted without discussion on the talk page and with only comments in the edit summaries, so I likewise responded via edit summaries, detailed ones explaining my reasoning therein. Furthermore, I attempted to compromise by searching for and adding citations. I do not care enough about this issue (this was never a big deal to me; this started as a casual addition while I was browsing through Wikipedia to an article and topic which I do not regularly edit) to continue pursuing it; I concede, and will agree to let the article stay in its incomplete state, though I disagree with it. In any case, the question will be moot in a few weeks, as the episodes air. —Lowellian (reply) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal
Hi Lowellian,

Thanks for your attention on the Anthony Weiner item. However, I strongly disagree with your position--PROD status does not impact whether something is speediable or not. I restored the history and temporarily protected the redirect per a discussion on my talk page, and I wish you had contacted me before undoing my admin actions. -- jonny - m t  00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The PROD template clearly states that "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." The implication of the template not being replaceable is also that, if the template is removed, the article is not readily deletable without first seeking consensus. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions, and the deletion of that article was unmistakably controversial, with statements of both support for deletion and opposition to deletion from multiple users. The PROD was disputed and the template removed by another user (User:Wikipedical), so at that point, with no clear consensus to delete, further action to delete the article should have been through AFD. Redirecting the article was an effective unilateral deletion without due process and enforcing that effective no-process deletion by protecting the redirect was an abuse of admin powers, one that you did not reverse even after protest from yet another user (User:Joseph A. Spadaro). The admin action was wrong, and as such, I reversed it and left notes on both Talk:Anthony Weiner and Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal. —Lowellian (reply) 01:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi please follow WP:brd and move to discussion, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTM
Hi, I have reactivated this after some discussion on collaborative editing on wikipedia. My idea is to give it a few months and see if it works out. If not, so be it, but might generate more discussion. I note you were interested many moons ago..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Gya for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gya until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

regarding your moving The Firm
About your moving of The Firm from its year disambiguation, your own moves demonstrated exactly what disambiguating by year is to avoid. Fights over "U.S. TV series" or "Canadian TV series". Set in the US and based on the work of an American novelist. Actually made in Canada with many Canadian cast members and made by Canadian companies (E1, Shaw) with token involvement from the US companies (Paramount) who own the rights to the original work. Commissioned by American company (Sony) for their channel in ROW. Massive American media with 'billions of sources' that inherently call nigh everything American. Microscopic Canadian media that often label domestic productions as originals of the US broadcaster who bought the rights simply because that is what everything they read said it is. Queer As Folk, Being Human, Skins, and a couple of others have had big issue with this. I personally have been told to concede to such things as Montreal not being in Canada and that volume of sources trumps accuracy of source. Each one of those shows is made in Canada for Canadian television and might have some involvement from a US production company or not and might have a US cast member or not but they are all set in the US. The show Falcon Beach even had alternate takes edited in any time a location was mentioned so that American viewers on ABC Family were sheltered from the show's Canadian origin in obscure Winnipeg. Due to that some insisted the show is American. To avoid fights with too many people i have come to disambiguate such shows by year because that is less egregious than having a Canadian show labelled as American simply because it was on a US channel for 6 weeks in its first season. And in the case of The Firm the American broadcaster was the last one to come to the party and they got a cheap price for it because it is generally really embarrassing to set a show in the US and end up without a US broadcaster for it. That is why the mini-series The Kennedys ended up on reelzchannel and the Canadian première in March of last year was cancelled in favour of the US premiere in April. To get a show sold to a US broadcaster Shaw will be very flexible. Once a US broadcaster has been secured Shaw doesn't bind themselves to whatever the US broadcaster does, unlike some other Canadian broadcasters. That ep of Combat Hospital that was unaired in the US but which was shown in Canada. Keeping The Firm on Thursdays on Global and repeating on Fridays and Saturdays on Showcase when NBC moves it to Saturdays. Showing NCIS a day ahead of CBS due to time slot conflict with glee Tuesdays at 8pm. I don't know how much you follow Canadian television but going with a national disambiguation opens a pretty hostile 'can of worms' for a show like The Firm. delirious &  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 14:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I stated in my edit summary, I am following the Wikipedia naming convention at WP:TV-NAME, which says to disambiguate first by country, and the infobox in the article states that the country of origin is Canada. That is all; I have no particular personal opinion on the issue. If you have an issue with the naming convention, you should raise the issue on the talk pages for WP:TV and WP:TV-NAME. —Lowellian (reply) 00:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As you seem to not notice, disambiguating multi-national television productions by country of origin is fundamentally flawed. Congratulations for starting the fight all of us were quite happy to not have. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 17:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please stop spamming my talk page with massive quotes. If the conversation started HERE then HERE is where i look for YOUR RESPONSE. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 10:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Commas
I'm not sure why you moved Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. The usual practice with articles that started with British English variations is to leave them in that form. In Britain, the so-called Oxford comma or serial comma is not commonly used. I don't really care one way or another, but I thought you might have seen it as a mistake rather than a legitimate alternative.  Will Beback   talk    04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey
hey

--Kilhert40 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. Did you want to ask me something? —Lowellian (reply) 21:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Firm
I notice you moved The Firm (2012 TV series) to The Firm (U.S. TV series) then to The Firm (Canadian TV series). Why did you do that? I don't want to have the article take a side; I'd rather have it 2012. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I stated in my edit summary, I am following the Wikipedia naming convention at WP:TV-NAME, which says to disambiguate first by country, and the infobox in the article states that the country of origin is Canada. —Lowellian (reply) 00:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it air in more than one country, so why don't you change it back to 2012 TV series? 68.44.179.54 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Most TV shows air in more than one country, and the naming convention says to disambiguate first by country of origin. —Lowellian (reply) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It began in the U.S. and Canada on the same day, so why don't you just do it by year? 68.44.179.54 (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the naming convention says to do it by country. —Lowellian (reply) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I told you the country of origin was both the U.S. and Canada at the same time! On WP:TV-NAME, first it says go by country.  The series originated in both the U.S. and Canada at the same time, so then we go by year.  If the series gets canceled in the U.S. but renewed in Canada, then you can make separate articles (same vice-versa), but that didn't happen yet.  So, for now, it should be by year.  68.44.179.54 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The country of origin is not both U.S. and Canada. The country of origin is the country that produced the show: in this case, Canada. Many television series start airing in multiple countries on the same date (this happens frequently with series from the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. because of the shared English language); that does not change that they have a specific country of origin. —Lowellian (reply) 17:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Television series disambiguation
Hello. I have been swayed by User:Deliriousandlost's arguments over on Talk:The Firm (2012 TV series) / Talk:The Firm (Canadian TV series) that there are fundamental problems with the disambiguation naming convention at WP:TV-NAME. Therefore, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), I have proposed a change to the naming convention which would indeed make disambiguation policy officially support The Firm being located at the "The Firm (2012 TV series)" instead of at "The Firm (Canadian TV series)". Your input would be appreciated there. —Lowellian (reply) 22:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure if this will solve our problems. I will look at it and get back to you. (just some quick thoughts but nothing concrete): In your proposed update, country of production would keep the title as Canadian TV series, as the show is produced in Canada. I agree with the fact that there is an issue of country specific disambig due to the international availability of TV shows, but we must also consider that country of production is not necessarily country of origin. What I mean is that there are many "U.S." original run TV shows produced in Canada, some are shown simultaneously (broadcast networks), some are shown a season or so behind (Usually cable network). So while I agree that there is some wiggle room and possible changes that might need to be made, I am unsure if this is the right change.--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of MediaWiki version history for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MediaWiki version history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/MediaWiki version history until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Monkey (novel) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monkey (novel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Monkey (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rescuing monkey from danger
FYI. I'll do a little more in it later to add more references. I think it's worth keeping. Homunculus (duihua) 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


Thanks for fixing Talk:Disappearance of Kyron Horman. I must have accidentally hit "add signature" or something while I was editing and didn't catch the mistake. Thanks again. :)

Matt (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! :) —Lowellian (reply) 08:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Wolfgang Benjamin Goldschmidt
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Minimal surface of revolution
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG
I see you are the primary editor to Wikipedia is an MMORPG. I left a comment in the Talk page expressing how totally amused I was at that article. It's got to be one of the greatest articles in Wikipedia! Seriously, well done. I am thoroughly impressed. :D • Jesse V.(talk) 06:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you enjoyed it! :) —Lowellian (reply) 08:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Columbine High School massacre is a widely used name for the event, as established via reliable sources. Conversely, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is merely our description (and as discussed on the talk page, it probably won't even remain the article's title in the long term), not a de facto name. I strongly disagree that "The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a school shooting" reads well. —David Levy 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your edit (undone the same minute), but it didn't address my concerns.
 * There's no reason for us to state that the shooting was a shooting. As noted above, the phrase "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is merely our article's title.  It has absolutely no special significance and shouldn't be displayed in bold (thereby treating it as a formal name).
 * In the near future, a predominant name (quite possibly "Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre" or something similar) will be established via reliable sources. That's when it will be appropriate for us to use one.  In the meantime, please restore the correct formatting.  Thank you.  —David Levy 04:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is a widely used name for the event in reliable sources. Do a quick Internet search; thousands and thousands of news media sources are referring to it by that name. WP:CRYSTALBALL says we have no business predicting some sort of future name change, so the correct formatting is boldfaced. —Lowellian (reply) 04:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood. I don't assert that the description "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is uncommon among reliable sources.  But at this point, that's all that it is: a description.  And it's one of many.  (For example, "Newtown school shooting" appears to be equally common.)
 * It's too early for any predominant name (comparable to "Columbine High School massacre") to have been established. Until such time, there's no valid reason for us to single out one of these descriptions in prose. "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" happens to be our article's title, but it carries absolutely no special significance.  —David Levy 04:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your argument. That said, I don't care enough about this article to continue the dispute, so if you wish to revert, go ahead. —Lowellian (reply) 04:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. To be clear, I'm not asking you to agree with the practice, but I can assure you that I've accurately described our conventions.  —David Levy 04:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of Wikipedia conventions. The point in dispute is precisely the interpretation of those conventions, and I can assure you that you haven't accurately described them, since WP:SBE certainly does not support de-boldfacing this subject. I'm not interested in continuing this dispute, so let's agree to disagree. —Lowellian (reply) 04:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Heads up
Hello, this is just a heads up that I've used your contributions as an example to demonstrate an old bug mentioned in Wikipedia's documentation about moving a page over a redirect. Hope you don't mind ... if you do, I can find somebody else to use as an example; I just chose you because your early edits show the effect of the bug quite clearly. I might update that section later if I find any more documentation of the bug, but it's way past my bedtime now! Graham 87 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I was reminded of this bug due to this thread on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Graham 87 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've removed the link to your contributions and replaced it with an edit that I found while digging through the history of . The edit was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:How_to_rename_(move)_a_page&diff=1512315&oldid=1512162 designed to demonstrate the bug]; the link to it was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:How_to_rename_(move)_a_page&diff=15242253&oldid=15242193 removed in June 2005]. Sorry for bothering you with this. Graham 87 02:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture for Can: Monster Movie - Record cover
Hi - I just visited the page of Can: Monster Movie. The LP cover it the cover of the reissue (Liberty Records)! At release time only 500 ex. of Monster Movie were pressed - the coverart is entirely different. Those original pressings are extremly rare - I own one of them. I could supply the original cover of the LP - which I consider the correct one ;-)

Best regards Ueli Frey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uelifrey (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well... happy editing... :-) it's my first try at it! Not really sucessful! I don't get rid of some letters showing up around the picture. Please check! I hope I did not mess up the page. Furthermore I was not sure how to 'declare' the copyright situation of a photo taken from an LP cover (on wikicommons). Best regards Ueli Frey Uelifrey (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming
I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 IRS scandal
Thank you for the administrative help and move. Everyone seems pretty happy with this title. As a note this article was not done to evade a block. The article was created before the block and after discussion and agreement. The purpose was to rename and move the article. Then the old page was locked down (over unrelated edit warring). It doesn't really matter now, but I thought you should know given your brief comment. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your guidance regarding moves. I will follow it. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of M'Kraan Crystal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M'Kraan Crystal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/M'Kraan Crystal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tel'aran'rhiod for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tel'aran'rhiod is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tel'aran'rhiod until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Chinese school for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chinese school is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chinese school until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Firoozbakht’s conjecture listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firoozbakht’s conjecture. Since you had some involvement with the Firoozbakht’s conjecture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Compfreak7 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN for May 2014 Ürümqi attack
-- Spencer T♦ C 20:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MinorEdit
Template:MinorEdit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

China (historical region) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China (historical region). Since you had some involvement with the China (historical region) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 03:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 courtesy notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 4, Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 5, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263, and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive848. —Lowellian
 * The issue of the semi-protected status of this article has been discussed again here: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 under "Protected Status of Article". I am of the view it might be time to remove protection from this article.  Perhaps your two cents on the timeline or circumstances necessary for removal would be helpful.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Common (film)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus cases in the United States
Thank you for removing the conspiracy theorist post on the Ebola article. I ran an online search of the user's name. It turns out that he or someone with the same username runs or is otherwise involved in a number of conspiracy theorist websites, and claims to be suing the government for damages relating to a "mind control program." I would recommend observing his account for any other unconstructive edits or the possibility that he may try to revert your removal of his content. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 09:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Two Steps From Hell listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Two Steps From Hell. Since you had some involvement with the Two Steps From Hell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RfD says at the top "about a week". Why did you close it in a day? Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the reason given in the closure: this isn't actually about the redirect, but about the article title, and as such, Redirects for discussion is not the proper place for this discussion; it should be re-submitted to Requested moves. —Lowellian (reply) 21:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Guerrilla filmmaking
Hello,

I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you. I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited. I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.

My best,

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 06,48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Kim Cloutier
After Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier was (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses and recreated through the WP:AFC process you contested a speedy deletion. Thus, I call your attention to Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

request to move the article heading Principle of legality to former name Legality
Hi,

Seasons greetings. Way back in 2004 you had created an article heading Legality but since most of lead content in the article was about Principle of legality it was redirected by another user to Principle of legality. Yesterday I studied and worked a little on Legality. Since word Legality has wider scope it would be wise to redirect the article from Principle of legality to its former position Legality. I have created enough lead info for the article related to legality on the talk page which can be incorporated and then present lead about Principle of legality can be a section in the article.

I will prefer you support in redirect the article from Principle of legality to its former position Legality so that history of the article can be retained properly. You may refer further details on Talk:Principle_of_legality

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Blitz Ciphers
As you deleted the page 'a while back' - would you be able to find a link to a past version for ? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't have anything to do with deleting the page. User:Michig deleted the page based on the result of Articles for deletion/Blitz ciphers. In any case, it appears from the link you gave that someone has already found a past version for you. —Lowellian (reply) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaelin Clay
What was the reasoning behind restoring the revisions prior the AFD? Was it requested?--Yankees10 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The page was originally deleted for being non-notable. It was later recreated (by someone else, not me) [edit/update: I realized later, after originally writing this comment, that you are the recreator, for which I thank you] as Kaelin Clay gained notability by getting drafted. It is fairly standard practice to restore full page history for a previously deleted page that now exists. Part of the core of what Wikipedia is about is that all previous contributions on a topic by editors should be accessible (except for cases like copyright violations or doxxing, neither of which apply here). —Lowellian (reply) 13:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Imprint
I hope you will visit Talk:Imprint (trade name) and summarize the changes. Did you work on two articles? Or an article and a redirect with two substantial talk pages and page histories? What does it mean in terms of Imprint (disambiguation)?

The history shows "assess for WP:WikiProject Business" as edit summary for replacement of the content by a redirect. And shows that the page (except in name?) is the same as I left it in December. I doubt that I know how to read a merged history. Did the intervening editor rename, in effect, rather than delete the content? --P64 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * At some point, the article at "imprint (publishing)" was turned into a redirect while its content was cut-and-pasted, instead of being properly moved, to "imprint (trade name)", which is frowned upon by Wikipedia policy because it meant that "imprint (trade name)" was missing its older edit history, which was separated at "imprint (publishing)". I merged the page histories to fix the cut-and-paste move. —Lowellian (reply) 09:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Marvel PQ?
I'm curious why you changed the name of Marvel Puzzle Quest to Marvel PQ. I've never heard it referred to that way. I always see it referred to as Marvel Puzzle Quest - on the Marvel website, on the publisher's website, on iTunes, Twitter, etc. Even if you Google search "Marvel PQ", everything that comes up says "Marvel Puzzle Quest". Nowhere do I see it referred to as Marvel PQ, aside from on the cover of the game, but that just seems to be for purposes of style. I mean, the logo for Nine Inch Nails is NIN, but that doesn't mean the Wikipedia page should be named NIN. Is there something I'm missing here?--Bernie44 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I explained why in my edit summaries: "official title, as shown by game cover". I felt that we should go with the official source, the title on the cover. However, I acknowledge the citations you have given and so have reverted my own move. —Lowellian (reply) 04:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Gribshunden
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey
Hello Lowellian, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A request for additional input
Hi —in addition to your post here could you weigh in further? Your post is being discussed further. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Rush (video gaming) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rush (video gaming) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rush (video gaming) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

TFD notice
Since you have made at least 10 edits to Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, I thought you might want to comment on whether the accompanying templates should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIX reverts
A quick heads up here before you go summarily reverting edits in progress at the Super Bowl XLIX: do not make summary reverts, and do not make reverts w/o cause.

You have done both. I am an experienced editor with some 40,000 Wikpedia edits to date. Thank you.24.61.220.85 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not make a revert without cause. I reverted your edit because the former score ordering makes sense given that the sentence was specifically pointing out the the subject of the sentence lost rather than won the game, and you reworded a sentence for no reason, indeed, in a way that is less clear than the previous wording. You're the one who initially reworded the sentence and thus undid someone else's edit without explanation. If you are an experienced editor with so many edits, perhaps you should create an account, but whether you are an experienced editor or not is not relevant here; the quality of an edit is what matters, and I reverted your edits because they did not improve the article. This is not about you; this is about the edits. —Lowellian (reply) 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, you have been by your own acclimation an administrator here at Wikipedia since time began, and thus know the errors in this.
 * Second, I am a native English speaker and a former player of the sport of football and someone who has been editing for publication for seven decades. Scores in that sport, from pee-wee to the NFL, are not recorded with the losing team's point total first, ever.  I made that correction with the explicit notation "Proper format".  It was you who summarily reverted that edit and a copyedit that followed it without explanation. Next, whether I am using  my account or not has no bearing on the quality of my edits.  As you well know over your decade plus of experience here, perhaps Wikpedia's greatest single problem, even greater than vandalism, which is easily patrolled for and reverted, is the driving away of good editors from bullying.  Which is precisely the effect the type of summary reverts you made has, especially for a new user with only an IP address; thank goodness it did not escalate into a full-on edit war, in which the reverter invariably wins, virtually unanimously in cases involving experienced "account holders" who know the ropes versus new and vulnerable IP editors.  Last, indeed it is about the edits, and they stand as made.  Poor format, poor capitalization, poor grammar, and other errors of construction were addressed, not of fact, analysis, or opinion - believe me, I was careful not to risk any of the latter on such a page for the very reasons stated.  Yours in good editing and an agreeable environment here at Wikipedia, 24.61.220.85 (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Pac-Man Arrangement
I redirected Pac-Man Arrangement after discussing the nomination with another editor, not because it "was not going my way". Plus, redirecting hardly equates deletion. It leaves the window open for an article return if someone feels significant improvements can be made, as opposed to eliminating the page outright. Thanks. sixty nine  • speak up •  05:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Viewers no longer see the article or any of its content (no one's going to even know that page existed without checking the page history of the redirect, and who checks page histories of redirects in the course of normal browsing?), so redirecting like that is de-facto deletion. There is a proper process for deletion, AFD, which should have been allowed to go through to completion. Instead, after there was opposition on Articles for deletion/Pac-Man Arrangement and no one joined in voting delete, you withdrew the AFD without letting it go to completion and then redirected the article without any discussion on that article's talk page; talking to a single user who shares your view on their user talk page is not a fair open, community discussion.


 * Furthermore, on Talk:Pac-Man Arrangement, User:Jeff Silvers already expressed opposition to a merge, and you not only ignored that view but went even further in redirecting without even merging. Unintended or not, altogether, that gave the appearance of an attempt to unilaterally circumvent the due process of AFD which articles get under Wikipedia rules. If you want to redirect the article when there has already been opposition expressed by multiple users, you need to establish a community-wide consensus first, either on that article's talk page or on Articles for Deletion.


 * —Lowellian (reply) 08:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "redirecting it is essentially the same as deletion"—this is extremely irresponsible for an admin to say. It's totally within an editor's rights to redirect an article, per BRD, as it is another editor's rights to contest it. The article has been unsourced for a full decade. It is unfathomable to call it independently notable without providing any sourcing to back that position. I would also expect an admin to know that AfD is for deletion arguments only—if there is no rationale for deletion, it becomes a talk page merge discussion. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What is "irresponsible" is withdrawing an AFD without letting it complete as soon as someone votes keep on the AFD so that the article can just be immediately redirected without open discussion and without merging the content. There's a big difference between redirecting without merging and redirecting with merging. Redirecting without merging, which was the action taken, is de-facto deletion: as mentioned earlier, viewers no longer see the article or any of its content (no one's going to even know that page existed without checking the page history of the redirect, and who checks page histories of redirects in the course of normal browsing?), and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.


 * It is not "unfathomable" to think that the subject is deserving of its own article. I think so. The creator of the article thought so, and the editors who significantly expanded the article. Another user also thought so on the talk page. That's multiple users who thought so. Whether the subject is notable and deserving of an article is a debatable point, hence the AFD. Whether the decision would be keep or delete, at least that would be a fair process allowing the full community to air its views. Instead, withdrawing the AFD without letting it complete as soon as someone votes keep so that the article could be just immediately redirected without open discussion or merging the content is abusing the process.


 * If a completed AFD had been decided in favor of delete, that's okay, since then there would have been community discussion. If another discussion has a consensus that the article should be merged or redirected, that's also okay. What's not okay is redirecting without merging or discussion when there is known opposition.


 * Now that a discussion has been started on the talk page at Talk:List of Pac-Man video games, that's good! That's the way the process is supposed to go, not with a unilateral redirect without merging or discussion when there was known opposition to the idea.


 * —Lowellian (reply) 02:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine to close an AfD as speedy keep if the nominator withdraws and there are no other deletion arguments. No one thinks the page should be deleted, but there is consensus to redirect. As it stands, we still don't have sourcing for the article, and no other editor has argued for its independent notability. (And unsourced content is not only unsuited for merge, but should be deleted when wholly unsupported by reliable sources.) But we'll go through another discussion just for you. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  05:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "No one thinks the page should be deleted, there is consensus to redirect". Clearly someone thought the page should be deleted, since it was first nominated for AFD, and then redirected without retaining any of its content. If there was a consensus to redirect, then that should have been established on the talk page or in the AFD. Neither was done: the only discussion on the talk page was of an editor against merger, and the AFD was closed prematurely, with only two editors (you and myself) commenting, and we were in disagreement; two editors in disagreement is not consensus. —Lowellian (reply) 06:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Huygens (chess piece)
Do you have any evidence for the assertions in your edit summary? None of the decent sources at the bottom of the article mention its subject, and web-searches suggested the only actual mentions are in the listed web-forums. --JBL (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The understanding I take from this is that the answer to my question is "no", i.e., you do not have any information or sources beyond the current article. Is that correct? --JBL (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My comment was posted in error as I had not realized that you had already taken the article to AFD. I deleted my comment within a minute after I posted it once I realized you had already taken the course of action suggested in my comment, rendering my comment inapplicable/moot. The understanding you should take is no more and no less than what the comment says: that the article's fate should be resolved via the process of AFD. —Lowellian (reply) 19:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lowellian. I'll leave some comments at the discussion page tomorrow. Thanks for the notice.—LithiumFlash (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, could you please answer the question in my first post: Do you have any evidence for the assertions in your edit summary? Thanks in advance. --JBL (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, reading one of the mathematical sources provided tells me that "infinite chess" is usually studied mathematically only with the standard pieces; I can find no reference to the purported "huygens", even by any other name, and I strongly suspect that all the content in the article about it is original research. Double sharp (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Double sharp, The huygens has received some attention (discussion but no serious studies) from the math community in the context of game theory. Two examples:
 * http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/73850
 * http://jdh.hamkins.org/a-position-in-infinite-chess-with-game-value-omega-to-the-4/
 * —LithiumFlash (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And since when are online discussions reliable sources? The second might be slightly more so due to the person the statement is coming from, but then the statement is not so much about the huygens than about the primes, and besides one claim to significance is hardly enough to fill a reasonable article. Double sharp (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My note was in regard to your comment, "'infinite chess' is usually studied mathematically only with the 'standard' pieces." I can easily find cases where infinite chess is played with other pieces (such as the huygens), and also studied from a mathematical context with with non-standard pieces (again such as the huygens). I pointed this out so that the decision of which variant chess piece articles to delete or not delete is based on correct statements, that's all.—LithiumFlash (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of considering only reliable sources, as is WP policy, my statement is absolutely correct. A blog post or forum post is hardly as reliable as a published research paper, and I find no mentions of the huygens in the latter, even though I find many of infinite chess with orthodox pieces. Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, there are different levels of reliabity for various references. Of the two links I provided, the StackExchange is a forum for mathematicians and programmers, and all posts are subject to a system of consensus and peer review. The other is the webpage of an author of academic papers related to infinite chess and mathematics. As a comparison, try to find comparable references to the chess pieces "kirin" and "phoenix" which also have their own Wikipedia articles. Btw, fwiw, I'm OK with keeping these chess piece articles. They are about gamepieces, not some type of high-level science. We should just apply a uniform criteria for inclusion.—LithiumFlash (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it, do you? WP:RS specifically mentions that publication involves a reliable third party, and yours fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE (read it, it speaks clearly about user-generated content and personal blogs). The phoenix and kirin would OTOH have been mentioned in pretty much every historical text about chu shogi, which is quite a well-known game among chess variants, and their simple components (wazir+alfil, ferz+dabbaba) mean that it is not difficult to find other sources on their use. (Betza is a well-known figure in chess variants, so his personal website is slightly more acceptable provided that we note that it is only his view on the matter.) There are uniform criteria: it's just that you don't seem to understand what they entail, even after numerous links to the WP namespace have been provided. Double sharp (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you using Chu Shogi as the justification to keep the Kirin and Phoenix articles? Pieces for games are OK for articles? That would serve as a justification to keep all existing chess piece articles, and also to start new articles for the other 20 pieces in Chu Shogi (if any editor was interested in doing so).—LithiumFlash (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're not getting it. It is not the fact that a piece is used in a game that makes it magically notable. That only happens when at least one of those games has significant secondary literature about it (chu shogi qualifies), and the piece is used significantly in multiple other games from notable variant inventors (so the phoenix for instance appears in Betza's Chess with Different Armies). We have explained this element of the WP policies and guidelines so many times that I really wonder how you manage to not understand it each and every single one of them. Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, everybody, could you please stop debating this chess piece on my user talk page and take the discussion to your own user talk pages, to the talk page of the relevant articles, or to the AFD discussion? Thank you. —Lowellian (reply) 00:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm most terribly sorry! I'll try to collect all these fragmented discussions at the article talk page. Double sharp (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Help/Delia Antal
Thank you so much for cleaning up my responses on the proposed deletion conversation re an article I started to create about Delia Antal. I really try very hard to be a contributor of value to Wiki but I do have a lot to learn (especially with this kind of thing because I haven't dealt with it yet). I'm wondering if you can help shed a bit of light on this issue I'm dealing with - I saw a film called D'Ora and was impressed by the film and its star/writer - who did something quite brave with this film. I found enough links to support the article; and when it got questioned by Biruitorul - I went back and deleted the ones he pointed out as questionable; and just started adding new ones. I'm wondering if there's anything else I should be doing. Again, my goal is to always be a welcomed contributor! Thanks for any response you can give me. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're on the right track in finding and adding references to the article. Unfortunately, I can't really help you on this particular subject beyond that because I don't know anything about Delia Antal or D'Ora. However, I can give one more general Wikipedia tip: you can sign your comments so that a bot won't have to do it for you by adding four tildes ~ at the end of each of your comments; try it out, it's a cool feature! Happy editing! :) —Lowellian (reply) 01:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Underdark for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Underdark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Underdark& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Commerce
You undid my edit after I merged commerce.

There is duplicated content in trade since I copied and pasted content.

Please do not undo, it damages wikipedia.

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorpzn (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Commerce is a long-established article, with hundreds of edits, that has been in existence fifteen years, since 2002, and as such, merging away such an article needs discussion and consensus. If you feel such an article should be merged, please follow the instructions at Merging: list this merger proposal on Proposed mergers so many editors can know about it so we can discuss it on the talk page to establish a consensus whether to merge or not to merge. —Lowellian (reply) 08:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Moving Pages
Don’t pages without discussing them first as you did with 2017 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Corruption Scandal. All page moves should be discussed and agreed upon on the article’s talk page. MitchellLunger (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Page moves need to be discussed when there is opposition or when the title was long-established. At the time I originally moved the article, the article was newly-created and there was no opposition. The name you favor, "2017 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Corruption Scandal", violates multiple Wikipedia guidelines: against MOS:', it uses the curly apostrophe, and against WP:NCCAPS, it unnecessarily capitalizes the words "Basketball Corruption Scandal". Compare "2017–18 NCAA Division I men's basketball season". —Lowellian (reply) 00:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Imports
Please see my last response at Village_pump_(technical). — xaosflux  Talk 22:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just stumbled upon the Welcome/other wikis importing issues myself at Village pump (technical) and I appreciated your thoughts on the matter. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's your choice, of course, but you might want to actually post your views on the subject in the discussion on that page. —Lowellian (reply) 19:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Other than saying "the way the imports were happening isn't actually quite as clear and clean and "kosher" as it could have been and probably should have been for attribution purposes" I'm not sure I can add much beyond what is already there. Going forward, it seems that this mangling of attribution and authorship has been fixed, and there is really no way to fit the previous importing of attribution/authorship from .en to other language wikis... I don't think I have anything new or salient to add to the VP discussion.  Besides, if I posted  something like my "the way..." phrase to the VP:Tech, I am certain it would probably be smashed into oblivion for not citing a source/WP policies & guidelines etc. I just looked at the importing and thought "this bothers me but I'm not sure I can explain why...". Shearonink (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice
There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Starlabs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Starlabs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Starlabs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Allman listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jamie Allman. Since you had some involvement with the Jamie Allman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  John123521  ( Talk - Contib. ) 08:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Listgap
In any discussion on Wikipedia, we use the markup reserved to lists as a proxy for discussion and threading. WP:LISTGAP absolutely applies in this case, because it is about the wikitext, not about your understanding or intention about the wikitext.

Please revert your change and please don't introduce changes like that anywhere else in the future for talk pages. LISTGAP already provides the reasons why you should not. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Izno: The style I use of a blank line around paragraphs is common in discussion pages. WP:LISTGAP is not relevant, as it is a guideline specifically for lists, not indented discussions: "Do not separate list items by leaving empty lines or tabular column breaks between them. This includes items in a description list (a list made with a leading semicolon or colon) or an unordered list. Lists are meant to group elements that belong together, but MediaWiki will interpret the blank line as the end of one list and start a new one. Excessive double line breaks also disrupt screen readers, which will announce multiple lists when only one was intended, and therefore may mislead or confuse users of these programs."


 * That is a guideline that applies to lists, and its intention is to not botch formatting of lists, which is why it is not relevant here: the discussion isn't a list. Unlike the case with lists, with indented discussions, the extra line doesn't change how the discussion is rendered in Wikipedia's resultant display. I find it much easier to edit the source when I can easily see where each of my paragraphs end and where someone else's comment ends and my comment begins. You yourself used a blank line between your two paragraphs in the comment you just posted here on this user talk page.


 * I don't go around wholesale changing others' comments; please respect the same for me. When I posted my comment, notice that I did not insert a space between your comment and TheDJ's. I put spaces around the paragraphs of my own comments, which had spaces around them when I originally posted those comments; it had nothing to do with you. I get that the border between comments from two users is "shared" between both users, so if you want to remove the blank line between your own comment and mine on that Village Pump discussion, go ahead: since we share that border, I won't object, and you can have the borders of your comments there, even those shared with me, in the style you prefer. But please don't wholescale edit all my comments that you weren't even sharing a border with. Thank you.


 * —Lowellian (reply) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the HTML your post just above generated:  It's clearly opening and closing four lists, and will be read as such by screen readers. The situation only gets worse if there are multiple colons:   If you want (mostly)-blank lines in the wikitext, follow the advice at MOS:INDENTGAP and include colons on the otherwise-empty lines:   which is far less disruptive:   Anomie⚔ 17:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lowellian: perhaps you didn't realise this, but our system of indenting posts in discussions relies on turning them into lists. This is a left-over from the 1990s when early web designers used the fact that browsers commonly render lists or parts of them as indented text. Unfortunately, once screen readers became available for blind users, it became apparent that what looks fine to a sighted reader can be a real mess for anyone who uses assistive technology such as a screen reader. Our guidance at LISTGAP is intended to make the experience of visiting Wikipedia a little less unpleasant for those who already have enough difficulties, so it would be a kindness to those folks if you would do your best to follow that advice and not leave gaps between indented text in your posts. Using a line blank except for the same number of indent characters as the neighbouring post will still allow you to spot your post easily when you want to edit it, but will remove all of the annoyance that a blank line causes to screen reader users. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Izno, User:Anomie, User:RexxS: Okay, I will accept this. Wish I had been pointed to WP:INDENTGAP in the first place, which actually directly addresses this specific issue, instead of WP:LISTGAP, which doesn't seem to apply to the situation since it says nothing about the engine using lists to render indentation.
 * But would it not be a better solution to modify the MediaWiki software to, on reaching a blank line in the wikicode, avoid generating extraneous  tags by checking the next line for indentation and then adjusting accordingly? I had always thought the layout engine simply ignored a single blank line between paragraphs since that blank line makes no visual difference in the resulting layout in non-screen-readers. If the layout engine simply doesn't generate those unnecessary tags, then this entire problem is avoided. It is incredibly counterintuitive to require people to type "::::[blank]" (to use the top border of this current comment as an example) instead of simply a blank line when there is no visual indicator of any difference in resulting layout on non-screen-readers. It's also counterintuitive that a blank line between non-colon-indented paragraphs is okay, but a blank line between colon-indented paragraphs is not.
 * —Lowellian (reply) 16:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But would it not be a better solution to modify the MediaWiki software to, on reaching a blank line in the wikicode, avoid generating extraneous  tags by checking the next line for indentation and then adjusting accordingly? I had always thought the layout engine simply ignored a single blank line between paragraphs since that blank line makes no visual difference in the resulting layout in non-screen-readers. If the layout engine simply doesn't generate those unnecessary tags, then this entire problem is avoided. It is incredibly counterintuitive to require people to type "::::[blank]" (to use the top border of this current comment as an example) instead of simply a blank line when there is no visual indicator of any difference in resulting layout on non-screen-readers. It's also counterintuitive that a blank line between non-colon-indented paragraphs is okay, but a blank line between colon-indented paragraphs is not.
 * —Lowellian (reply) 16:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * —Lowellian (reply) 16:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * —Lowellian (reply) 16:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Easy Transfer


A tag has been placed on Easy Transfer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Insects as food
Hello Lowellian,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Insects as food for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, entomophagy..

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Insects as food for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Insects as food is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Insects as food until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SpinningSpark 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Insects as food for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Insects as food is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Insects as food& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I need your help
Hi! can you please check out this Florian Munteanu case. I've seen plenty of pages here on Wikipedia with actors who played a single role in a movie. I don't understand why some people complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4F8:1C17:404A:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

2019 NFL Draft
Hey, just for clarification, as I don't honestly know, but if that's the case, then why do all the previous year's drafts have it this way? For instance, all the teams in the 2018 NFL Draft direct to their 2018 season, as do the teams on the 2017, 2016, 2015, etc. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disregard. I see what I did wrong. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughtful grammar edits on Burning Sun scandal
Thank you Lowellian...I started the page with the correct syntax, then lost my mind while trying to trim my wordiness. Nice of you to take the time to correct it.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, User:Bonnielou2013! Thank you for starting the article, and happy editing to you! :) —Lowellian (reply) 23:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Cancerverse
Hello, Lowellian,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Xevus11 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Cancerverse should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Articles for deletion/Cancerverse.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Xevus11 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Transnationality


The article Transnationality has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article lacks citations. Its is a broader perspective stating a concept. Don't know the purpose of its existence."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.  !dea4u   11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Legends of Tomorrow eps listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Legends of Tomorrow eps. Since you had some involvement with the Legends of Tomorrow eps redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Foreign relations of China
There’s a discussion at Talk:Foreign relations of China which may be of interest.ch (talk)

"Sancia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sancia. Since you had some involvement with the Sancia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 02:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jann of the Jungle


The article Jann of the Jungle has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. TTN (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Jann of the Jungle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jann of the Jungle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jann of the Jungle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ho Yinsen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ho Yinsen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ho Yinsen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moon-beast


The article Moon-beast has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fictional race that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. BEFORE does not show any analysis, only in-universe style summaries.

While all constructive 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. Urhixidur (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)