User talk:Nightenbelle/Archive 1

Invitation

 * I'm happy to see a fellow Wikipedian from Arkansas, I hope you enjoy the site and decided to stay!&mdash;Coffee // have a cup  // essay  // 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! I'm excited to help out with this project.

The Game of Life
Please be careful with what you call vandalism. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello, I saw your comment on the issue of requiring autoconfirmed status before creating new articles, and it impressed me as very perceptive for a new editor. I hope you stay around and ... create some new articles. Feel free to ask me for help at any time. One tip - sign your comments on discussion pages with four tildes at the end, like this: ~

The Wikipedia software will add your signature, and a date and time stamp. Good luck! Cullen328 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

William Asplin
Hello, Nightenbelle. Just a reminder that if you nominate an article for deletion, you should let its creator know. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

American Income Life Insurance Company‎
Thanks for your improvements to the American Income Life Insurance Company page! It looks so much better now! Mgbaker22 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to MSG Varsity, did not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Superman768 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

--My Edit was not vandalism- I removed non-pov. Check the edit historyNightenbelle (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive update
Sent on behalf of theGuild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit request
Hi. I've nominated an article for GA that is presently being reviewed for inclusion. The article isHowling Bells, and this is its second attempt at GAN. The reviewer feels that the prose is not up to par and has suggested that it undergo a copy edit. I've looked at your page and feel comfortable in asking for your assistance. Would you be willing to have a go at it?Mattchewbaca (meow) 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

--No Prob bob. :-) I'll look into it tonight (I'm getting ready to head out to a meeting) Or tomorrow at work. Thanks for thinking of me!! Nightenbelle (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---No Prob bob. ;D make me laugh. I'm down with informality too. It's great. This world needs more of it. Thanks for your willingness to look at the article. Mattchewbaca(meow) 22:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Wikification Drive
Sumsum2010 · T · C 23:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation
Sumsum2010 ·T ·C 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Disney Role Call
-- Groovy Sandwich  23:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Help please
Hi. I am Jivesh. I edit strictly Beyonce-related articles on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could do a copy-edit of Green Light (Beyoncé Knowles song) for me? Please reply on my talk-page. Waiting in anticipation. Jivesh   • Talk2Me  10:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011 Wikification drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf ofWikiProject Wikify at 16:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Survey
Hi Nightenbelle!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you!SarahStierch (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the December Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf ofWikiProject Wikify at 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify March Mini Drive
Delivered by benzband  ( talk ) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify 18:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

F1 talk page
Hi there - don't take any offence at what I might say in that protracted discussion at the WikiProject F1 page - I certainly am not aiming any criticism at you. It's an unusually lengthy and ridiculous argument, for reasons which will no doubt become clear later, and I hope you'll understand. All the best, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again - just to say that the editor I was arguing against has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another blocked editor I had a run-in with a while ago. I couldn't say so at that time because it wasn't proven, but my suspicions were the only reason I was dragging out that ridiculous argument. I don't want anyone to think that kind of debate is typical of my contributions ;) I hope it doesn't stop you helping out next time you see my name somewhere! Cheers, Bretonbanquet(talk) 18:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

CVUA Enrollee!
Hi! I noticed you have noted that you would like to enroll with the CVU Academy! I would be happy to take you on as my enrollee if you are interested? If you are, please leave a note at my talk page Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 13:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Nightenbelle, I have just had a look through your contributions, and it does look like you have a pretty good grasp of what vandalism is. Have you tried to apply for Rollback?. Feel free to reply here, as I have your talk page watchlisted now. Mr Little Irish  (talk)© 13:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have and make very happy useage of Rollback :-) Just finished a rollback when I got this message as a matter of fact :-)Nightenbelle (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at that one, you must remember that Rollback is only to be used for reverting explicit vandalism, spelling mistakes aren't vandalism. Try to be careful in that respect. So I see you use Twinkle at the moment, have you tried Huggle? Huggle reverts, then places a warning, and if needed reports them at WP:AIV. Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 14:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The one I had rollbacked before I posted was obvious vandal. The spelling mistake- I didn't even think before I hit the Vandal- You're right- I should have just reverted that one. I have not tried huggle- and if it can do all that without the six steps I go through now- I would be thrilled! I can't download at work however- so I have to do things the "hard" way here. I will download and experimient with it tonight. Then I can ask questions when (not if I'm sure) I get confused?Nightenbelle (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Huggle is awesome. One click does it all. You just have to be super careful because if you revert something in error, you have to manually undo everything. But if it's not vandalism, it's not a rollback, it's an undo :) And yes, if you have any questions, ask me! That's what I'm here for as your instructor! <font color="Lime">Mr <font color="FFFFFF">Little Irish  (talk) © 14:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll jump in again on this little conversation too. Huggle is amazing! Just make sure you read the manual because I couldn't get it to work and it turned out I didn't follow the directions :D Dan653 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Nightenbelle, Just looking through your reverts again, I noticed that you're not warning all vandals you revert. You should probably do that incase they are consistantly vandalising. <font color="Lime">Mr <font color="FFFFFF">Little Irish  (talk) © 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When I go to warn them, sometimes cluebot or another has already warned them for the exact revert I just did- its like cluebot and I got there at the same time, but I got the rollback and he got the warning- should I re-warn them then? And do you warn for even small changes? I got yelled at for that before too. If I'm supposed to- I'll do it and damn the screamers after, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the help! Nightenbelle (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If they've been warned for the same, no, don't warn again. And what do you mean by small changes? If it's an outright vandalism edit you are reverting, make sure there is a warning (by anybody, E.g. Cluebot) on their talk page. If it's a simple undo because the previous version was better, include the reason in the edit summary, but don't warn. If you do get stuck, I'm here to help :) <font color="Lime">Mr <font color="FFFFFF">Little Irish  (talk)© 12:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note, ClueBot won't leave a warning unless it does the revert, so if you see an note from ClueBot on a page you've just reverted, that means that the Vandal is attacking the same page more than once (very common). Also, for "small edits" (like adding " " to a page) you can use uw-test1 as opposed to uw-vandalism1, which has softer language and Assumes Better Faith. Achowat (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So aparently I'm a moron, and I thought I had rollback, but all I really had was Twinkle. I put in a request for Permissions, and I feel dumb. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you finding Rollback? Have you had a chance to use Huggle yet? <font color="Lime">Mr <font color="FFFFFF">Little Irish  (talk) © 09:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hi Nightenbelle, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 19:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hunting permit in Germany
It is a fact that not everybody can easily get a hunting permit in Germany, as the German cuisine page seemed to imply. Unlike America, you can't just walk up to some local office, pay a fee and get one. The exam is known as "the green diploma" because it requires some serious studying. Maybe you could argue that saying so doesn't belong on that page, but even then it hardly constitutes vandalism. Thanks. -- 92.230.209.90 (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I re-added it with source now, I hope it's OK that way? What about my previous edits, may I reinstate them too? --92.230.209.90 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Rollback Errors
Nightenbelle, I just wanted to give you a friendly reminder to double-check facts and changes if they appear to be legit before mashing your "Q" key. You've made several errors in rollbacks in the past half hour. I've cleared a few of them up for you, but it would be appreciated if you slowed down and took your time while going through recent edits. Most recentlyKim Myong-Won - If you did a quick Google search, you would've noticed that Kim indeed switched from a North Korean team to a Mongolian team. Just wanted to leave a simple reminder - keep up the good work. --Slazenger <font style="font-size:9px;"> (Contact Me)  20:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi!
Hey Nightenbelle, how are things? I see you've been given some feedback in regards to rollback, and I was just wondering how you were getting on? Are you comfortable with finding and identifying vandalism? If you get stuck, give me a shout :) <font color="Lime">Mr <font color="FFFFFF">Little Irish  (talk) ©08:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm getting on fine. The mistake that the above user corrected me on was odd. The name of the Team the guy joined is like Baaaanaaaata or something close too that, I think mistaking it as Vandalism is understandable. But I'll slow down and google more often. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the April 2012 Wikification Drive!
Your efforts are appreciated!!! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello :)
Hi, how are things going? <font color="Lime">Mr <font color="FFFFFF">Little Irish  (talk)© 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hiya!!! I think things are going much smoother- I am much more cautious about labeling vandalism, and if I am unfamiliar with the subject and its not obvious cursing or what have you- I take the time to do a little research. I'm figuring out the tagging options in huggle now- this is SUCH a great tool- makes life SO much easier!Nightenbelle (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great! I'm glad you're getting to grips with the tool, and the vandalism :) <font color="Lime">Mr <font color="FFFFFF">Little Irish  (talk) © 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Graduation!

 * Thank you for your guidence!

Po (river)
Good day,

I'm wondering why you reverted my rollback on the above, using Huggle which is a vandalism tool? Note I rollbacked the other editors edit as they removed a reference, which is an non-constructive editor to Wikipedia and can be deemed upon as vandalism. Also, if you wish to do that it is best to notify the editor in the appropriate place, which is usually excepted (well, I always do it!). Thanks! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What looks like happened, is my computer was lagging, and I clicked rollback right after you did- and was attempting to rollback the same thing you were, but before my computer registered the click, it updated. I've had this happen where my computer is lagging with an update, and it freezes for a second, but I've never had it put an action through while frozen. I am so sorry! Nightenbelle (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! I have reverted your revert and explained in the edit summary. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

June Wikification Drive!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 15:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Talkback
<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#009900">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">essay  // 01:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: July Newsletter and August Drive

 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify and the future of wikification
Hi! There is an ongoing proposal at the project talkpageconcerning the future of wikification, including possible deprecation of the wikify template which is being discussed atWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of the wikify project. To update your status, go here.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf ofProject Wikify

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

February 2013 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

Question
Odd question, but do you edit fiction? Rather than write, I'm looking at a bunch of people who are listed as readers of Alt History. BenWilson (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * yes I have before, and as an English major and former English teacher I have lots of experience as such. But it’s by no means something I do full time anymore. What are you needing? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Josip Runjanin
I am buffled. Not all the editors agreed, per say. The final sentence is rather vague. ]  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadko So are you saying you don't agree to adding the daughter's statement? I'm sorry- if so, I'll re-open (unclose?) Nightenbelle (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I clearly said that we have a partisan source used and that a note might work. No problem Nightenbelle. Now we have this edit as a result -  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  21:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am as surpriced as Sadko. I do not see that the daughter's statement is even the central point in the discussion, and I certainly do not see any consensus for adding it. Mikola22 is the only one who has mentioned her in the discussion. --T*U (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I am home and don’t have access to a computer. I will reopen tomorrow to continue moving towards a compromise. I’m sorry for my quick action Nightenbelle (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay the discussion is reopened. Thank God for smartphones. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories_related_to_the_Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal
Thank you, Nightenbelle, for your prompt response to my Dispute Resolution request, on the DR talk page. However, the reasons given for immediately closing the discussion are not altogether clear, and the apparently chief specific reason given, that I had not informed the other editor in the dispute, is incorrect. I did indeed inform the other editor in the dispute, Guy, of the filing of a DR appeal. I do not know how you could have missed that. I wrote the notice not only on the Talk Page of the article itself, evoking a query from another editor on the page and a response by Guy himself, so it really is there, and I also posted a notice of it on Guy's own User Talk Page, evoking some exchanges there. Had you checked those locations? You also wrote that there seemed to be no specific edit that needed an adjudication. That is not correct either (e.g., there was discussion relating to the title itself and its wording, which I had criticised, the use of pejorative adjectives by Guy for the viewpoints Guy disliked, such as "baseless," and "insane," both in the article itself and the Talk Page, Guy's rejections of articles by John Solomon and of OAN as a legitimate source, and other items), but the key issue was not any one edit but the non-NPOV slant of the entire article, so that in my opinion the whole thing needed a rewrite. However, you also wrote in your comment that DR might not be the best forum for this discussion. That may well be the case. Where should I go to get someone with the authority to assess the NPOV or POV nature of an entire article and, if it is not satisfactory, get it rewritten or deleted? What would be the best forum for this sort of request? 122.111.212.235 (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Nightenbelle, the dispute is actually quite simple. The IP keeps proposing changes to content based on sources Wikipedia does not consider reliable, or attempting to "balance" very high quality sources such as the Washington Post with dross such as One America News Network. I've pointed him to WP:RSN if he wants to check for himself. Guy (help!) 14:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Nightenbelle, perhaps you should simply re-open the Dispute Resolution forum you closed. As I have shown, the reasons given for closing it were simply incorrect. Since the entire article is loaded with bias, though, and that is the real problem unlike what Guy has written, perhaps there is a forum better suited to general editorial consideration of the article as a whole, and its acceptability under Wikipedia guidelines? 122.111.212.235 (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ping\122.111.212.235 and JzG I'm sorry, let me be more clear. I understand the issue, both the political one and the WP:NPOV and neither of them have anything to do with why I closed the DRN, nor will explaining them convince me to re-open it. If you want a Dispute to be mediated by a DRN Volunteer you need to file it correctly. This isn't a bueurocratic power trip, but all involved editors- every, singly, one of them, must be listed and then notified on their individual talk pages. This ensures that everyone involved has the opportunity to participate and say their piece. The filing editor did neither of these things. So either of you is welcome to open a new Dispute, and as long as it is done correctly, a volunteer will be along shortly- not me though, because I wouldn't touch any American contemporary political dispute with a ten foot pole- and this, right here, is why. I clearly stated my reasons for closing the dispute which were procedural- not content related, and neither of you read them, you made assumptions and then demanded I undo my actions based on your assumptions of my misunderstanding. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And for the record- I noticed you notified 1 person, but there were MANY more than that involved with the dispute. You either involve everyone who is involved with the discussion, or don't involve anyone. You can't just cherry pick who gets to have an opinion on WP. I did check Guy's TP. I checked every link you posted. I didn't miss anything. YOU however did. YOU missed that other people were involved. So if you want to re-open it, please be inclusive of every person in that discussion who had an opinion on the "issue" you are requesting mediation on, not just the one user you have a personal issue with. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you wouldn't touch any politically charged article with a ten-foot pole, then perhaps you should not have acted so precipitously and harshly to shut the whole thing down, but should have left it to another more patient and/or neutral administrator to assess the issues and make a judgment on it. Actually, the editor I was in on-going dispute with was just one person. That one person with whom I almost solely interacted happened apparently to be the chief author of the problematic article, namely, Guy. No others interposed any comments, aside from BullRangifer who entered a comment on the article's Talk Page after I notified Guy on that page of my DR appeal. However, BullRangifer did not engage with the discussion, only advising me about the process. He obviously knew of the dispute, since he commmented on the process itself. He therefore didn't need notification. I hadn't made a critical comment on anything he had written earlier, nor he on my comments, so this was the first communication between us. When I go back to the article Talk Page, though, I do see that I had made one brief response to Koncord (not answered), and two or so other editors had recently visited the talk page and made other critical comments along the lines of my complaint elsewhere in the discussion that I could have cited if I had understood that that was necessary. But rather than complain further now about the muddled and clouded phrasing of your explanation on the DR page when closing the whole request, I would appreciate clearer advice about where I should appeal this question. However, I do labor under several disadvantages in this matter: I am not experienced in Wikipedia ways and processes; I do not want to waste my time and I have little time to devote to this anyway; I am not left-wing, and it is clear that if emphatically and self-confessedly highly politicized leftist editors have found a way to use NPOV to shut down NPOV, that write up and then manage specific articles on political affairs, even allowing themselves extremist slurs and demeaning adjectives when mentioning non-leftist persons, sources and evidence, and thereby turning articles into one-sided propaganda, the sheer number of such articles written and monitored by such editors already indicates that this must be OK with Wikipedia and no protest is likely to go far. It appears that the malaise is systemic. 122.111.212.235 (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Every editor involved gets a say- not just the one you cherry-picked to deal with- and there are dozens of editors arguing on the talk page over the neutrality of that article. You can not like my answer all you want, but its the way DRN works. Every. Involved. Editor. And we don't mediate content disputes anyway. So I should have closed it for two reasons instead of just picking one. Just because I don't want to mediate political non-sense does not mean I'm partial or impatient- it means I know my limits on time and availability. I'm on WP for maaaaaaybe 1-2 hours a day 5 days a week. An argument about politics cannot be handled in that time. Not to mention the tendency of those involved to lash out when they don't get their way. Like you have been doing on my talk page for how long now? You don't even know my political stance. You don't know which side I'm on or my opinion about that or any other Trump related article. You have assumed you are arguing with someone on "the other side" when in truth- you have no idea. But thank you. So much. I love being harassed for enforcing policy. Now, have a nice day and please find someone else to harass.You brought a DRN problem to my talk page, made assumptions and were generally condescending and rude, you don't get to question my ability to do the job I voluntarily do in spare time as an attempt to discredit me. You get to apologize and re-file correctly or go away.Nightenbelle (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you!!!Nightenbelle (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Behavioural genetics
For my edification, regarding this edit, can you please point me to the place where it is stated that a GA is perfect and cannot be tagged for further improvement? In addition, did you take into account the fact that I have provided sources for my assertion that the article is unbalanced, whereas the counter argument is "it passed GA" and "when people talk about BG they mean human BG", without anything other to support this than the editor's opinion? Thanks for your clarifications! --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Randykitty As I said in the closing notes. Please tag specific sections for improvement needed, do not keep relisting to have someone review the GA status. Specific suggestions would be more helpful than a general "this article sucks" which is the equivalent of what you have done. No one said it was perfect, but we are asking you to follow accepted practices and tag specific improvements or work on the article yourself rather than request repeated unnecessary administrative intervention when you disagree with consensus. If you put all the time you have spent fighting the GA into fixing the problems you see- the article would be fixed. DRN is not needed when consensus has been reached and one editor disagrees. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I have given quite some more detail than "this article sucks". I have argued that it is unbalanced and supported that with sources. I have not relisted it for GR review, so I really wonder where your remark that I should not "keep relisting [it] to have someone review the GA status" comes from. Consensus is 2 editors who say that the tag should go because the article passed GA (and no other arguments or sources), 1 editor who says that it should go to GAR if the tag is justified and that if it isn't, the tag should be removed (duh...), and 1 editor (me) who argues that the article is unbalanced and documents that with sources. That sounds far from a clear consensus to me. (Remember WP:NOTAVOTE?) As for fixing the article, I have some very strong personal reasons why I should not edit this article more than is necessary (hope you can WP:AGF on that). --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Randykitty The consensus I was referring to was reached when it passed GA the first time and was confirmed the second. I will AGF, but if you can't edit the article, and it seems like you are personally attached to it and may need to step away. Just my opinion- not a requirement/formal statement. Regardless, twice now a group has deemed this article to meet GA status, nothing significant has changed/been removed. So that consensus stands. Please mark specific things you would like to see improved and not just a general request for a third review until/unless the article has significant changes for the worse. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Some background for the discussion introduced yesterday at DRN (re. Wuhan data template)
Good afternoon Nightenbelle! I have recently come back to monitoring the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (I used to assist there years ago and am trying to become active again), so I'm commenting on your talk page not as a participant in the dispute but as a fellow volunteer at DRN. I noticed that you recently assigned yourself to the Wuhan coronavirus data template discussion at DRN and are waiting for the dispute summaries by the involved editors. I'm not going to jump into that dispute (unless you would like my help, of course), but I did do a bit of looking into it and found something you may find helpful as you moderate the discussion. Apparently the issue at hand (at least as filed) is already addressed in the Manual of Style at MOS:NC-CN. The issue obviously appears a bit more complex than that, but it might be worth pointing the involved editors in that direction as they may not have known about it, depending on how their opening statements are. Regards, Sleddog116 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sleddog116 Thank you, They are actually arguing how to apply MOS:NC-CN on the talk page- editors see several applicable reasons for China, and mainland China- and one wants to know in which province is the "state" of Mainland China.... so they are already debating which 3 circumstances apply. I did just notice only 1 of the 3 editors tagged were notified, so I'm tempted to close it on those grounds anyway. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Help
What advise me to request mediation in the discussion?

The fact of opting for interference by third parties falls to conflicts caused in another Wikipedia, I do not feel confident in discussing with those involved and not even willing. I am looking for alternative solutions, thank you and greetings. <span style="color:#000000;font-family:Poor Richard, Nella Sue;">Edmond Dantès  d'un message? 22:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Conde Edmond Dantès Well as I said on the DRN- you can refile correctly there. Unfortunately, your sources on the subjects talk page are pretty much unacceptable by Wikipedia policy WP:RS. So I would find some appropriate sources then try to discuss on the subject's talk page. And if that doesn't work- then re-open a Dispute Resolution request and follow the directions there. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources I added in the article are from books by trusted Brazilian authors, mainly Prandi. The fact that the focus of the article is present in the Brazilian religion Candomblé, makes the present spelling an information to appear in the article.
 * I would like to know why the sources are not "reliable" and the reason for excluding only the spelling, as I used similar sources, including the same author, to reference the rest of the content. <span style="color:#000000;font-family:Poor Richard, Nella Sue;">Edmond Dantès  d'un message? 01:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to know more about why sources are unreliable, and the policy isn't clear enough, I suggest you head over to the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to know more about why sources are unreliable, and the policy isn't clear enough, I suggest you head over to the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reiki
I was about to ask if this was a one-against-many dispute before you volunteered to mediate. If it is a one-against-many, then it would be good if you can help them compromise, but it might be more appropriate for the one editor to use a Request for Comments, which is a way for the community to tell them that the community thinks they are in a minority. Thank you. I suggest that you let them answer, and be ready to go to RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice- I will be ready :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

HI!
Hi, can you help me set up a dispute resolution request here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard)? Edion Petriti (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Literally all you have to do is click open dispute and answer the questions. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for pointing to me where I should ask for help! Now I need to read in the WP:RFC, about how to do it. Gre regiment (talk)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Atul Kochhar
Thank you for closing. You had no obligation to do the research to figure out what an unregistered editor meant, especially because I find it difficult to engage in dispute resolution with an unregistered editor. There would have been no obligation to figure out what a registered editor was trying to say either, and I sometimes will but usually won't help a registered editor who is being sloppy in filing. I think that this is actually a registered editor logged out who is being sloppy in filing, and I don't want to help them. There wasn't real discussion on an article talk page anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Magic
Hi Nightenbelle; you recently closed the Dispute Noticeboard request I had opened by saying that there was already an RfC ongoing. As far as I'm aware, that isn't the case; on the Magic (supernatural) talk page I suggested the possibility of an RfC to discuss one particular point but none was ever initiated. Unless you have a particular reason, could you revert your closing of my Dispute Noticeboard request? Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can not revert. I checked the RFC board before I closed the dispute, and there is indeed an open RFC. When that is resolved, you may refile. Until then, the closure will stand. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I checked and did not see one can you link it please? Thanks Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Its actually linked in the DRN- and I was mistaken- its a NPOV open case- not a RFC. We still don't moderate a case while another case is open usually. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that board. I have it bookmarked now. Thanks for correcting your error and I apologize for re-opening the DR. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 22:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

Magic Dispute
Thank you. In this case, either DRN or NPOVN is a reasonable place to discuss the article. It can be closed at NPOVN to be discussed at DRN, or vice versa. Since it was filed there first, I was thinking that it needed closing at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation

 * I'm happy to see a fellow Wikipedian from Arkansas, I hope you enjoy the site and decided to stay!<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#009900">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">essay  // 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! I'm excited to help out with this project.

DRN Volunteer Roll Call - Action Required
There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of CVU Member \ Chat Me Up at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Nightenbelle. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed,Rosguill talk 00:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
 * Thank you :-) Have a nice dayNightenbelle (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Stubs
Thank you for your recent edit to Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia and Infanta Catherine Michelle, but please take care not to add stub to an article which already has a specific stub tag. Thanks. Pam D  14:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Woops sorry!! Nightenbelle (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

The Last Two Disputes
Thank you for closing the last two disputes which had large numbers of editors listed. I am generally not optimistic about the likelihood of resolving disputes with large numbers of editors through DRN. The filing at DRN is often by the one editor (or two editors) in disagreement with a rough consensus, and one editor hopes that they can use DRN to argue the other editors to their viewpoint. I think that RFC is better when there are already a large number of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree... those both would have been month long monsters. At least with the second one everyone involved seemed motivated to find a resolution. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Florida Army and a Plant
No apology required. No criticism intended. The script doesn't always make it easy to change the reason. I think that the default on the script is wrong, because I think that "undersourced" should not be the usual reason, maybe "does not establish notability" (which may because of undersourcing). I think that sometimes reviewers and others focus too much on sources when the real issues include notability. As a result, there is a myth that adding sources is the key to acceptance. This may result in authors reference-bombing a draft with low-quality sources. But that isn't the point. The point is, first, that the default reason is stupid, and, second, you were right in draftifying the page, and I was right in accepting it. There are at least a million species, and one of them counts species. Some species are endangered, and some species are Least Concern, and one species has assessed itself as Least Concern.

As I said, I have more confidence that the plant volunteers know what to do with that plant species than that either I or FA can improve its listing, but for them to improve it, I needed to move it to article space. Florida Army had just made a mistake in putting it there.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poldark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross Poldark ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Poldark check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Poldark?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have repaired your cut-and-paste page move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into California Botanic Garden. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually- I was trying to fix a cut and paste move that someone else did. I guess I didn't fix it correctly. Sorry! Nightenbelle (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Hi Nightenbelle, I've filed a request for dispute resolution at Tell Abyad almost 5 days ago, and nothing that I am aware of happened so far at the board so far. Am I at the right place? The dispute was quiet vivid before, several edits were made at the talk page, the dispute led to a block of an editor for violation of the 1RR rule (instated for Syrian Civil War articles and which to my account, he didn't violate), reverts were performed about every 2 days (in order not to violate the 1RR rule), and well yes, I'd be glad if someone helped. As to me it seems actually quite simple. Just look at the arguments provided. Some are photographs used in articles to confirm if the name of Tell Abyad in Arab script was used before, during and after the AANES government. And according to the photographs it was. Then it is needed to double check if Tel Abyad wasn't a part of the Raqqa Governorate anymore as it was in possession of ISIS, or if it should have been delivered back to ISIS in order to maintain the territorial integrity of the at the time (2015) inexistent Raqqa Governorate. ISIS called the Raqqa Governorate, Raqqa Wilayat. Until now there exists a Washington Post quote that says that "the Kurds" renamed the city from Tel Abyad to Gire Spi and that they "unilaterally" detached it from the Raqqa Governorate in 2015. Raqqa was only captured from ISIS in October 2017. These arguments are mainly a repetition of the arguments at the talk page. It might help to read the text there, too for the one who will be interested to help us. Thank youParadise Chronicle (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is it is not quite simple. We don’t make decisions at the den- we mediate - we help users find their own solutions and your dispute is on a topic the editors may not be familiar enough with to feel comfortable mediating. That being said- extensive background in a topic is not a requirement. If no one has volunteered in twelve hours, I will get the case rolling. Sorry for the delay. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Nightenbelle. Thanks for your efforts at the DRN on the Tell Abyad issue. This dispute has already been at the 3RR board more than once. My impression is that the participants are mostly working in good faith but may not be very experienced in resolving disputes. I don't know how to get them started, short of drafting an RfC myself. This might be an option to consider if all else fails. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of an editing
I wish to express my sadness over the removal of an editing from Muhammed UMAR Bago. I didn't complete the editing while it was deleted Abubakar Zaria (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry??? The only edits I reverted today were ones that looked like vandalism. If I made a mistake I apologize- all you need to do is go back and complete the edit you were trying to make. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Tell Abyad DRN closing
Thanks for your time spent at the dispute. I am a little disappointed with the wording of your closing statement as it implies both sides were equally wrong. I was really happy with your 3rd statement there, and thought that was fair, but user Paradise Chronicle comes with a strong POV that they want to implement whatever it takes. They actually just removed not only the one quote in question at the DRN but the Balanche quote as well from the page (in addition to a 3rd less important quote). Sorry for getting you into the middle of this and have a great day. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording was not meant to imply that both sides were wrong, it is a factual explanation of what occurred- the dispute resolution process failed. Honestly- it was a failure on all 3 sides. DRN could not provide a volunteer able to mediate it, and the two sides of the disagreement could not find a solution. Failure does not mean anyone is in the wrong, it just means we were unable to negotiate an agreement. Thank you for your attempt at resolution. I wish you luck. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we didn't reach an agreement because the other side did not accept your suggestion (3rd statement). Thanks again and all the best. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And your continued need to prove you are right and the otherside is wrong even here on my talk page is evidence that you were completely willing to negotiate and WP:AGF about the other side (SARCASM btw). Look- all of you need to step back and take a breath. ALL of you are making this more difficult than it needs to be and ALL of you are the reason why other moderators were hesitant to step forward- because you have ALL let your passion for the area overcome your objective nature. Seriously- both of you are so caught up in your own POV- you are missing that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA- NOT a news source, not the final determination of truth. I couldn't stay neutral any more, which is why I recused myself. Everybody needs to walk away for a month from this article and come back when you can actually engage in disucssion and LISTEN more than you TALK! Nightenbelle (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Like I said already, good work overall. Reviewing several dozen of the pages in your patrol log, most seemed fine, but I did come across a few cases where notability wasn't clearly demonstrated, such as Jewish Diplomatic Corps and Michelle McMurry-Heath. Claims made in those articles may be reason to believe that additional coverage exists that would establish notability. That having been said, you should at a minimum be tagging these articles with a relevant maintenance tag (whether it's a simple refimprove, third-party, notability, or sources exist), and at a glance I'm not sure those articles would survive AfD. signed,Rosguill talk 22:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew I was being too conservative with afd, but after the creator barked at me the first time, I got nervous and backed off. I will work on being more bold! Nightenbelle (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on section order
Hi Nightenbelle. I am sorry, on multiple levels, that the recent DRN was closed without a resolution. Thank you for your efforts to help. I thought your request to keep comments narrowly focused on the topic of what order the sections should be in was wise, and I tried to do so. You'll notice that my final question only asked about that topic: "I would also appreciate if you could point out where you think there is a consensus against me on the topic of what order the sections should be in." Your response covered a number of other issues on the talk page, but I don't see anything about a consensus on the order of sections. It was probably just an oversight. I ask, in all sincerity, could you please explain where you see a consensus about the order the sections should be in? Thanks! --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are trying to force something into a black and white world to suit your narrative.The reason I listed all the consensus against you that you have argued about is- I had previously stated that we do not exist to overturn consensus. When I saw you were asking where there was consensus against you- I did not focus on the one question, but on the many examples of where you had tried to ignore consensus. But to be specific- In the sectioning order area- you have two people, AlmostFrancis and Contaldo80, in addition to the person who re-ordered them (Roscelese) who all agreed on the new order- YOU walked in and made what you admitted was a subjective decision that it was better the other way. So three people say one thing- you say another. Sorry bud- that's a consensus and its against you. If the rest of the editors agree- it doesn't matter what your subjective opinion is- consensus rules. This is the 4th time you have tried to overrule the consensus on this topic. Once when you just arbitrarily switched the orders back, twice with an RFC and once with a DRN. If you continue to WP:OWN this article, you will be reported to the administrative board (by me)- I will be watching the talk page. Play nice, or move on. No more trying to force people to do things your way. Do not use the DRN to try to overturn consensus or force your POV- thats not what we are there for and I don't take kindly to having my time wasted by a wanna-be bully. And coming on my talk page with an attitude to try to show how I was wrong- is you trying to bully me. I don't run from bullys. I stand up and fight back- so once again- play nice, or walk away. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , First, please accept my apology. I am not trying to own the article, and I certainly am not trying to bully you. If I came across that way then I sincerely apologize. I don't want to waste your time but I am genuinely trying to understand your thought process. I'm really not looking for a "fight."
 * I think you are mistaken. It was, not , who reordered the sections. Roscelese didn't make her first edit to the article until several weeks after the disputed reordering. More than that, she has explicitly said she has no opinion on the order of the sections. That leaves AlmostFrancis and who think condoms should be the first section. My first choice would be medical care, but I have also said I would go with 's suggestion to put the conferences on top. That gives us two editors for condoms and two for the conferences. I don't think that is a consensus and that is why I turned to DRN. Is there something I am missing? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are missing quite a lot. If you're not looking for a fight why are you here arguing? As I said above- All I'm doing is watching that talk page for more abuse and bullying from you. I said what I see- if you can't see how you are absolutely acting like you own the page and pushing for your POV to reign supreme, I don't know what else to tell you. You are literally fighting a volunteer who tried to help you until you lashed out at her FOR that help. Seriously dude- take a look at your behavior. Its... concerning. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK. Again, I apologize. I didn't mean to upset you and I am sorry that I have. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't upset me. Good grief. Don't apologize for how you assume I am feeling. Apologize for your behavior if you are going to apologize about anything, but better than that would be making a change and acting like a team player and not arguing with everyone all the time. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't upset me. Good grief. Don't apologize for how you assume I am feeling. Apologize for your behavior if you are going to apologize about anything, but better than that would be making a change and acting like a team player and not arguing with everyone all the time. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * I will be making two recommendations to the DRN volunteer talk page. You tried something that wasn't likely to work but was worth trying.  It demonstrated two types of disputes that we are likely to have trouble with.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I was going to close it as an impossible task when I had my idea.... but I didn't expect it would work.... I didn't expect them to turn on me quite so fast... but I wasn't terribly surprised either. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at WP:DRN, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

''You forgot to sign your comment to list all of the editors for Vowel Length.

But I will be closing it because the discussion has been inadequate.'' Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Update to Confusion
You became confused because User:MRHICK01 became confused. He became confused because he referred to being partially banned from American Descendants of Slavery due to a conflict of interest. He is not partially banned or partially blocked or restricted. He was initially restricted from editing that page because it was semi-protected, and he didn't yet have ten edits. He now has ten edits. So the issue was not what it was thought to be.

That article has a problem with sockpuppetry, which is why it is semi-protected, but discussion can now resume on its talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ...... ffs. Thats why half of what was going on made no sense. and yeah- its pretty obvioous half the people posting and arguing for change there are the same person. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Although I think it's too soon for DRN, and in fact I've advertised the issue at 3 wikiprojects hoping someone will help, he hasn't been blocked from editing because of a possible coi (that's not settled). He simply couldn't edit because he didn't have 10 edits. He does now and Robert has told him that he can edit, and that he (Robert) doesn't see a COI. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Meat puppets I'd say, one of the editor's is a founder, MRHICKS says they are Co-facilitator of #ADOSLouisville. #ADOS Ambassador., etc.  Doug Weller  talk 17:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that ISN"T a COI Robert McClenon How can the Co-Facilitator and ambassador of the organization not be considered a COI? There is no way that guy should be editing his own organization's page. What am I missing?Nightenbelle (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This process is new to me. The bureaucracy of Wikipedia...is considerable. Any errors that I have made are not out of malice.

To be clear. ADOS is both ethnicity and a political movement. That movement has separate chapters that operate out of American cities. I happen to be one of many human beings operating out of the city of Louisville, Kentucky. We have no formal organizational structures, the American Descendants of Slavery is an ethnic designation. Before I would be accused of having a conflict of interest, could not my edits be reviewed on the merits of the content and the verifiability of the sources provided? This has been a challenging process. MRHICK01 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They are being reviewed according ot their merits- just because they are stating you have a COI doesn't mean they arn't looking at the merits. You are being told that what you are suggesting has is POV/bias. THats not because you have a COI- but because your bias is seeping into your writing. In addition, your sources do not meet WP:RS guidelines. Those are very real, non- COI related issues that need to be corrected. And being a member of an organization in one state, does not remove your COI for the same organization in other locals. For instance- I used to run a Meals on Wheels center in Arkansas, I would still have had a COI for Meals on Wheels at the national level and in, say, California- because I was still associated with that organization (I no longer work for them, but I still do not edit those pages. Nor do I edit ANYTHING related to United Healthcare (or even healthcare) because I am employed by one of their subsidiaries. Because WP is an encyclopedia- non-bias editing is very important and we try to err on the side of caution when it comes to COI. That doesn't mean editors are ignoring your requests, they have offered some helpful suggestions that, if you follow, will allow your suggested changes to be made. From what I can see, you mainly need to work on your wording- try to make it sound more like a journal article and less like a brochure, and your sources- if you review WP:RS you can get some tips to help with that. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MRHICK01 As an example- your issues discussed under NPOV- Doug Weller was not saying that your complaints were invalid- what he was saying is that you need to provide reliable sources- not twitter, not solely from ADOS- but from unaffiliated 3rd parties. This isn't because you or the ADOS isn't trustworthy, but because having that outside source confirming what you are saying adds yet another level of trust to the reader- its saying "We arn't the only ones saying this... these other people agree!" They are not trying to silence you, quite the opposite- they have invited you to write what you would like to see in the article and given you resrouces to do so in a way that will be accepted by other editors and the WP community. You are correct that there is a lot of form and process to be absorbed when joining and editing WP. I've been here 11 years and I still don't have all of it mastered- but it does all exist for a reason.

I have read what you have written, and I think you are a good writer, so, as an uninvovled editor- I hope you will take my critism...

"ADOS as both an identity and a political movement developed out of a necessity for targeted policies to address the cumulative injustices committed against ADOS, of which the wealth gap that exists between their group and other population cohorts is that legacy’s most vivid expression[2], in tandem with an comprehensive black agenda as detailed in their “New Deal For Black America”[3]. As American citizens, ADOS assert that the numerous injustices committed specifically against their group have never been sufficiently addressed. The argument for specificity is based upon three tiers or phases of injustice that afflicts Black American descendants of chattel slavery to the current moment: "slavery, American apartheid (Jim Crow), and the combined effects of present-day discrimination and the ongoing deprecation of Black lives."[4]. Therefore, in order to highlight the need for targeted, comprehensive repair, their political interests suggest a reconsideration of the U.S. Census definition of ethnicity to individuate their group from black. The ADOS argument for redress reveals a thick line from the nation’s origins directly to the present.[5]"

This section specifically sounds like something the organization would say on its own website. I would change it to read more like this:

ADOS describes itself as both an identity and a political movement aimed at targeted policies to address injustices comitted against its members, including the wealth gap between their group and other populations. Their agenda is detailed in their "New Deal for Black America". ADOS asserts that the injustices committed agains their group have never been sufficiently addressed. They assert that there have been three phases of injustice that afflict ADOS members: "slavery, American apartheid (Jim Crow_, and the combined effects of present-day discrimination and the ongoing depreciation of Black lives." To achieve the comprehensive repair they seek, they have suggested an addition to the U.S. Census that would differentiate their members from black.

What I have done is remove the language that seems to push a POV, while trying to maintain the meaning behind it. Even if you do not like specifically what I have written- I hope this helps illustrate what the editors are meaning by NPOV and encyclopedic writing. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair.

I'll accept this criticism as guidance for moving forward. MRHICK01 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
If User:MRHICK01 is associated with American Descendants of Slavery, then that is a conflict of interest. I think we have that cleared up, and that we have the previous confusion cleared up. Thank you for your hard work, User:Nightenbelle. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
Hello. El C directed me to the DRN, GevHev4 and I got partially blocked. But GevHev4, who did not replied to my arguments in the talk page, reverted my additions, without any consensus. I asked El C to remove that edit, to he said he can't intervene and yet again directed me to the DRN, where you closed my nomination. There is a dead end here. What can I do? --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  22:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * GevHev4 won't continue the discussion, directing me to DRN. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  22:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * you can wait until your block is over and try discussing it again. If he won’t discuss it there- it’s doubtful he will participate in a drn either. Don’t get involved in an edit war again and try to get other editors to assist in either reverting or reporting him if he won’t talk. When the block is over- you are welcome to try drn again- but you need more than one or two comments on a talk page to constitute a discussion I’m afraid. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

200 words or less
Good idea, to specify 200 words or less. Recently the statements by parties have become very long-winded, so that it is hard for an outsider to understand what the issues are. I agree with not allowing an extension to support references and quotes, because some editors try to say too much, and it is hard to know what they are saying at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. ;-) Good ole high school teacher training- grading 150 two hundred word essays is a LOT easier than grading 150 one hundred to one thousand word essays come exam time. And it forces people to focus on whats most important and get rid of the fluff. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nazis
I note that you closed the discussion without getting agreement from the other two to remove the section discussed. What does that mean at this point? That's what I would get--no consensus and no response, and this looks like the same--but based on our discussion, it should go. Should I just go do that without getting agreement from them--after going through all of this? Is that the right thing to do here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I did get the agreement of the other two on the sections we were discussing- The consensus was that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is not to be included- so the section on him is to be removed. As far as the Nazi Persecution of Christians- that is the section that needs more inline citations- so since everyone agrees that needs to happen, it is implied that section should remain for now. If there was another section you thought we were discussing, I'm sorry- those were the only two I was aware of. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There never was a section on Bonhoeffer, so there was nothing to be removed. I wanted to add him--controversy included--as per the sources.


 * There is a section presently in the article that includes the Deutsche Christian--the German Christians--who were a group of Protestants who supported Hitler. They were never persecuted, and it is that section that has no inline citations. That is the section that should be removed.


 * The German Christians don't fit the definition you came up with, and leaving it puts me back to arguing that if you mention Hitler's Protestant supporters it is also appropriate to mention opponents: both or neither, because that is what is in the sources. All the sources. There are no sources that mention one and not the other. But by your definition, the opponents of Hitler can't be included, so why are his supporters to be left in—on a page of those that were persecuted?


 * This is wrong. No consensus on removal was achieved. This is very upsetting. It seems to have been a complete waste of time. Is there an appeals process? I cannot accept leaving out the persecution of those who opposed Hitler and leaving in those who supported him on a page about persecution of Christians.  Can you not see how wrong that is?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry you are upset the consensus went against you. You can do a request for comment- but There is no appeal process for a consensus. Which there was a 2:1 consensus to find sources instead of remove the section. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus and sometimes that is unsatisfactory to those who believe strongly in an opinion the majority doesn’t support- but it’s the way things work here. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I am not upset because this went against me. I am upset because, from what you say above,  you got consensus for removing the section on Bonhoeffer--when there was no section on Bonhoeffer--and for keeping the section on the Nazis when that was actually the title of the whole section that contained the paragraph that needs removing--the paragraph that we in fact never discussed. In your second statement you listed what you thought this was about, and #2 was . Imagine my shock when I returned expecting that discussion--and found you had closed the dispute instead!


 * Please correct me and show me if I am wrong. Quote where we discussed the reasons for keeping that paragraph. Please quote to me where consensus on keeping the paragraph concerning the German Christians was ever reached. Please explain how a paragraph on those that supported the Nazis meets your definition of persecution and is therefore validly included. Show me how you imposed that same definition of persecution equally on that paragraph and still all concluded that it should be kept.  The German Christians certainly have less of a right to be in this article than the Confessing church and Bonhoeffer do, yet I accepted your decision, only to find a complete absence of any discussion or consensus on the German Christians at all.


 * I understand and agree with consensus--why the heck else would I have gone to you? But you can't accurately claim you actually got consensus on keeping the paragraph on those that supported the Nazis. You messed up here, and that's a valid reason to be upset. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with consensus. It has to do with actually achieving it. Please fix this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * we got consensus for adding inline sources to the existing section. I’m on my phone so I can’t go back and quote it at the moment- if everyone agrees to add sources.... that means they want to keep the section. That’s just common sense. I know there was never a section on Bonhoeffer- and consensus was there shouldn’t be a section on him. I didn’t mess up. You are being petty. I’m done. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * there will be no further discussion from me on this topic. I’ve told you your options. Quit harassing me about it and move on. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am asking for help not harassing. Everyone agreed the section needed sources which does not imply agreement to keep it. Please note that in response to your sixth statement I said I agreed it needed sources because I thought it would not be kept. Even Slatersteven says the section is too long.  You can't quote where consensus on keeping this paragraph was reached because it never was.  Please acknowledge. I am copying this discussion to my sandbox in case you delete it so I can reference it in another attempt to fix this problem. The paragraph in question was not discussed.  There was no consensus reached.  Keeping it does not apply the definition we arrived at. Just fix it. That's all that's required. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have now questioned my integrity three times- 1st when you accused me of messing up this DRN. 2nd when you just told me I can't quote what I say is true because I'm lying and 3rd when you suggested I would delete a conversation. And you say you are not harassing me? Aparently that is another concept you are having trouble finding reliable sources to define. Let me clarify that for you- Harassment- (noun) aggressive pressure or intimidation- I believe impinging my integrity falls well under that definition as does trying to order (require) me to do what you want.


 * I told you exactly where the consensus came from. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE A SECTION- YOU DON"T DELETE IT. That is common sense. You don't like that you lost. You are being petty. I wish Wikipedia had a blocking function. You are attempting to twist things to suite you but once again- every other person understood the same conclusion except you- just like when you tried to force reliable sources to support things they didn't explicitly say and didn't even remotely imply. You can badger all you want- you will still be in the wrong. Now go find someone else to harass OR try one of the other options I listed at the beginning of this pointless whining because you didn't get your way. If you continue this- I will have to get someone else involved. Go away. I'm not an admin. I'm a volunteer- who mediates. I mediated. The discussion on the DRN is over- you want to continue arguing- FINE but do so elsewhere, like the article talk page. I don't care about this issue- I'm not involved with it. And trust me- I will never EVER mediate a case with you again, because I don't want to be harassed by a sore loser who can't understand the concept of consensus and thinks that posting walls of pretentious, self righteous original research will badger other editors into shutting up and doing what they want. I won't be badgered. I won't be harassed. You need to learn to work with other people and lose with dignity.  The five things we were covering were
 * 1- Adding inline citations for existing information (everyone agreed to do this)
 * 2- Inclusion or Exclusion of German Christians who supported Nazism (consensus- which included you - was not to make this a list of individuals- but to briefly summarize)- Slatersteven said, "As to the rest, if RS say X was persecuted by the Nazis for being a christian, yes we could have one or two examples, but I would rather we just discussed it in more general terms. We cannot have a list of Every Christian persecuted by the Nazis, even it is was due to their faith.Slatersteven (talk)" and Objective3000 said, "The article covers a period of 2,000 years, and religious persecution is common. Given this, I don’t see adding any individuals, with or without inline cites or even if sources say the person was specifically persecuted for being a Christian. If we look through this lengthy article, names are generally used of persecutors, not those persecuted. Groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Bruderhof make sense for inclusion in the Nazi section as they were persecuted en masse by the Nazis. These are obvious examples of Christian persecution as they were all persecuted. O3000 (talk) 12:21 pm, 17 August 2020, last Monday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)"  And you said "I concede,"  Right before you ignored what the two above you had said and demanded that we remove all discussion of German Christians for the favor of your concession. BOTH the other two editors wanted to keep the section and work to improve it- as quoted there.
 * 3- The definition of religious persecution - The very first thing we covered where between your walls of text you pretended there was no other WP:RS except the ones you were looking at and magically the other two editors found excellent RS that provided a clear definition.
 * 4- Inclusion or exclusion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer - 2:1 exclusion.
 * 5- What the sources say/support- This is covered by policy and the ability to read since it must EXPLICITLY say something - you cannot infer when creating articles.


 * So there are your quotes, your explanations, and unless its an apology- I'll thank you to get off my talk page and go away. Trust me- I'll be leaving this until I archive it (and save it on an archive page) so WHEN you come up for a block in the future for harassing some other poor unfortunate soul who had the bad fortune to agree to mediate something involving you- I can contribute it to show your pattern of bad behavior. Because I'm sure if you don't change your attitude and treatment of other editors- you will be the subject of administrative attention before long Nightenbelle (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And to be clear- you don't "Require" me to do a damn thing. You don't get to give me orders now or ever. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note the definition of harassment at which includes
 * Your conclusions about what you think I implied do not qualify as clear evidence of harassment on my part. I asked for help. I implied nothing. I never called you a liar nor impinged your integrity. One must be very careful not to draw conclusions from implications—especially concerning other people's motives—on Wikipedia because print is easily misunderstood. I came here asking for help because there is a problem with the DRN. I haven't given up on getting it, but there is no evidence of harassment on my part.
 * However, since all of this from you is a personal attack, your response does qualify as harassment:  and  and  and   This one  actually constitutes a threat.
 * Please, do get someone else involved. Perhaps that would help calm things down and refocus on the issue at hand instead of the rest of this.
 * My focus is and has been the issue. I asked for help on what was probably an accidental oversight, but I make no assumptions on the whys, not of anything here. I don't really care why. It has no bearing on the issue itself. I just care that it happened and needs addressing.


 * This is the issue: I do not think the quote from Slatersteven refers to the German Christians. I think it discusses the inclusion of individuals like Bonhoeffer. As you say, it was about who were persecuted. Slatersteven says  just as Objective3000 says  I think that's about adding Bonhoeffer because the German Christians were a group, not an individual, and the rest of us all knew they were already in the article, so there would have been no discussion of adding them. However, if I am mistaken, and Slatersteven and Objective3000 actually thought this discussion was about the German Christian paragraph, then there is consensus to remove it, not keep it, which is what you said in your conclusion. Can't have it both ways. That needs fixing.


 * As an addendum, this quote proves your accusations of me are wrong by showing that I am indeed willing to concede to consensus, since I did so on that point about Bomhoeffer, as well as on the definition. That's two concessions from me giving no basis for the ad hominem attack above.


 * Please, do get a third party involved. I have gone back to the Talk page concerning the original problem, but this discussion here has also been blown way out of proportion. One way or the other--call someone else or do it yourself--but please do something that addresses the fact this issue of consensus is not resolved. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh look another pretentious wall of text. I read nothing into what you said- you can backpedal all you want- but its there in the history. And oh look- you are now WP:Boomerang accusing the person you are harassing of harassing you. Your wall of text proves that you cannot accept when you have lost an argument and are willing to make yourself look like an idiot by continuing an argument that will do nothing. I have neither threatened you nor gone to your page to attack you. I tried to help you- and then you have come to my page and harassed and attacked me for 24 hours now. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion
So much for me being wrong about deleting this. I am going to ask for arbitration here. I have everything in my sandbox and I have the difs of those you deleted. A third party is clearly called for. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * it’s archived not deleted. That’s what you do with conversations that have ended. I will not be participating in that nor anything else you try to drum up. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration on what exactly? Me refusing to give in to your bullying? Lol this will be a laugh. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * well that went exactly how I thought it would. So now I will also archive this bit of frivality and maybe, FINALLY, you will leave me the hot place alone!! Nightenbelle (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 and Nightenbelle case request declined
The case request "Jenhawk777 and Nightenbelle" that you were a party to has been withdrawn by the filer.

The case request has been removed from Arbitration/Requests/Case and you can view the withdrawn request using this permalink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And the original dispute sort of went away. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is where I meant to say..... You mean I was right and it really had been resolved by the time I closed it... almost like I knew what the freak I was doing? AMazing.... But of course.... it just took someone with your special way of handling people to explain it, you are better at that than I am usually. I will work on that. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Fat Controller
Well, well. A certain portion of our cases are "requests" that we convince "the enemy" of the rightness of the Original Poster or that we order the enemy to do something or stop doing something.

I think if I had seen the case at DRN, I would have closed the case rather undiplomatically, rather than .... Oh, wait a minute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol amazing that it was resolved.... as I said it was. But okay. Having someone else point that out made them happy. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats what I get for replying on my phone... I didn't see what I was responding to. LOL Were you saying I closed it undiplomatically? well.... I tried not to come right out and say "GROW UP AND ACT LIKE YOU KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE IN PUBLIC."..... but someone needs to say it sometimes. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Nightenbelle - It needed a close that was civil but undiplomatic. Your close was civil but undiplomatic.  I would have used more words than you did, and the result would have been the same, a civil but undiplomatic close.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * shrugs* sometimes.... the messenger is just going to get shot. So they need to issue us bullet proof vests around here. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Inadequate Discussion Before Filing
We are getting a lot of cases that have to be closed as inadequate discussion. I just closed a request having to do with South Asian food where the previous discussion seems to have been on a web chat. That is neither good nor bad. It just doesn't count. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... maybe we can expand the instructions? Provide more definition of adequate discussion? Then again- that assumes they read the discussions. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it might help to expand the instructions, but it wouldn't help much, because, as you note, they sometimes haven't read the instructions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the close ...
... at Dimple Kapadia. If my posts there showed a lack of AGF, or for that matter of concision, I apologize. In my halcyon days on WP, I participated in quite a few DRNs. (I remember one about whether India should be described as the "largest democracy" or "the most populous democracy.")

I simply don't have the time. As the top of my user page states, I've been trying to take the summer off to devote myself to some off-Wiki writing; other than that as this this talk page discussion from June shows, I'm staying away because I promised my wife. My reluctance to participate also had nothing to do with a sense of shame. (I wouldn't have created so many articles, or stubs, on the talking cure if I thought talking was shameful.)

Mainly, though, I wanted to thank you. Best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m glad to hear it was due to lack of time and not lack of faith in the process. I wish you luck in your off-wiki endeavors! Nightenbelle (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks!
Hey Nightenbelle, Thanks for looking over my article for creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Se%C3%A1n_Hewitt I've made a lot of changes now - and would really appreciate it if you'd take a second look. Let me know if there's any thing I can help with in return! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchicore90 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to eliminate the afc backlog. So I am sorry- but I'll be focusing exclusively on that for a while. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul Darling
Hi Nightenbelle - you recently disapproved the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Darling - citing "sources are all press release or publicity type articles" - of the sources, only 1 of the 15 articles / references could be classed as "publicity", the remaining are news reports from industry or reputable news sources, or case reports. In fact, five of them are either government or official court decisions, not even news reports. Please could you review and/or let me know what you mean by "publicity"? Thanks. In the meantime I have resubmitted for review. Stuartwilks (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stuartwilks And I have denied yet again. I did go through each source when I denied this. You really need to review WP:RS before you submit this again


 * Here is the break down of why the sources are unacceptable:
 * https://pauldarlingqc.co.uk/practice-areas/ - Personal website.... not acceptable at all to be on WP. needs removed completely
 * https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/hat-trick-obes-cleadon-family-370882 - Questionable at best- this is a publicity release rather than an actual news article.
 * https://www.middletemple.org.uk/bencher-persons-view?cid=33777  - This is his resume- not a WP:RS. Not acceptable as a source.
 * http://www.internationaladvocacy.org/paul-darling-qc/ - again... resume/publicity blurb- not a WP:RS
 * https://iclg.com/cdr/people-and-firms/7516-darling-of-the-bar - Yet another publicity press release- not an actual news article. Not a good WP:RS
 * https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/alfred-mcalpine-v-panatown.php  - Court decisions are primary sources.... we need reliable SECONDARY sources.... so a news article about this decision would work- but not the desison itself. This would be Original Research which is not allowed
 * https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/320.html  - Another primary source... see above
 * https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2008/526.html - Another primary source.... see above again
 * https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/598931/monkey-madge - I can't access these at work... but from what I remember- they are profiles of horses... which are basically resumes.... but these are pretty much the only thing that passes for a reliable source on the article... but they arn't about the subject of the article- they just give him a passing mention- so by themselves they do not qualify Mr. Darling as notable.
 * https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/579664/book-matched/form - see above- not enough to establish notability
 * https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/718350/belle-choisir/form - see above again
 * https://www.racingpost.com/news/paul-darling-returns-to-levy-board-as-new-chairman-of-racings-funding-body/430607 - see above
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trading-places-6b0mdxpdfsl - This is a press release- not an independent journalist written article.... not a WP:RS
 * https://www.gov.uk/government/news/secretary-of-state-appoints-paul-darling-obe-qc-as-chair-and-anne-lambert-cmg-as-an-independent-board-member-of-the-horserace-betting-levy-board - Another publicity release- not an independently written article- this would be considered a primary source.

I hope this clears things up. As of now- there are 4 acceptable sources- and none of them prove notability. Now- the press releases might be okay as secondary support.... IF you can find enough WP:RS to prove notability without them. Best of luck. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not quite sure the rudeness is needed, but will take a look and revise now that you have taken the time to give some reasons, some of which are valid. Stuartwilks (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You confuse bluntness with rudeness. You did absolutely no research on your own about what is a WP:RS before asking me to re-create the hour of research I did when reviewing your article. To me, that is the height of rude entitlement. You did not do your own homework to learn what WP considers a RS. What you did do is get mad that someone else said your article subject was not notable. And that is not something I can do anything about. I have no opinions on 99% of the articles I review.... but I do check hundreds of sources to see if they are reliable.... 3-7 days a week.  If your article is notable- there will be secondary sources that discuss them in depth... if those don't exist- he doesn't need an article, but you could find a relate article and add a section on him. What I suggest you don't do again- is have a thin skin when someone who is frantically trying to reduce the 2 month backlog answers your question with no frills, but no rudeness either. WP is not known for its warm fuzzies. We are all very busy, passionate people who usually reply quickly and bluntly. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now revised the article and would be grateful if you could review again when you have time. A polite response or any extra constructive feedback will be great. The subject is one of the most significant figures in the UK judicial system, so there should be no doubt with regard to the notability. I have changed or updated many links where appropriate, but cannot agree on some points where independent journalists have written articles about the subject and case law in which he has been involved. It may be that familiarity with the British judicial and legal system as well as our system of public appointments is a point causing some of the confusion, so would definitely encourage you to perhaps follow some of the links to other wikipedia entries in the page if anything is unclear before rejecting again. Thanks. Stuartwilks (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * you can disagree with me all you want. It’s not lack of families that is causing the problem- it is you not using secondary resources. Period. I’m not arguing his importance- I’m telling that you hadn’t proved it yet. I will review again tomorrow- but if the primary sources are still there- it will be declined for a third time. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Familiarity. Darn phone autocorrect Nightenbelle (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I re-checked every source..... again.... And you have only managed to have 1 clear, obvious WP:RS there is a second that I'm 99% sure is a press release, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just a really positive journalist. All but those two sources are not acceptable to prove this subject is notable enough to merit a WP page. Its not my lack of familiarity with British law. If you were using secondary sources that give more than a passing mention of darling- I would be able to see it in the sources as notable even if it was about something I had never heard of in my life. I'm sure sources that proove Mr. Darling's noteability exist- I encourage you to find them. He sounds like an interesting guy.... but right now- you are not using souces that meet WP's requirements. Please... take time to look, do more than get mad at me, and find the sources to get this guy a WP page.... But do not ask me to look again- I am trying to focus on articles that have been in the queue for at least 2 months.... I will not look at Darling's page again until it reaches the end of the line. Someone else may- but not me. I've spent hours of my life checking those sources... I am moving on. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. None of the sources quoted are publicity, they are independently audited peer reviewed directories for which entry is only permitted when criteria are met. I will resubmit for another reviewer to pick up. Thanks. Stuartwilks (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * you are wrong. You’re depriving a good man of a page by your unwillingness to find acceptable sources. Just fix the page. And guess what- all press/publicity releases are published in reputable papers. Why- I had one published about me yesterday in a reputable paper. I’ve appeared in six such releases. I don’t qualify for a Wikipedia page because the articles were written by organizations I belong to to generate publicity and were published by the media because the public likes to read feel good articles about local people or events. Good grief. Why won’t you just fix the dang sources so the page can move forward? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Arzamas
Hello Nightenbelle, you declined Draft:Arzamas (website) and it says that the reason is lacking reliable sources, you also wrote "Please translate title of sources into English" but aren't they already translated? So what should I add/change for article to be accepted? Thank you, --DonGuess (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The titles were not translated when I looked at them- if they are for you, I think it may be your browser automatically doing it. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Nightenbelle, you mean the titles in the references, right? (see the screenshot)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonGuess (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do mean the titles of the articles. Number 3,4,6,7,9,11, and 12 need to be translated. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The third reference for example: "Филипп Дзядко: "Быть чисто медиа неинтересно, быть университетом еще рано" is the original russian title generated automatically and "Filip Dzyadzo: "It is boring to be just a media and it is too early to by a university" is the translation.--DonGuess (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle the references have the original title and the translation after that, so what do you mean then? --DonGuess (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And is adding translations (although I really don't understand why are you saying they aren't translated, sorry) enough or does the article require new sources to be accepted?--DonGuess (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying they arn't translated because for more than half of them there was no English version of the title.... As for other issues- none that would prevent me from accepting it- but in general- the lead is way to long compared to the rest of the article- but I would expand the rest rather than shorten the lead. And the article in general just needs expanding. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Request on 09:03:44, 11 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mowen3278
Hi, thanks for reviewing my submission. Can you please let me know if there's a particular part of the page that requires verification, or something else that I could focus on to get the page approved? I'm struggling to think of any other ways to add sources to the page, because there really isn't much content available. I'd really appreciate any pointers, as this is my first attempt at creating a wikipedia page. Thanks! Marc

Mowen3278 (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Honestly- I don’t think it’s notable enough for a page. If there aren’t any other sources- I would delete the draft entirely and find another topic to write about. Nightenbelle (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Question About Page Feedback
Hello,

Thanks for your feedback on the page I'm working on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:International_Franchise_Association). I've posted a few questions on the articles for creation help desk per your suggestion, but I'm wondering what specifically makes this read like a press release? Is it the membership section with the statistics? I'm struggling here because I don't think an organization would find its history of lobbying against minimum wage and being associated with groups like ALEC very flattering but this is the second time I've gotten that feedback.

Thanks for any insight you can provide.

Editing1002 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Draft:Kadirun Yahya was declined... not sure
Hey, there. I came across the AFC submission for Draft:Kadirun Yahya because it's pretty old. When I checked the submitter's talk page, it looks like you declined it here: Special:Diff/977596444, but the article is still showing under review and there were no edits since Sep 2. I'm guessing that the AFCH tool just hung up, but I wanted to confirm that you intended to decline before I bother looking at the article. Thanks, 2pou (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.... I think I fixed it?

Your Thoughts
Pertaining to this; Draft:Allwell Uwazuruike, as the latest declining AFC reviewer I thought it wise to ask your opinion on the current state of the article. The article creator added a few more sources to the article after you declined, what do you think? Celestina007 13:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I’m not going to go back and relook at this article at this time. I’m trying to focus on the articles that have been waiting 2 months for review. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Question on Draft Feedback
Thanks for your feedback on the. I have question to your comment: "subject has not placed better than 2nd in regional tournaments". Mr Danek was 7 times champion of Czechoslovakia and five-times champion of the Czech Republic. Maybe I do not uderstand what do you mean by the "regional" tournaments. Can you please clarify it to me? The some applays to the other tournamet where he took 2nd place at the 1997 EUROPEAN Championships - that can not be considered as regional. To1al (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding Improvements for Draft:Dan_Niles
I have a question regarding your rejection and more specifically why? I have various news sources like MarketWatch, Yahoo Finance, as well as profiles listed by Bloomberg etc. and I am trying to understand what the problem is and what constitutes as a secondary source in this case and why those need to be used instead of primary sources. I understand that interviews are primary and I am going to remove them, but aren’t profiles, articles etc. secondary? Also, I modeled my article after the other HF managers and they utilize sources from books written by the POI and new sites like Washington Post, Forbes etc. I tried to strip it down a lot as well to just include his career history and a few public calls he made. I have also included a sampling of links I think are secondary sources and would like to get your feedback as to wether or not these would classify as secondary and therefore be better than the primary sources I am currently using:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/13/markets-today-stocks-coronavirus/ - Dan Niles Talks about Coronavirus Recession Risk Original Source is CNBC.

https://www.forbes.com/1999/02/23/mu4.html#5d7228606997 – Dan Niles Talks About Dell Computers (Analyst) original source I think is NY Times.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dan-niles-facebook-ipo_n_1605858 – Facebook IPO (original source I think is FOX).

https://www.semi.org/en/iss2020-daniel-niles – Bio Information – They seem to cover people in the semiconductor space.

These seem to be independent and reliable according to WP 42.

Also if you could please edit the article where you feel there are problems, mark problematic sources it would be deeply appreciated as otherwise I am flying blind. There isn't a lot of text as I tried to keep things bare bones and provide basic context like an encyclopedia. This is my 1st article on wikipedia and I want to see it through.

I have also included several links that include references/comments the POI has made in the past from what I believe are secondary sources which seem to act as evidence for notability, but I'm not sure where to include them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1999/02/16/analysts-warn-of-slowing-sales-growth-at-dell/e5cf642e-2003-4e9f-a945-df933a95f63b/.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1999/02/13/tech-stocks-push-markets-down/5d131e0d-0ca9-45dc-9751-56430f34ad3b/.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1999/03/23/worries-over-pc-sales-send-dell-stock-down/e4338349-9c2d-414d-90bb-59f533b81534/.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2003/03/01/stocks-rise-on-positive-news-about-economy/0dc3110a-ca73-404c-98a4-42e29199ab84/.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1998/03/10/compaq-stock-falls-on-earnings-warning/3b5cebd4-f29c-469d-b18a-4056b465a154/.

https://fr.reuters.com/article/us-earnings-idUSTRE56N09Y20090724.

https://www.reuters.com/article/facebook/update-1-proxy-adviser-iss-slams-facebook-share-structure-idUSL2E8DDE5E20120213.

https://www.reuters.com/article/facebook-underwriters/update-2-facebook-adds-25-more-underwriters-for-ipo-idUSL2E8E7HO420120308.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-google-apple-shares-better-long-term-idUKBRE84C0EZ20120513.

https://www.reuters.com/article/amd-barrons-idCNL2N0ES09E20130616.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cool-analysis/analysis-as-facebook-grows-up-grand-ambitions-get-reality-check-idUSBRE9540K320130605.

https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-results/apples-iphone-disappointment-fans-doubt-on-growth-idINDEE90M0I120130124.

https://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-twitter-users/twitter-quitters-dog-ipo-idUSBRE99J03920131020.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2020/04/06/america-needs-a-back-to-work-czar/#543828887813

https://www.forbes.com/1999/02/17/mu7.html

https://www.forbes.com/1999/07/02/mu3.html

https://www.forbes.com/2001/02/06/0206sf.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2013/06/08/facebooks-reality-check-death-by-a-thousand-snapchats/

Draft:Andre Waismann
Hi, i made all the changes to avoid promotional nature of this article. also i rewrite from a neutral point of view. אור פ (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Submission declined
Hi Nightenbelle, my article on the economist Greg Kaplan has been declined for lack of disclosure. I am working at the Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM) in London and I'd like to contribute to wikipedia by writing pages on prominent economists. In have no connection with Greg Kaplan nor does the CFM have connections with the University of Chicago, I just happened to start with him as I am familiar with his work. How could I solve this issue? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFM25 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be stated on your personal page- not my tAll page. Nightenbelle (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Request on 02:42:27, 22 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mcpjenny16
Hello, Nightenbelle, thanks for your review. Could you tell what kind of aspects should the sources focus on to establish notability? Some of the sources are from notable publications, though they are about how to use the system. Appreciate it if you could provide a few more instructions.

Mcpjenny16 (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification of new discussion concerning Marquita Bradshaw
You recently expressed an opinion at Articles_for_deletion/Marquita_Bradshaw. (That AfD closed Sept 4 with consensus expressed as "The result was keep. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD.") A new proposal, to redirect searches for "Marquita Bradshaw" to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee is being discussed at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the kindness behind your defense of me, but in the interests of a collegial editing environment, I am "hatting" the entire dispute, hoping that people will move forward sticking to the topic of the future of the article on Marquita Bradshaw. And I should have been less "personal" in my own comments that included the "forum shopping." Anyway, I am hoping that a full discussion of the merge proposal will have the same result as the AfD, because I believe that Marquita Bradford is notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * lmao thank you!Nightenbelle (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Dunning
Good day. I corrected article Draft:Jan Gezinyus Dunning, please check it again. In my opinion, Dunning complies with WP:BASIC because reputable Russian media (such as Kommersant, Interfax, Vedomosti, RBC, Regnum, Forbes, ТАСС, Financial Times) indeed write about Dunning. Besides, in the English Wikipedia, similar articles are published (e.g. “Sergey Galitsky”, “Oleg Zherebtsov”). Thank you. --Livelovers (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It still reads like a resume not an encyclopedia article. It does not meet WP:NPOVNightenbelle (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The article was written from articles independent of Dunning. I converted the article into a stub. So ok? --Livelovers (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter if its a stub or an article. Nor does it matter if Dunning was involved. You need to review the WP:STYLE and WP:NPOV to understand how to write a neutral article. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Check out the article now. Is there a discrepancy in it WP:STYLE and WP:NPOV? --Livelovers (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume, at this point, you are a troll. Its not even an article now. There is literally no point to it existing. I'm done wasting time on this. IF you decide to actually write an article on this guy- don't ask me to review it again. I'm moving on to people who are actually trying to produce good articles. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me. My first article by Frédéric Auguste Ferdinand Thomas de Reiffenberg was successfully published. For about a year now I have been trying to understand why the article about Dunning is bad. But I only get links to rules instead of help. If you tell me what exactly needs to be deleted / changed, I will be very grateful to you. Once again I ask you to excuse me. --Livelovers (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So basically- what you are asking me to do is re-write the article myself. Sorry. No. The Rules teach you how to write- I'm not going to tell you what to write because 1- I'm not interested enough in the subject 2- I don't think it deserves a page at all at this point and Most importantly, 3- You need to take responsibility for teaching yourself the rules and style of wikipedia- not expect it to be spoon fed. I haven't linked you to rules pages for the fun of it- I've linked you to pages that teach you how to write for WP. If you don't want to read them, then you don't need to be editing. Good grief. The links to the rules are help. But they are not doing the work for you. So- either take the time to learn and read yourself, or walk away from this page as one that doesn't belong on WP. But don't come here asking me to do your homework for you again. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand that it is my responsibility to rewrite the article. The point is that links to rules do not describe this case. I have looked at a number of similar articles (Oleg Zherebtsov, Sergey Galitsky, Stan Polovets, Alexander Knaster) in them the same writing style, and yet the articles exist. In any case, I am grateful for your answers. --Livelovers (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because other awful articles exist- doesn’t mean I should allow this one to pass afc. Bad articles are why afc was created- to stop those from happening. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Amateur Data Interchange Format (ADIF)
I have added the missing references for the sections. Can you take another look and let me know what you think? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by USRadioEditor (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you still need to review the styleguide for how to use inline citations. You don't just cite the heading and leave the rest uncited. That does not work. Not even close to passing yet. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And right now- you haven't established notability by coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources- so you need to do that as well before resubmitting. So far all you have are primary sources- which do nothing to prove this subject is worth an article. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:56:23, 11 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Stoptosmellroses
Hello, thanks for reviewing my first wikipedia article. Dr. Guo, The scholar I wrote about is a top notch historian in China. I removed all adjectives in my introduction of him and focused on facts. Dr. Guo's critics are all experts in his fields. Would you please help me with suggestions on specific examples in my article so that I can get an idea how to pass the review?

Thank you very much! Hongying

Stoptosmellroses (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * his page still sounds like it was written by his fan club or by him for a job application. Please review wp:npov and rewrite the article. My specific advice is I don’t see where he is notable enough to have an article so I would delete the whole thing and move on- but maybe you just haven’t included references that show he has extensive coverage in reliable independent secondary sources but they exist. As to specifically how to improve the article- any positive adjective that is not a direct quote should be removed. They are judgements and not objective. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Hungary in World War II&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Closed DRN
(Restoring from history- and in the future- please do not remove comments from my talk page- edit them, add a new one- or use strike throughs Nightenbelle (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)) ) --> A user --, who was unaware of the DRN review made comments on the talk page. He did not know of the DRN and was not an involved editor. He had not made any prior contributions to the talk page. Does the DRN need to be refiled, or can it be re-opened? 021120x (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

--> The ANI administrators who encouraged the issue to be brought to the DRN have been informed that the issue has been filed there. Please allow them time to close the matter in the ANI, regards. 021120x (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since there are still comments being exchanged after the suggestion to take it to DRN, that is why I chose to close it even though there was a suggestion of bringing it to the DRN. It looks like some of the editors are not satisfied that it is a content only dispute. The RFC also needs to be formally closed before a DRN can be filed. So- either way- there are some steps that need done before it can be brought to the DRN at this point. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And if these are cleared up before the DRN is archived- leave a message here and I will re-open the DRN, if its archived first (takes a couple days) Then you'll need to open a new one. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Possibly Confused Volunteer
I see that a thread on the French Revolution was briefly opened by an editor, and then briefly accepted for mediation by User:Nightenbelle, and then closed. As Nightenbelle noted in closing the dispute, a dispute with ten editors usually is problematic to mediate or moderate. Usually an RFC is a better way to resolve a dispute with that many editors. I also see see that a dispute was briefly filed at WP:ANI, and that the dispute was then deleted by the filing editor. Deleting a dispute from a drama board is very seldom either correct or useful, especially after other editors have replied. Withdrawing the dispute by noting that would definitely have been better, even if this was one of the rare cases where it was reasonable to delete the dispute. It isn't entirely clear to me whether the deleted thread was about the French Revolution, or whether that was a different dispute. It isn't clear to me what the ANI dispute was about. (Perhaps that is historically accurate, because the French Revolution involved a combination of clearly defined causes and actions, and random behavior by dissatisfied wronged people, some of which is still hard for historians to piece together.)

The DRN thread can be reopened if there is agreement by multiple editors that DRN is the best forum. However, sometimes an administrator at ANI recommends dispute resolution, and this is thought to mean DRN, but dispute resolution actually is much broader and includes RFC.

Thank you, User:Nightenbelle. Now: Does anyone want to provide me with any more detail as to what happened? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that the ANI was about the French Revolution- I was watching it closely- and editors were still commenting and discussing possible bad behavior when it was deleted.... which makes this extra concerning for me. I no longer feel comfortable volunteering at this point, and if it is re-opened as you said User:Robert McClenon I will instead watch rather than be involved. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Now I'm confused.... the dispute is still on the ANI..... Whats going on???
 * Yes. Now I see it.  I didn't initially find the first dispute because it was filed on 9 October, four days ago, and three days before the dispute was filed at DRN.  I have added French Revolution to the heading of the thread, because I think that it is usually more helpful at WP:ANI to identify at least one of either the subject or the editor.  That is, I don't find threads called "Bullying" or "Tendentious Editing" to be useful.  There is an ongoing dispute, four days old.  There was also another thread, that was deleted.  Both ANI threads were filed by 021120x, as was the DRN thread.  I think that we should leave the DRN thread closed.  There has been enough damage already.  I am a little less confused, but am still sort of frustrated.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Nightenbelle. To summarize, there are several problems at ANI, including deleting a thread, and threads with confusing titles.  It is sort of resembling the French Revolution in that it isn't always clear why people want other people's heads cut off.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree.... there was some back and forth on the ANI yesterday- where 021120x was telling another editor to stop commenting so we would re-open the DRN, but honestly..... it seems to be one editor vs everyone else, which means there's a consensus- but someone doesn't like it.... which means a DRN will get nothing accomplished. So... if it does get re-opened, I don't think I'll be stepping up since my track record on many-user discussions is not so hot anyway. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Your recent editing history at Talk:French Revolution shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 021120x (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * lmao okay buddy. You have reverted three times which is edit warring. I have not. But keep gaslighting and wp:own and soon you’ll see wp:rope Nightenbelle (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said... WP:rope I'm not harassing you, I'm not personally attacking you. I have tried repeatedly to offer you suggestions and honest advice to try to help you. But going after someone who has done nothing but try to help never ends well. One last time, I suggest you own your mistakes, appologize to the editors on the French Revolution Talk page- and do better in the future... You want to know the really sad thing? I agree with you on the American influence on the French Revolution. I think that French scholars purposely down play it due to current political feelings between the two countries and I think its sad to erase what was a great friendship. Oh well. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: IVEPOS Point of Sale (October 30)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Nightenbelle were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:IVEPOS Point of Sale and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:IVEPOS Point of Sale, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:IVEPOS_Point_of_Sale Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightenbelle&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:IVEPOS_Point_of_Sale reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nightenbelle (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 021120x (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 09:00:54, 22 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rainer2020
Hi Nightenbelle,

Please help me to understand your statement "Primary/subject authored sources do not establish notability. Please include WP:RS independent, secondary sources that give significant coverage to the subject to establish notability."

The proposed article is a biography describing the scientific career of Peter Dadam. The scientific fields of his work mentioned in the article were verified by references in the article to peer-reviewed scientific publications by him. I thought, this is exactly what one wants to see to avoid simple claims without any substance.

Please give me some concrete examples what is disturbing you in the current form of this contribution.

Many thanks in advance for your support.

Rainer2020 (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * you need to read wp:rs this is the policy on sources. Because we are an encyclopedia- we cover things that are notable enough to have already received significant coverage. If all you have are things he wrote and his bio from where he works- how do we know that his peers and the world at large think his work is important? Read the page I linked- it explains in great detail. Nightenbelle (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 15:22:33, 28 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rainer2020
My impression is that we some kind of "chicken and egg problem" here with the proposed biography. Unfortunately, there is no entry in Wikipedia for the research direction "database support for complex objects" (also known as "non-standard database management systems"), which was very important in the 1980s. However, it is precisely in this research area that Peter Dadam and his department at the Heidelberg Science Center have made significant contributions and helped it achieve a high level of visibility in the scientific community. (Expressed through appointments to program committees of top-class scientific conferences, taking over PC chairs and conference management, co-editor of scientific journals, etc.) When it comes to "Business Process Management" (BPM), which is even more important for his academic career, things hardly look better. There is an entry here, but topics such as "Adaptive process management (i.e. ad hoc deviations from the instantiated process template at runtime), process scheme development (changing process schemes and propagating these changes to running process instances") are not even mentioned. However, these are precisely the areas in which Peter Dadam and his group have made truly fundamental contributions and thus achieved a very high personal visibility in the scientific community. Membership in the steering committee of BPM (probably the most important scientific conference series in this field), participation in a large number of program committees, PC co-chair positions, conference chairs, presentation of the Test of Time Award from BPM and appointment as a Fellow of the German Society for Computer Science (GI) are just some of the indicators for this. I could imagine writing Wipedia articles on these as yet untapped research areas and on the projects "Advanced Information Management Prototype (AIM-P) and ADEPT / Aristaflow" in the near future. The publication of the biography in Wikipedia would of course help to establish the cross-reference (The "chicken and egg problem," as mentioned above.) To elaborate these articles will need a considerable amount of time. I do not hope that their publication is a pre-requisite to publish the biography. Rainer2020 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To elaborate- those articles will be rejected just like this one was unless you can find reliable secondary sources- IE not published by the subject- even if they were peer reviewed and published in reputable journals. We need evidence that other people thought his work was worth studying/writing about. So he needs to have been cited in other journal articles or had news articles writen about him (not press releases- but independent articles). It has nothing to do with other wikipedia articles- but on proving that the world at large thought he and his work was notable. This is not my rule, its a WP policy. So, again- I strongly recomend you read WP:RS and WP:notability before you continue. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle, thank you for the clarification: "So he needs to have been cited in other journal articles or had news articles writen about him (not press releases- but independent articles".
 * My proposed article contains a link in section "External Links" to the Google Scholar Page of Peter Dadam. I include it here once again for conveniency reasons: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=uHVjcoQAAAAJ - Is this what you want to see or do you think the number of citations listed there are too small?
 * Rainer2020 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Rainer2020 - Do you have a connection with Peter Dadam? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know him pretty well.
 * Rainer2020 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we have two problems. 1- WP does not like when people with close connections edit pages they are connected to. Also- it is not acceptable to just have a link on the page. You need to actually cite them on the page- IE you must get the information from those secondary sources- not from primary sources. Before you continue- I strongly recommend you read the policies and familiarize yourself with WP Policies. Once you have done that, you should be in a better position to edit- although probably not this particular page, or any other page of a person you know personally. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort and patience, Nightenbelle. I think there are very few biographies of living people on Wikipedia who have had no contact with this person and who have not received any help from them in drafting the article. I did my best to write the bio in a neutral style, i.e. like a stranger who also has this information at hand. Since I have obviously not achieved this goal and have already invested far too much work on it, it is time to give up. Please move my article to the trash.
 * Rainer2020 (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rainder2020 Well sadly, you are dead wrong. 90% of the BLP are written by people with no connection to the subject. And its sad that the only interest you have in WP is writing an article about yourself.... or your friend- whichever it is. And no interest in improving the encyclopedia as a whole. But- if thats all you care about, its better you leave I guess. Adios. I'll remove your article as you requested. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nightenbelle, I thought the quality of the articles was the number one topic of all who wrote it on Wikipedia, rather than who wrote it. Do you seriously believe that most of the more detailed biographies of living people were written by unrelated strangers? I am pretty sure that in most cases it will be their collaborators or professional writers who received the material from their entourage.


 * I have reviewed a lot of scientific papers. Wherever sensible and possible, I have given constructive criticism by giving specific advice on how to improve the article. I usually took a section of the paper to explain what should be done differently. - I think that the article is essentially well suited for Wikipedia and that your concerns can be addressed. For this, however, I need more specific information from you. I could imagine that you don't have the time to make such efforts. However, to me it means I don't see which way I could change the bio so it removes your concerns. - For this reason I have decided to stop working on it. - In case you see a chance to improve the article, please let me know.


 * I like and respect Wikipedia very much (and also financially support it). Once the frustration with this experience is gone, I may try again to provide an article or expand an existing one on a different topic. We will then see whether this leads to more success.
 * Rainer2020 (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It may seem strange to you- but yes- I know that most of the biographies of living people on Wikipedia were created by unconnected but interested people. And since anything given to a person by the subject or their publicist would constitute wp:or it can’t be used anyway. Quality of the article is most important, but it not the ONLY factor. Which is the problem you are facing. You are so focused on that one tree- you have missed the forest around it.

I have no idea why you bring up your contributions to scientific articles in this argument- unless it is to try to impress upon me how learned you are and how stupid you assume I am. So let me clear things up- I have three degrees- one of which is a BS in English Education- ie how to teach analysis and research and writing (the other two are in business and irrelevant in this moment). I understand how research works. Quite well. Hell- I taught it for seven years. I also understand that for an autobiography- a person with a connection is an excellent candidate to write it. But for an encyclopedia article- it is better to have an eye with some distance. Someone who can take in all the existing material and combine it and reduce it down to the most important parts while presenting all sides in a neutral voice- something a friend is rarely able to do.

So- yes- I do think it would be good for you to walk away for a bit. The article will remain in case someone unconnected wants to come work on it. I’ll even tag a couple wiki projects who might be interested to help it out. But you need to get off your high horse before you come back. My mother was one of the first female computer programmers. I could write a hell of an article on her. But I never will for wp. Because I’m too close. So this amazing woman who deserves to have the world know what she was doing in the 60s and 70s continues in anonymity- because this isn’t the forum. If you want to honor yourself/your friend so much- find an appropriate forum. This isn’t the place. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Response to Nightenbelle about your rejection of my Wikipedia article
Hi, Nightenbelle.

It's nice to meet you. First and foremost, thank you for the work you do in Urgent Care. One of the relatively few good things to come out of this terrible and frightening year is a deeper and more informed appreciation of the efforts our national emergency workers make every day in the face of challenges like the Covid pandemic. I'd imagine that the work is always exhausting and often thankless; so I just wanted to send you a cross-country high-five of appreciation for the hours -- and the heart -- you put into your work. It can't be easy.

I wish I could be more charitable about your rejection of my article. Obviously, anyone writing about himself/herself is going to raise a red flag with a Wikipedia editor, and I have no problem with that. I've been in this business a long time and am well aware of the liabilities of "me journalism." But that's precisely why I took special care in creating a just-the-facts-ma'am article about my long and relatively high-profile career -- one that has produced countless projects and news events that are mentioned on Wikipedia itself. While I appreciate the effort made in filtering Wiki submissions through your "Notability" checkpoint, I would argue that "notability" itself is a pretty subjective term. To that end, I find it a bit inconsistent (and, yes, somewhat embarrassing) for Wikipedia to mention me by name (or projects I've been involved with by reference) on many of its pages, but to deem my work and career trajectory not significant enough to give me my own article. Furthermore, I can point you to a great many editors/columnists of lesser stature in my profession who have their own Wiki pages, giving me the distinct impression that it is not the work of the individual himself/herself that clears Wikipedia's notability threshold, but the rather the judgement of the particular editor who is reviewing that article. Luck of the draw, I guess.

Again, I worked for several days combing through four decades of work as an actor, writer, radio and TV personality and book author, creating an article that culled only those highlights that I thought would be immediately familiar or informative to the average Wikipedia reader. To complicate matters, in some cases decent references simply do not exist online that meet your "published, reliable, secondary sources" criteria. As a very good example, I spent three years appearing on E! Entertainment Television's wildly popular program, "The Gossip Show" -- an assignment so visible that I'd often be recognized on the street. And yet, according to Wikipedia guidelines, that work counts for nothing just because, for some reason, no decent articles about the show appear online or on Wikipedia itself. Something about that seems wrong, don't you think?

I don't hold out great hope that any of what I've written above will sway you to reconsider your rejection of my somewhat modest recap of my long career -- fate dealt you as my chosen gatekeeper and you'll decide what you decide. I just wish there was a fairer and more equitable way of determining the worth of someone's work.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. And, again, thank you for the other work you do.

P.S. I also take issue with Wikipedia's somewhat cynical categorization of "Refbombing." At the dozens of newspapers and magazine's I've worked for, editors consistently ask for as many references as humanly possible in order to fact-check an article thoroughly. Old habit guided me in the footnoting I did for my piece. It was only after reading your rejection -- and researching "refbombing" -- that I learned that, according to Wikipedia, providing too many sources of substantiation is characterized as some kind of creepy "deceptive" effort to boost someone's importance. That just makes me sad. On the off-chance that you actually change your mind about my article, you may feel free to remove as many as the references as you like. I only included them to be extra sure that you knew I'd done as thorough a job as possible is supporting what I'd written.

Bruce Kluger (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is hilarious. You can't be serious can you? This has to be a joke. . First- I have no clue who you are. So trust me- this was not personal or in any way influenced by my opinion of you- because until you wrote this, I had no opinion of you. Now- I think you are a conceited prig. The whole post comes off as a D,E, or F list celebrity arguing "But I'm a celebrity"- which is comical at best, pathetic and humiliating at worst. So let me explain this in terms even a self-absorbed celebrity can understand. It doesn't matter how much you personally have reported on- that does not prove you are notable enough for an article. What proves your notability is  other people thinking you are important enough to write about. I'm not the gatekeeper. Someone else will review your article should it ever get submitted again- I will not. And I promise you- if you don't change anything and if YOU write it about yourself- it will get rejected over and over and over again. Follow WP policies- or stop editing. Its that simple. No one here cares about your wanna-be status.
 * Now, Since you self authored this- I've now tagged it as COI- Conflict of Interest. WP does not appreciate people writing articles on themselves. It is  strongly recommended you do not edit this article again.  if  as you claim, you are important enough to merit an article- let one of the many people who obviously agree create your article. And if you choose to be insulted because no one has cared enough to write an article about you on WP... maybe you need to re-examine your priorities. But what you don't need to do- is come on the page of another editor and attempt to throw your celebrity weight around. You have none. And even if you did- I would neither care nor be impressed. But thank you for leaving what will probably be my favorite comment on my talk page. I will digitally frame this one. You really made yourself look like an idiot talking about how important and what a celebrity you are. LOL. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nightenbelle. If your intention was to embarrass me or make me feel ashamed, you have succeeded. I wrote what I thought was a reasonable but respectful challenge to your evaluation. You responded personally, calling me names and mischaracterizing my letter. I apologize if I wasn't supposed to respond on your talk page. Wikipedia is complicated, and I'm not quite sure of all the rules. I have marked my article for deletion. I would also like to remove my letter to you and your response to me. Please let me know how to do that. Bruce Kluger (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry that you did not consider how your response would sound before you posted it. There is no way to permanently remove it. I will archive it now though out of respect. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * or rather, I will archive it tomorrow when I am at a computer since I cannot archive from my phone. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nightenbelle, you really ought to be ashamed to treat another editor and another human being this way. Your barrage of insults directed at Bruce Kluger is unacceptable. Consider this a warning: Please correct your behavior. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, Cullen328. I appreciate the support. Liz removed the article for me, and was very kind in her support, too. I'll stop writing and editing for Wikipedia now. I never expected it to be so contentious in here. Stay safe, everyone.
 * Bruce Kluger (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

RE: everybodywiki.com retains the draft titled "Change of fortune paradox"
Dear Nightenbelle, This may be considered unimportant, but during attempts to publish "Metabasis paradox" in Wikipedia, it changed titles just once, and was at one point called "Change of fortune paradox." It is the same article. During that time, everybodywiki.com took on both titles. When Metabasis paradox was recently moved into article space in Wikipedia as you informed me, everybodywiki.com let that one go. But they hang onto their copy of "Change of fortune paradox." I wonder if anyone can help me persuade them to delete it. Won't the redundancy confuse those who come across the topic, finding the two articles in two different sites--with related titles? The casual observer an scholar won't realize that they were the same article, authored by me.Cdg1072 (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I review articles on Wikipedia. Not one of the mirror sites that steal our content. You have a problem with them- I suggest you go there. Or try the tea house. I dont know how any of those cites operate. And frankly- I don’t care to. Nightenbelle (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing DRNs
Thank you for closing three (I think it was three) DRN threads that no one responded to. Maybe we need a more or less standard second sentence saying to resume discussion at the article talk page. Anyway, thank you. I am going to ask who maintains the bot that does the archiving. More accurately, I will ask who maintains the bot that isn't doing the archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) 021120x comes off block in about eight hours. We shall see whether they have learned.

I will start adding a comment about continuing talks on the article page and an invitation to reopen if necessary.

Yeah I’ve been wondering how that is gonna go. I’m hoping with time to cool off- they’ve rethought some things. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * it’s archiving again!!! Nightenbelle (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yay!!! The bot is archiving ancient cases again!
 * A dispute about double spacing?!? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought nothing would top the insanity of the last two weeks. Nope. a DRN  and  an edit war over double spacing. People have too much time on their hands. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The next dispute after that one in the edit-warring noticeboard is differently stupid. (It is very incomplete and malformed, and the only way to figure out what it is about would be to try to read the poster's edit history, which I didn't bother to do.)
 * Well, they only got warned, probably because it was so stupid. The French Revolution is a more serious topic, really.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what is going on with people lately?Nightenbelle (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the disruptive editors on the French Revolution are Americans, so it is their anger or emotion spilling over, and the French Revolution really is a political topic. My guess is that the doublespace warriors are also Americans and are just warring about something that isn't political.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But what they ought to have been doing was using magic spells to increase or decrease the line spacing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We all need to cast Dragon welp or Fireball and wipe them all out... oh no.. my nerd is showing. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Marian Dymalski
Hi. Could you please explain what else should be done within biography of Marian Dymalski? As far as I can see the coverage is prettu strong - both polish and english. I'd be grateful with further assistance. All best, Kamila Kamila071 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well since the overwhelming majority of your sources are primary sources- no. There is not strong coverage. Please review WP:RS. Unless the sources are independent, secondary sources giving extensive attention to the subject- he is not notable enough for a page. No matter how extensively pages run by people he works for, or boards he is on, document his outstanding service to them. That is wonderful- but does nothing to establish notability. Publicity releases also do not count. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Shadilay
Hi I recently had my edit removed from the page about Shadilay. You said that it was in appropriate so you took it down. I don't see what I did wrong. If you can let me know or put back it back that would be great. I know that shadilay.com doesn't have anything to do with the song, but it does have a lot more to do with kekistan, pepe the frog, and things of that side of internet culture. I think it's funny how kekistan, and pepe are associated with the right winged internet culture, and shadilay.com. That's the reason I posted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.153.236 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * no outside links allowed in articles. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

And also- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- not a place for you to post things you find amusing. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that I can repost what I wrote with out the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.153.236 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It has nothing to do with the band and would, therefor, not be appropriate to put on the WP for the band. The fact that a forum exists with the same name is not noteworthy enough to belong on wikipedia at all. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Glam Graham Article
Hello Nightenbelle. I appreciate your feedback and reviewed the info and also changed the article around to make it compliant. I updated references, etc. I'm still working on it and trying to check every single line before I resubmit, but please review and let me know if it is where it needs to be for submission. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glam Graham (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What it needs is a new author- you have a Conflict of Interest... That is not appreciated on WP. Your article will probably continue to be rejected as long as you are the person editing it. Please stop. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Extra Opinion Request
Hi there, if you are able to could you please provide another unbiased opinion on this discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gotse_Delchev#This_article_is_a_parody), a few editors believe that this article is written like a personal essay despite having over 210 sources and multiple references. It is related to the current dispute of North Macedonia and Bulgaria over the identity of this hero (read more here https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/revolutionary-heros-identity-stands-in-the-way-of-skopjes-eu-path/), I do not think some editors that support the addition of these tags are doing so in good faith but instead, that they are Tag bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_bombing) --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:CANVASING and try to use the correct channels to resolve disputes. Either a WP:RFC or WP:DRN instead of canvasing random people to the discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't tell you how to vote, I asked for your opinion on the matter as well as my point of view. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * going out and trying to pull uninvolved editors into an argument is canvasing which is not allowed. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake, if that is the case I didn't know what I was doing, was wrong since I thought it is okay as I am asking for an unbiased opinion. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You must ask through the appropriate channels. Which is wp:rfc Nightenbelle (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help I will do in the future. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Article "Ludger Johannes" originally posted by BIFonds
Dear Nightenbelle,

I have two questions/issues, and I hope this is the right way of contacting you with this, if not, I apologize. I have written an article about the scientist Ludger Johannes which you have reviewed (see below). Originally it was posted under the User-Name BIFonds. This name has been rejected, so I have opened a new account under Kirsten_Mainz and posted that article there. Just so you know, why it pops up again unchanged. However, I am more than willing to address the points you have raised. Which brings me to your mail to me that I cannot respond to because of the problem with the user name.

In response to the article I posted you wrote that some of the text has been copied from other pages. One of the passages I have found, relates to content from the Institut Curie. Some of it I can rewrite, some is very hard to put into other words. However, would it be okay if the Institute Curie would give their consent for this text passage to be used? If yes, how could this be done?

The other two instances that you have objected to, I could not find. Could it be possible that this refers to papers that are published by Johannes Ludger that also are references on those other two pages you have listed? Thank you very much for your help and patience with a newbie. Kirsten
 * I'm sorry, I review dozens of AFC each week- I can't find this particular one- would you mind linking to it please? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of WP:REFDUMP?
Hi Nightenbelle, you've rejected my article Draft:Cerus_Corporation a few days back and mentioned in your opening analysis tag called WP:REFDUMP. This page does not exist. If I am to be held accountable to WP standards, can you reference an existing WP standards page that covers your concern?

Regarding your concern about adequate support from WP:Reliable_sources, I have referenced five published NIH PMID articles, which I believe fulfill not only the regular standard of primary sources, but also the higher expected science standards for WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) as per the draft's earlier guidance comment by User:Spicy. Four FDA documents and a few EU news articles are provided as evidence of regulatory approvals (not as primary sources about the product itself). The other articles capture the business' conception, proof of public stock, citations showing the people that started it were real doctors, and the various regulatory/partnership wheel-and-deal updates that were needed to show the markets and uses the product has reached and/or failed. Some of these non-medicine-related citations come from NYT, SF Chron, AP News. Are these not reliable sources? Frazierjason (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:REFBOMB os what I meant to tag. Yes you have reliable sources- but you have way too many on each sentence. You need 1-2 reliable sources per sentence, no more. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Movie has done censor
Movie is not released but it has done censored & has got UA certificate but the page had got rejected content has been edited in neutral point of view as i discussed in chat support they said censor reference can be applicable in getting the article published kindly check & help me in getting approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prarambha_film AjKa180

Question on Draft:K Madhava Sarma
Hi Nihtenbelle, thank you for your feedback on the above article. Before moving forward I wanted to be sure I fully understood the copyright violations referenced - "it is still a copyvio from the linked page". Is it the link in one of the earlier comments: https://en.everybodywiki.com/K_Madhava_Sarma? I wanted to be sure I fully understood what would be required in terms of removing the copyvio, and if there is any other link that is referenced. Thanks in advance for your clarification.Shrutip2493 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

AFC review
Please see WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Vitsoe article
Thank you for reviewing my Wikipedia entry and advising me on improving the quality of the sources. I've since reviewed and replaced a number of the previous references with superior, reliable secondary sources as you suggested.

I have also taken the time to conduct further research and include some information on the company’s environmentally sound working practices, ethics and ethos. In support of this, I’ve added references to a paper on Industrial Sustainability by the University of Cambridge’s ‘Institute for Manufacturing’ which used Vitsœ as a case study for environmentally responsible business practices.

I genuinely appreciate all your help in seeing this page through to publication.

With thanks, Louie

Louieij (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sheriff of Nottingham (board game) has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Sheriff of Nottingham (board game), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Sheriff_of_Nottingham_(board_game) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! SL93 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC - scope and title for the American Revolutionary War article
I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a History Project member interested in US history. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit tag on Elizabeth Nichols Dyar
I just wanted to let you know that I removed the copy edit tag you placed on Elizabeth Nichols Dyar because, according to the talk page, it "is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020," and I didn't think it was appropriate to stomp all over the student's work with my hobnailed copy edit boots. Yet. I left a templated note on the talk page saying that if copy editing is still needed when the project ends, the template can be readded. Wikignome Wintergreen talk 02:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * gotcha. Thank you!! Nightenbelle (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ganja Missile Attacks
I would advise reminding them to comment on content, not contributors. They are getting a little too personal.

I of course hope that you can resolve it, but I will also comment that, if you fail it, the next stop for them is probably not WP:ANI but Arbitration Enforcement under Armenia-Azerbaijan. Some parts of the world have discretionary sanctions because of battleground editing because they are real battlegrounds. The current war seems to be a renewal of an ongoing dispute, like either of the two I-P, and a lot of the disruption of Israel and Palestine and of India and Pakistan is by unregistered editors known as IP addresses. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trying. Obviously at least two of them were on different sides in the war.  Eastern Europe and Western Asia are too often like that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

AFC Question
I moved this because I like my page organized..... Nightenbelle (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Dear Nightenbelle

You recently declined my submission for an article I wrote for Llewellyn van Zyl based on 'Jon reliable references'. I've checked each one and all of them are either direct scientific sources (as in from books.or articles), direct references to news articles, direct references to sites of the journals where he serves as editor, or his professional profile pages at his University and his Open Access Science profile. This is exactly the same as submissions for Arnold Bakker, Ruut Veenhoven, and Rolf van Dick. I see no difference as I used these as templates. I therefore would like to specifically ask which references you are regering to and als why other pages with the same type of references are considered reliable.amd these not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaapsekind (talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Kaapsekind Well, as I said in the comment- you are relying to heavily on primary sources and social media. Maybe we are looking at the wrong page, but I checked your contribs for a page I declined, since you did not provide a link for me (I review doezens of AFC- I don't always remember them the next day), So here is a complete review of the sources from that page:


 * "Staff Profile: Llewellyn van Zyl". Eindhoven University of Technology. Eindhoven University of Technology. Retrieved October 3, 2020.- Primary source, does not establish notability.
 * ^ "List of Extraordinary Professors at Optentia". Optentia Research Focus Area. North-West University. Retrieved October 3, 2020.- Primary source-
 * ^ Van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus; Rothmann, Sebastiaan, eds. (2019). Positive Psychological Intervention Design and Protocols for Multi-Cultural Contexts. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20020-6. ISBN 978-3-030-20019-0.- primary source, written by the author, does not establish notability
 * ^ Jump up to:a b c "Frontiers Editor Profiles: Llewellyn E. van Zyl". Frontiers. Frontiers Media.- primary source, its his publisher's profile of him. Does not establish notability
 * ^ "Journal Information". South African Journal of Industrial Psychology. AOSIS Media. Retrieved October 3, 2020.- primary source, its the journals contributor and self- description page. Does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Editorial Board Members of SAJIP". Sceilo Publishers. Scientific Electronic Library Online. Retrieved October 3, 2020.- again- primary source, does not establish notability.
 * ^ "SIOPSA Presidency". Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology of South Africa.- once again primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Fellow and Honorary Life Members of SIOPSA". Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology of South Africa.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "NRF Rated Scientists at the NWU". North-West University.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Associated and Former Members". Goethe University.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "HRM Staff". University of Twente.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "LinkedIn". LinkedIn.com.- Social media- does not belong on wikipedia AT ALL.
 * ^ "Llewellyn Van Zyl TU/e Profile". Eindhoven University of Technology.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "PhD Thesis: Llewellyn Ellardus van Zyl". North-West University.- Self Published primary source
 * ^ "HPCSA Directory of Psychologists". Health Professions Council of South Africa.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Youngest SIOPSA President from UNISA". University of South Africa. Archived from the original on March 16, 2015.- Would count...... except its a publicity blurb that is published by the institution itself.
 * ^ "NWU Profile". North-West University.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "UTwente Employee Profile: L.E van Zyl". University of Twente.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Llewellyn Van Zyl TU/e Profile". Eindhoven University of Technology.-primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Associated and Former Members". goethe-university-frankfurt.de.-primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "HRM Staff". University of Twente.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Llewellyn van Zyl's Academic Publications". Eindhoven University of Technology. primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Llewellyn van Zyl's Google Scholar Profile". Google Scholar. Google is not a good reference. Also- its just a profile, does not establish notability.
 * ^ Jump up to:a b c van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus (May 6, 2020). "Positive Psychological Coaching Definitions and Models: A Systematic Literature Review". Frontiers in Psychology. 11: 793. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00793. PMID 32435218. S2CID 218503819. Retrieved October 3, 2020.- primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Positive Psychological Coaching Tools and Techniques". ResearchGate.net.- Self published, does not establish notability
 * ^ Jump up to:a b c Van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus (December 1, 2020). Van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus; Rothmann, Sebastiaan (eds.). Positive psychological intervention design and protocols for multi-cultural contexts. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. p. 1–448. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20020-6. ISBN 9783030200206. Retrieved October 3, 2020. Self published, does not establish notability
 * ^ Van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus (December 1, 2020). Van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus; Rothmann, Sebastiaan (eds.). Theoretical approaches to multi-cultural positive psychological interventions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. p. 1–679. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20583-6. ISBN 978-3-030-20582-9. Retrieved October 3, 2020. Self published, does not establish notability
 * ^ Van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus (December 1, 2020). Van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus; Rothmann, Sebastiaan (eds.). Evidence-based positive psychological intervention practices in multicultural contexts. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. p. 1–360. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20311-5. ISBN 978-3-030-20310-8. Retrieved October 3, 2020.- Self published, does not establish notability
 * ^ "An Online Photographic Meaningful-Moments Intervention". Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20311-5_3.
 * ^ "Exploring Meaning In Life Through A Brief Photo-Ethnographic Intervention Using Instagram: A Bayesian Growth Modelling Approach". Springer International Publishing.- Self published, does not establish notability
 * ^ Hayes, Megan Christine; Van Zyl, Llewellyn Ellardus (2019). Positive Journal Writing Across Multicultural Contexts: A Protocol for Practice. Springer International Publishing. pp. 415–433. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20020-6_19. ISBN 978-3-030-20019-0.- Self published, does not establish notability
 * ^ "Llewellyn van Zyl's Editorial Board Memberships". Eindhoven University of Technology. primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Llewellyn van Zyl's Editor Profile: Frontiers in Psychology". Frontiers Media. primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Editorial Board Members: SAJIP". scielo.org.za. primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "SA Journal of Industrial Psychology Historical Overview". sajip.co.za.
 * ^ "Editorial Board Members". International Journal of Human Resource Management. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved October 3, 2020. primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Llewellyn van Zyl's Academic Awards". Eindhoven University of Technology. primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "Llewellyn van Zyl's Alumni Award". North-West University. primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "SIOPSA Annual Report 2017" (PDF). SIOPSA.org.za. primary source- does not establish notability.
 * ^ "NRF Rated Scientists at the NWU". North-West University. primary source- does not establish notability.


 * So basically- you provided no proof of notability- which is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that give significant coverage to the subject directly. You did provide a great profile for a personal website and a review of research.... but that is not what we are looking for on wikipedia. You've basically created a secondary source..... but an encyclopedia is a teritiary source- we pull from secondary sources to give a general overview, we don't do Originial Research. I'm sorry. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * as to your second question- why other pages are considered acceptable and this one not- The others arn't acceptable. And I promise you, I didn't review them. Nor did any other AFC reviewer. When they are found, they are tagged for improvement, or for deletion for non-notability, or improved. There are literally thousands of pages needing reviewed- and maybe 10 of us who review. Not counting the pages that for one reason or another didn't go through the review process. It takes 3 months right now to get a page reviewed. I am not even looking at pages that already exist or missed the review process..... so if they are out there, its probably because no one who knows the notability guidelines has seen them yet. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Frederick S. Jaffe
First, a minor point, you forgot to sign your volunteer comment.

Second, if the Original Poster does request moderated discussion, please either read the history first, or ask me for a summary of the history, before getting into a boiling pot. It's a mess from 2016. The Original Poster has a conflict of interest, which is that he is trying to protect his father's historical legacy from being tarnished by conspiracy theories, but he is in the process claiming article ownership. That's a very short summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Woops. sorry about that!! I don't think I plan to step into that one. I noticed that the OP was the subject's son- and I'm VERY passionately against people with connections having any involvement with a related article. So I'm biased. I figured I would at least ask the obvious question though. IMO- he should butt out and let non-involved people keep WP conspiracy free... but... I'm not going to jump into this particular mess. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have seen that the case is being hashed out by other editors. We are both against conflict of interest and against conspiracy theories.  I have given the Jaffe brothers notice of discretionary sanctions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Update
Thank you for closing the silly dispute. I think that the Jaffe brothers didn't understand how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Dispute
You and I edit-conflicted. I tried to close the case, but my save apparently didn't take, and left the case open. Then you came and rebuked the filing party. So I decided to go ahead and close it after all, because we agree that he didn't notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tamotsu Nakamura
Hi Nightenbelle, I've added some primary sources to the draft. I've thought that the amount of tributes and honorary memberships in several renowned alpine/mountaineering clubs speaks for itself and shows Nakamura's significance for the international mountaineering community. If you still are not satisfied, will you give me some hints what you're missing?

Many thanks

Alpinchronist (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The tributes and honorary memberships do indeed show they are a good, interesting person- but there are many good, interesting people who do not necessarily need an article- what makes this person someone that needs an article? Have they received significant coverage in independent secondary sources that are not just a publicity release? I'm not denying their notablity- I'm just saying it hadn't been established as of when I declined your article. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rejection at AfC
Thanks for working on AfC! I've been told by other AfC regulars that you want to reserve rejections for obviously vexatious submissions (i.e. previously declined and resubmitted with only cosmetic changes), because it can be discouraging. I think the Draft:Provincial Governance in Ancient Rome is a good faith creation and it would have been better to decline and suggest that the nominator work the material into already existing articles as appropriate. (t · c)  buidhe  05:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Since they had been told already that their information is repeated and they resubmitted with no changes, I do not agree that a decline was more appropriate. I agree it was good faith effort, but that doesn't mean it should just be declined- it is an unnecessary article and no amount of editing will change that, the editor did a good job creating that article, rather than wasting more valuable time refining and refining an article that may never get approved- is it not kinder and better to advise them to improve the article they are duplicating? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sergio Rodríguez (academician)
Dear Nightenbelle, I've added introduced your suggestions, even lot of primary new sources to the draft. Notability for the subject is based in the agreements carried out as a diplomat and as a major expert in Roma people. It's ebough with a Google search to be aware of that. Anyway I keep as your complete disposal. Munnius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munnius (talk • contribs) 10:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sergio Rodríguez (academician)
Dear Nightenbelle, I've introduced your suggestions, even lot of primary new sources to the draft. Notability for the subject is based in the agreements carried out as a diplomat and well as to the fact that he is a major expert in Roma people. He has entries in Spanish and Catalan. It's ebough with a Google search to be aware of that. Anyway I keep as your complete disposal. Munnius Munnius (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Casper Hoogenraad
Dear Nightenbell, Thank you, thank you for your super helpfull suggestions. I have significantly reduced the text and removed all of the (many) self-published sources. Now only independent secondary sources are listed. I would appreciate your feedback on the revised version. Hgsdhd (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Alan Robertson (judge)
Draft:Alan Robertson (judge)

Hello there, I have just received your feedback about the Federal Court Judge Alan Robertson not being "notable"

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

There is already a page where he is listed, he needs the page to be linked to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_judges_of_the_Federal_Court_of_Australia

All other judges are on this page, why do you deem him not important enough?

All his referenced articles are directly about him or important cases he himself has judged?

He is very eager to get this page live. Please get back to me ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo953 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ooo where to start with this one. First- you need to review the policy essays listed at the top of this page. Its not enough for you to say "He's important and should have a page" Its not enough to say "he's mentioned on another page" you also have to provide WP:RS - aka reliable, independent secondary sources that give significant coverage to the subject. So there's your first problem- source your page correctly. Now the big one. WP strongly discourages people connected to a subject from writing about that subject. Your post tells me you have a strong connection to him since "He is very eager to get this page live" WP is not promotional. WP is not something you create for yourself or that you direct secretaries or interns to create for you. So, I'm going to tag your draft as created by someone with a conflict of interest and recommend you follow WP:COI and identify any paid connections you have with a subject of an article you are writing, and then you remove yourself from editing his page and let uninvolved editors continue. Again- these are recommendations, but the page will be under close scrutiny now since we know it was created by someone connected to the judge. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

DRN: Vitalik Buterin
Hi Nightenbelle,

I'm not sure if this is the correct process (to ask here on your Talk page), but would you be able to moderate the Dispute_resolution_noticeboard DRN? Any help would be greatly appreciated. If not, I completely understand as well. Thanks very much. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but my schedule does not currently allow me to grantee I will be available consistently to moderate. I'm sticking to administrative tasks for now until I have a bit more time to devote to the DRN. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Two DRN Cases
I wonder if the wording of the standard case outline should have stronger instructions about not discussing the case after it is filed and before a volunteer opens it. It appears that you collapsed two extended dialogs today. Thank you. And I had to collapse commentary in the Nutrisystem case. Maybe the standard case outline needs to be reworded, but maybe some editors just don't pay attention to the instructions and need to be collapsed. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * stronger wording might be good. Wont stop all of the problem- but it might help? Nightenbelle (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sergio Rodríguez (academician)
Dear Nightenbelle, Sorry for insisting. I've introduced your suggestions. Is there anything that I could do to improve this one of my contributions to WP? Many thanks in advance, keeping as ever at your complete disposal. Best, Munnius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C50E:2F31:2800:29C8:8829:597C:3A9B (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There is even an Spanish and a Catalan version: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergi_Rodr%C3%ADguez_L%C3%B3pez-Ros https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergi_Rodr%C3%ADguez_L%C3%B3pez-Ros Thanks again, Munnius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munnius (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I review based on age. So no, I'm not going to go back and jump yours to the top of the list. Please stop insisting. A reviewer will get to yours in the order it was submitted. Current wait time is 3+ months. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Troutman Pepper
Hi Nightenbelle - I added several newer third-party citations and replaced all primary cites with neutral sources. I removed any weasel words, too. Thank you for your continued review/help. Cew3390 (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - general sanctions apply for topics in modern American politics
--Hipal (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 0_o .... Thanks for the heads up??? I was aware of this though. Nightenbelle (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

National Football Conference
I have nominated National Football Conference for WP:AFIN. Please comment to assure that the request is not archived.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * no thanks? Not sure why you invited me, but I have no plans to get involved. Best of luck. Nightenbelle (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nalu changes
Hello Nightenbelle

I didn't add any source because this info is nowhere written. You can't even find a picture of the bottles. This is something I remember from when it was introduced to the market. Because there is no info on the subject I added it to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennie98 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thats not how wikipedia works. We don't add our own research- only verifiable sourced information. So please either find a source, or don't add WP:OR. THanks. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please assume that we are all operating in good faith
Nightenbelle, I assume you are aware of the AP2 discretionary sanctions that apply to the PragerU article. I didn't see if you had the aware notice but you are clearly an experienced editor. I looked right past it (shakes head in embarasment) The sort of accusations made here are not productive[]. If we disagree that means it's probably because we are seeing the same thing from different angles. I certainly don't want to accuse you of wanting nothing more than to blackwash the PragerU subject. I don't at all think that is your intent any more than my intent is to whitewash the topic. My concern is that topics like this often turn into a laundry list of grievances negative things people were able to find. That is what I'm concerned about here. I may overshoot the mark just as we have other editors who overshoot in the other direction. Respectful disputes will probably result in a better article overall (see an example here []) Springee (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have done nothing but accuse me of being biased and argue with me. I came- gave serous consideration to my answers, didn't' just go down the line and vote the same on all of them- and you picked an argument and now you want to come here and continue it? You say "I don't want to come here and accuse you of trying to blackwash.." Yet that is exactly what you are doing. So how about- instead- you apologize for picking a fight there and continuing to follow me to my talk page and insinuate again that I am trying to "blackwash" the article. Yes, I know about the sanctions. Yes- I am well aware that the entire crew on that page is using them as a weapon to force their opinions. And yes- I am asking you to either apologize and actually make an effort to compromise and make it a fair and balanced article- or leave me alone. You assume no good faith for any of the criticism people want to add- you immediately attack, try to intimidate, throw around the discretionary warning like its confetti, and then when I tell you I want nothing more to do with it- you come here and issue a veiled threat again? And you don't see how that is problematic at all? Wow. Just wow. Take a good hard look at what you are doing and how you are acting. Because this- is what a bully looks like. Once again- I am asking you to leave. me. alone. I want nothing more to do with any of this or any of you. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to start by saying my intent isn't to frustrate you so if you tell me to drop this discussion I will with no further replies. I don't think I accused you of being biased.  Note that this comment [] is not meant to suggest that you are pushing a bias.  It's saying I don't believe I am pushing a bias either.  Regardless, if it didn't come off that way I am sorry and apologies for it.  If you think there are specific things I said on the talk page that went too far please let me know and I will strike them.  My intent is to focus on content, not editors.  I also think we can disagree while both wanting to create a good (or at least better) article.  As an example, let's assume on a scale of 1-9 we want the article to be a 5.  I feel the article is a 4 you feel it's a 2.  We both think it can be pushed towards 5 but we don't agree how much.  So if an editor comes in and pushes for content that will push us 3 points higher do we agree to it?  Well I might suggest trimming things back a bit so it only pushes 2 points.  Also, if the content is poorly sourced/written then I might argue none of it should be included even if it does push the article closer to a 5.  In the case of the Murray content one of my concerns is the way the RfC is structured.  If the question was "should we add something like this vs what we have" that's one thing.  In this case the question implies the content doesn't exist and it seems to be a take it or leave it.  Well as written I would leave it.  I was initially concerned that your answer (and several others) assumed the content was simply not in the article at all.  It would have been helpful if the RfC question included the current text.  Anyway, I think the article can be improved even if I don't agree with many of the proposed changes.
 * Regardless, I apologies if you felt attacked by my comments. Please let me know which ones are a problem.  If you don't wish to talk further just say so here and I will drop it.  Springee (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is when you walk in saying "I don't want to accuse you of XYZ But..... you're doing ZXY." Your arguments on the talk page are not coming across as "I think this can be better" but rather "Its perfect the way it is and anyone who says different is pushing their POV." If you think its a 4 and someone brings up something that could push it to a 7, why in the world would you stop at a 6? That makes no sense!!! I don't think these changes will bring it to a 6. I think these changes are the bare minimum. And they are not well written- but the way that the existing editors attack potential new editors- the way you did as soon as I expressed my opinion- drives off good editors. Why did you pick my vote to respond to? Other people voted yes to that question. Why me? When there was an area for discussion- why respond to my vote instead of starting a conversation there? It came across as agressive. And you assumed those of us who voted yes hadn't read the article? That comes across as so condescending. You assumed we voted without doing our homework? Thats so.... sigh. This is what I mean. You have made so many not-good faith assumptions before you ever engaged, and yet you are surprised when all those assumptions upset the person you are arguing with? You did, with this comment try to engage, and please understand- I'm legitimately trying to bring these concerns to your attention.


 * As far as the article is concerned- PragerU is famous Because of its controversy. It targets a specific demographic who respond to divisive language and will flock to anything mainstream media criticizes. The NY Times, the LA Times, Yahoo News, Harvard Law Review- I took 3 minutes to go a quick google search for sources and these are some of sources that criticize PragerU. There are literally thousands of sources out there that talk about how problematic this particular website is. You have one mediocre writer that has pushed through all the constant reversions and attacks and has tried to add balance to this page- but I've reviewed the talk page and the edit history. When others have tried- they have been summarily run off, or threatened with the Admin sanctions like I was. If you want to improve the article like you say- you need to balance the article. You need to include the dissonance. Right now the article is very whitewashed. I believe every article can get to a 10. But I also believe that feelings about a topic should stay out of it. Its why I volunteer at the DRN. Its why I didn't volunteer for this case- because I agreed with one party when I researched the dispute. I saw that one editor was completely right and the page was grossly disproportionately weighted. Since I had a strong opinion- I stayed out of it there. But I did the research as if I was going to take the case. So please- stop attacking everyone who wants to include more criticism. 4 sentences on 4 videos is not a fair representation. Recognize that there is a problem, and let other people try to help you fix it. I'm not out to create an article that talks about how horrible Prager U is- I just want to see the criticsm get its due weight. And if it ever gets to the point where it is too heavily weighted towards the critism- believe me, I would argue as strongly to fix that. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I included that scale I meant 5 was neutral, 1 say too white washed, 9 was too black washed. Anyway, again I did not mean to come off that way and I will try to keep your criticism in mind.  Again please let me know if there are specific comments you would like struck.  Springee (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Identitarian Movement
Hi there,

My edit was reverted for lack of sources. I have found some sources to back up my knowledge and the assertions I made for them. First is a news site ozy. Some supporting quotes that identitarian movements sanitize their language to hold mainstream appeal:

Reputation oriented: “A lot of the action and performance stuff they’re doing is for social media. They have their own film teams with them, always. They film everything. But actually a lot of those happenings, if you saw them in town, you might not even know what they’re doing.”

Taking pains to separate themselves from white nationalist violence: "But the difference between identitarians and other white nationalist groups, like Pegida, is that their actions “hold an element of confrontation and exceed legal rules, [without] turning into violent action,” Virchow explains. And, of course, they have their own media team to publish videos about any public action they undertake."

Despite this, identitarian movements often contain members from more radical factions: "And Generation Identity and its youth may be a front for something even darker: Virchow explains that there are “older guys in the background,” and Lauer identifies many of the leaders of Generation Identity as former members of the National Democratic Party (NPD), an ultranationalist German party that has been the subject of multiple banning attempts due to its white nationalist views."

These pains are undertaken because they could make the movement's values more palatable: "Where Generation Identity’s play may actually be abetting white supremacist movements is in cleaning up the far right’s image. “The language and the way they look, they don’t look like old-school neo-Nazis,” says Lauer. “These are younger people who are kind of … normal-looking, and that does work.” Even Facebook invitations to Generation Identity events are designed to make the movement look like an “attractive open youth movement,” Lauer says, which could help soften the public view of the far right."

https://www.ozy.com/around-the-world/the-europeans-trying-to-make-fascism-cool-again-and-failing/79937/

Another source is from the ADL on Identity Evropa/AIM, which is an American White Identitarian movement. They follow concurring points of a movement that purposefully uses softer language to appeal to a wider audience:

Reputation oriented: "IE distinguishes itself from other white supremacist groups by avoiding the most recognizable white supremacist imagery and language."

Taking pains to separate themselves from white nationalist violence: "AIM’s rebranding was part of an effort to distance themselves from Identity Evropa’s negative reputation following its participation in the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville."

Despite this, identitarian movements often contain members from more radical factions: "the group’s reputation took another blow when just days before the announcement, Unicorn Riot, a far-left non-profit media source, obtained and leaked more than 770,000 messages posted between September 2017 and February 2019 on Discord chat services associated with Identity Evropa. The content of the leaks provided clear evidence that Identity Evropa’s brand of white supremacy was rife with racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia – very different from the image they have attempted to project."

These pains are undertaken because they could make the movement's values more palatable: "the doxing revealed that many members had successfully connected with College Republican groups and that a special Identity Evropa Discord server was created with the purpose of organizing young Republicans."

https://www.adl.org/resources/profiles/identity-evropaamerican-identity-movement

I believe these sources are reputable, with the ADL a trusted organization for tracking extremism, and the news article quoting right-wing extremism experts. They show a clear line between the image that identitarian movements project, and the more extreme value system their members believe in. If these sources are not relevant to my assertions, I would be happy to reword my edit. Thanks!

24.147.9.155 (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * first- always add new sections to the bottom of talk pages not the top. Next- I’m glad you found sources.... but why post them on my talk page? I’m not the queen of that article- if you found sources- go add it to the article. As long as they are wp:rs you should be good. Best of luck! Nightenbelle (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yuck
I was about to close the two Michael Saylor deletion discussions, but you closed them first. You used fewer words than I was going to use, and so got your close completed before I did.

Nutrisystem exploded at about the same time. After I said not to try to add anything to what the systematic review said, it seems that they started edit-warring, and then they reported the edit-warring to the edit-warring noticeboard. I am recommending that both of them be partially blocked from the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that I will report the Michael Saylor dispute to WP:AN, but I also think that I am hungry. And I won't be going anywhere for the next 48 hours because there is about to be heavy snow, which is not the same as snow which closes a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Go eat, look at the snow a bit, and then report- make sure that its not food or snow thats making things seem bad. (although I do agree that it should be reported. :-) 00:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to reopen Emanuel Cleaver on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
Hello Nightenbelle, I am requesting that we reopen Emanuel Cleaver on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If you have taken a look at the RFC on the talk page the results are about split and I do not believe any progress will be made. I do not know how to officially reopen a notice board that is why I am contacting you here. Let me know if I can do anything to help. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * until the rfc is closed- I cannot reopen the dispute. Let it run it’s course and then we will worry about reopening the dispute. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok thank you. Grahaml35 (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me when and what the outcome of an RFC is answered? I apologize because this is my first time opening one. It is currently 7 for support and 5 for oppose. Thanks! Grahaml35 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely- an RFC runs for 30 days unless there is a really clear winner at some point sooner. At the end of 30 days a neutral uninvolved editor will look at all the comments and count them as well as evaluating the arguments (IE- if 30 votes just say per nom, and the other side has 29, well thought out logical reasons- the 29 would win a simple majority isn't enough) then that editor will close the RFC and will announce the consensus. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

2024 Russian presidential election discussion
Hello hope you are well

I was seeking dispute resolution for the 2024 Russian presidential election page because the user is no longer replying to the talk page, which is why I was forced to go to dispute resolution. They haven't replied for ages and when I add the content in after a week or so they delete it again but refuse to answer my messages on the talk page. How should I solve the problem? LauraWilliamson (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is why I suggested other avenues of getting assistance. But the DRN is not appropriate at this time for the reasons I already stated. And your attitude on the talk page and their personal talk page did not encourage them to respond. So please try a WP:3O or WP:RFC and go from there. One of three things will happen- 1) the others will support your decision, you'll make the agreed upon change and things will be hunky dory 2) The others will support your decision, you'll make the agreed upon change and the user you are upset with will revert and you will have to get admins involved then things will be hunky dory OR 3) The others will not agree with you, you won't make the change, and things will be hunky dory. But the key here- is getting at least 1 more set of eyes on this discussion. But- this issue has been going on for 5 days. THat is not "ages". That isn't even a week. So best of luck, if after the 3O, RFC, and longer discussion with more eyes you still can't find a solution- then you may re-file at the WP:DRN.Nightenbelle (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is very rare that DRN is useful after there has been an RFC, unless the RFC was inconclusive because it was not reasonably written. If an RFC finds rough consensus (or solid consensus), DRN isn't normally necessary.  If an RFC results in a finding of No Consensus after adequate participation, DRN will also probably result in No Consensus.  The only reason to have DRN after an RFC would be if the RFC wasn't done very well.  DRN after 3O is often useful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Category talk:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Swiss School of Higher Education reliable sources
Hi, Nightenbelle!

Are these sources correct to corroborate the article reliable sources: lenta.ru/articles/2021/02/04/switzerland/ https://www.eduopinions.com/blog/universities-business-schools/the-4-best-business-schools-in-switzerland/

Thank you.

Draft:Swiss_School_of_Higher_Education

Vladislav at SSHE (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * no. It’s a blog opinion piece. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Help
Hi Nightenbelle,

I added the long quote to the reference on dan pena so that people could refer to it... since it seems like many editors don't actually click through to the article and say that x or y isn't referenced. I'm new to this so could you guide me what is the right way to do this? Regards Ifdc (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The right way to do it is not to sneak in quotes in citations. You cite your source and that's it. If an editor wants to see the source- they will click on it. Its not our job as editors to force a source down people's throats- just provide one to show that we didn't make up this information. Thats just common sense. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Notification
I am notifying you You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Danielbr11 (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * this is not an issue for arbcom. You were given options- this wasn’t one of them. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again you made up a policy with your circular reasoning. Nowhere does it state a publisher must be unbiased.Danielbr11 (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * and once again you ignored what you were told and are venue hopping trying to force someone to break consensus. 3 experienced editors have told you you are wrong. Arbcom is not going to take this case because you have not exhausted all other avenues and this is not a case for them. Why are you so afraid of the reliable sources board???? And why are you pushing you POV so hard? Nightenbelle (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You are the one guilty of breaking the rules on what the POLICY STATES and you know it because you have intentionally fabricated rules to obviously disallow an edit that is against your POV! I do not have to post in every single forum in dispute resolution but of course the reliable source noticeboard would say my sources meet exactly what the policy states.Danielbr11 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * before you go to arbcom you have to exhaust all other options. For Pete’s sake I’m not fabricating rules. I’m about done with the personal attacks you are tossing around. If you can’t be civil I will take you to the admins. How many times do you have to be asked to argue your case- stop the personal attacks. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * the very first line of the reliable sources policy says, “ Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” that is what your sources fail. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * before arbcom will take a case you have to have tried all other options- the talk page, drn, (both of which you have done) but also rfc, rs board and if you think we are breaking rules- the ani. Although ani won’t take a content case- which is what they will tell you this is. Arbcom generally won’t take content cases either- which is what this is. Ani will take a case on personal attacks- which if you don’t quit attacking editors and focus on the information and sources is where I will be heading next. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle you are INCREDIBLE you just added “independent” and “with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” I cannot believe you just fabricated that! The admins will see this.Danielbr11 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I literally copied and pasted from policy. Please- post on the ani. Go for it. The other editors and I have been professional and tried to explain it to you while you made personal attack after personal attack. But by all means- report me for literally copying and pasting policy on my own talk page. Show the editors how awful I am by quoting policy. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Go read wp:rs you will find the line I quoted is the first line of the overview section- I went there, copied it- and pasted it here. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also see this section on questionable sources : “ Shortcuts WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:QUESTIONED ‹See TfM› Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires.[10] The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.[11][12]” again copied and pasted. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s ok I did post about you here because my sources were not “widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions“ or “ do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires” my sources are reliable independent and published because “reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Volunteer_fabricating_policiesDanielbr11 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * you are cherry picking sentences- your sources do not have a reputation for fact-checking accuracy. That is the problem. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 Independent review has a reputation for fact checking. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/ Harvard has reputation for fact checking. https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/ Fff has reputation for fact checking. Christian Science monitor has reputation for fact checking. https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0606/ecomm.html And once again the policy states they don’t need to be unbiased.Danielbr11 (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) On top of that you were wrong about this source. It is not a primary source and it is directly published on the Hawaii edu page. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIFDanielbr11 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The unedited list of numbers hosted on a former professor's personal page that happens to be on the University of Hawaii server is still a primary source. None of those other sources have I commented on- because I haven't reviewed them. I reviewed 3. On the DRN. Not one of those did you bring up there. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I take that back- the Jstore article I did say was unacceptable because it was a book review that did not actually attribute the deaths to political motives- IE- it doesnt say what you want it to support. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW I fixed your arbcom notice- you have to remove the nowiki tags.... although now that there is an ANI pending.... they will have to close pending the outcome of that. Good Job. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

“A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, a letter, an eyewitness account, an autobiography, or statistics compiled by an authoritative agency“

The Hawaii article is not created By a participant or observer. Regardless here it doesn’t say anywhere that a primary source can’t be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia And motives do not matter the item for the list is called Mass killings under communist regimes. It could be famines executions battles it doesn’t matter.Danielbr11 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No. It’s an official report- which is the next thing listed right there in your quote. They are “most often” created by participants- not always. Any interpretation of that raw data is wp:or. Nightenbelle (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle is 100% right here. My advice is this: Take back the request for arbitration, and seek some neutral guidance on editor assistance. You are taking far too many editors time up with this nonsense.

What do you mean interpretation i am simply stating what the chart says it says communist regimes that many deaths.Danielbr11 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

But to get that number you have to add individual totals together- which is analyzing (very basic- but still ) the raw data. wp:orNightenbelle (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The case request mentioned here was removed as premature. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi nightenbelle can i invite you to check my last source i posted in the list of wars talk under communist regimes.Danielbr11 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite. Done. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Star Control Dispute
I have extended the Do Not Archive date on this dispute into the middle of February. It had been 2 February, and the dispute was staying up and not being archived because it was being discussed. However, if the dispute passes the Do Not Archive date and there is a temporary pause in the discussion, the dispute can disappear into the archive, which surprises and annoys everybody. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In the past, there were a few editors who were obsessive about removing the Do Not Archive date on closed cases so that they would get archived quickly. I don't care if resolved disputes or skipped disputes stay visible for a while.
 * A few obsessive editors is me ;-) I'm one of those who removed the DNA on closed cases. Although I've gotten more lax about it since i noticed I was the only one worried about it. :-) Yeah.... I'm hoping it gets resolved in the next day or two. They have found common ground- now to get them to focus long enough to find a good title. :-) I'm excited at how this one has been going. Its been a nice change. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Arbitration Request
Another arbitration request has been filed concerning articles about atrocities by Leninist regimes. There is probably being attention or discussion in opinion magazines and blogs to the subject of, well, Leninist atrocities. It won't surprise me if there are more content-conduct disputes in the next week about the same topic.

This case is being filed by an editor who is trying to report a POV-warrior, rather than being filed by the POV-warrior. But both cases indicate that history is being written about, well, Leninist atrocities. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Meh. POV warriors are getting thick around here. If you want to push your own POV- go start a blog. Or a vlog. Or a tiktok. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * POV warriors get thick whenever someone starts pushing a POV, sometimes on a blog or in an opinion mag. Someone is pushing a POV somewhere about Leninist atrocities.  Well, Leninist atrocities really were and are atrocious, and we have to report what the reliable sources say from a neutral point of view, and a reasonable reader can conclude that the atrocities are atrocious.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kangaroo
You said that maybe you should have a kangaroo userbox. That would mean that if someone throws a boomerang, it hits the kangaroo rather than returning and hitting them. In that case, the next step is of course to put kangaroo steaks on the barbie. And the weather is probably better in the Australian summer than in Arkansas, where it appears that there is a polar vortex, or in Maryland, where mixed precipitation keeps coming off the polar vortex. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe a ninja Kangaroo then? I wish I was in Australia today. Its rough here. And cold. And I'm dreading the drive home. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The drive home in the winter was one of the disadvantages of working for a living in information technology, before they told me to have my team run ten test cases a day on a system that wasn't working yet. That was no job for a 65-year-old to do.  So I haven't driven home for seven years.  My sympathies.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Purchasing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domestic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A Weird Error
In closing the Pashtuns case, you introduced a weird error. In referring to WP:RS and WP:RSNB in your closing statement, you capitalized the brackets (if you are using a standard US keyboard), which turned the square brackets into curly braces. This transcluded something. The main result is that your closing statement was not visible. It took me quite a while to figure out what the problem was, just because it was so unusual. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * weird!! Leave it to me though. I’m sorry. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with weird errors due to various types of brackets, such as mismatched parentheses, for more than half a century, and so this was really something that I was sort of the right person to deal with. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Template Star Control dispute
You closed it as Closed. Should you have closed it as Resolved, which is better? I wasn't following closely, because I thought that you had it under control, but the conclusion looks like it was resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * resolved would be better. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved
Yes. It doesn't matter whether we say that the editor was causing the problem or that the editor was the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment
The lab leak case was easier than the case of the Romani Hungarians. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * LOL perhaps both? Some otherwise perfetly reasonable editors just can't avoid chasing certain carrots when they are dangled in front of them. But.... no longer monkeys in our particiular tent of the WP circus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Diplomacy Barnstar

 * Awww Thank you!!Nightenbelle (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Terry Lee (author) rejection
Hello. Recently you rejected my submission to create a page for Terry Lee (author)(which should, BTW, be Terry Lee (artist)). The reason you gave was as follows:

"Citing the book he did cover art for does nothing other than provide a list of titles he did art for, and yet those covers are being used to support sentences that give information and details. This does not work."

I strongly disagree that this is the case. I need a specific example to know what you are referring to, otherwise I cannot fix it. I have carefully reviewed my submission and strongly feel there are no sentences with information which are not supported by empirical citation. If you provide an example I can take action. If not, I must insist on re-submitting this information again and again, until someone gives me a clue.

I also find it ironic that I am being rejected for lack of citation, after you have failed to do so yourself.

Sincerly,

Eric Hildeman — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHildy (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * if you resubmit it as is. It will be rejected again. It is your responsibility to review wp:rs and learn how to correctly support an article before resubmitting. And citing a book he did cover art for is pointless, and it’s a primary source. There is your specific example. Fix the article or don’t- if you fix it- it will get published, if not- another reviewer will reject it like I did. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre
Hi, Nightenbelle. I´ve just got the declined position about the Draft. I´ll clean the red errors up and submit again. Thank you for your comments. Alexandra Aguirre Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Nightenbelle, how are you? I´ve just resubmit the draft again. I´ve fixed the redlinks and also the sources were with errors. Yours sincerely, Alexandra Aguirre Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Jérôme Chenal
Dear Nightenbelle,

Thank you for your work on reducing the AfC review burden! I am writing to you as I just got your message regarding the Draft:Jérôme Chenal rejection. I'm not quite sure I agree on your assessment here, as there are several articles in major French-speaking newspapers on the subject that were sourced in the article. There is also a link (avisdexpert.ch) which compiles interventions of the subject in Swiss media outlet as a quality of expert in his field of study. Thanks for letting me know if you still think this is not enough!

Best regards,

BatYote. (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * almost all your sources are primary sources- or rather, sources that have a fianancial link with the subject. These do not establish notability. Others were articles written by the subject himself. These do not establish notability. I'm sorry you disagree, but this is my analysis. Only the one link avisdexpert.ch comes close to establishing notability. And that is 1 source- you need multiple to prove notability. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I don't understand, I referenced 4 articles about the subject (and not written by the subject)!   May I kindly ask you to have a second look? Thanks a lot in advance!

BatYote. (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Music DRN
What part of "Do not begin discussions here until the mediator invites discussions to open" didn't they understand? So, as you can say, I used your exact wording rather than another sentence having the exact same meaning. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Five of the editors listed have not responded. Do you want to close it, or should I close it?  If I close it, I will suggest that an RFC is in order for any real issues.  (National variety of English is not a real issue.  I worked on a family of computer systems that handled international message traffic, and if the United States and the United Kingdom were parties to the same treaty, we used British English because it was their language first.  The messages sometimes referred to movements of armoured vehicles.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Argghh
Do you have any idea what the Mary Ann Mansigh issue was??

Well, the Exxon Mobil case was stupid also, because it appears that the editor was complaining that there had been vandalism. This is not AIV, and anyone can revert vandalism. (Well, almost anyone. Blocked vandals cannot revert vandalism.  Sockpuppetmasters may not revert vandalism but can revert vandalism.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about anything at all at the moment. I got called away to do some training for work and haven't been on WP in.... a week almost? I feel so lost- like what's going on? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Here is sort of a summary.  You closed the Exxon Mobil case, which was an editor complaining about vandalism, and I agreed with your close.  I closed the Music film case, which had eight editors, and most of them either did not respond or did not want to participate, so we are rid of it.  I closed the Jefferson Airplane case.  I have no edit what the Mary Ann Mansigh issue was.  The Hungarian Romani case goes on and on.  You are welcome to resume mediating when you are ready.  Welcome back.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So much and yet so little changes in a week. I'll be off and on this week. Probably won't take on a case until the end of the week- but I'll do routine stuff as needed. Nightenbelle (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting your input on RfC on Emanuel Cleaver
I hope you are well. You helped me recently with the Dispute Notice Board and an RfC. Currently supporting the addition of amen and awomen is outweighs the the opposition. Can you take a look at the Emanuel Cleaver talk page and the RfC and take the appropriate measures? Thanks! Grahaml35 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pointless Commentary separating so I can archive it without archiving my statement

 * "you may get snark if the answer is in one of those three essays" -> I think you mean "policies", WP:ESSAYS have no official status. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well no, I meant essay. The essays contain policy, but they explain them in "a short piece of writing on a particular subject" thus.... essay. Thanks anyway. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , to be exact, NPOV is a policy, and the instructions made on that page have the effect of policy; they are followed unless there are special reasons for making an exception. RS and Notability are guidelines, which are  less stringent than policy but are generally followed when applicable. All 3 pages are very much official standards approved by the community.  DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Spanish flu&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence W. Jones
I have overridden your close and substituted my close. It is a difficult case, and I can see your reasoning, and I don't want to state openly the reason why I overrode your close, but see what I have piped and think about it. I agree with your general conclusion that reaching out to the subject is discouraged. It appears to me that the filing editor may have known something that she didn't want to publish. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you had already closed it, I wouldn't have tried to close it, but we had a race condition. (What Wikipedia calls an edit conflict is known in electrical engineering as a race condition.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Rent control
Dear Nightenbelle:

The statement that I am trying to delete is a statement that is obviously FALSE. Even beyond other issues: (i) it is not correctly referenced, (ii) the quote does not correspond to the alleged survey it refers to, (iii) it is the second sentence of the article, even before the technical description, (iv) it has political connotations, (v) it misunderstands the concept of "scientific consensus" and (vi) it is neither a reliable source nor published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The worst thing is that this is a false statement, as some of the same references in the article show.

I hope we can do something to keep wikipedia as a rigorous encyclopaedia.193.52.24.13 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I know I closed your DRN- but I have no earthly idea why in the world you are brining this here to my talk page. What I do know is that your behavior on the talk page is combative at best, I don't know why you've come to my talk page to continue a debate I'm not engaged in, but I suggest you go back to the article talk page- change your attitude, and see if you can get editors to work with you. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and applies to unregistered editors just as much as to registered editors. Repeating your statements aggressively in order to "win" a content dispute is not useful.  Civility consists not only in the avoidance of unpleasant words, but in treating other editors with courtesy and respect.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Nightenbelle - They are coming to your talk page because they are trying to "win" a content dispute by being loud and persistent. You probably did know that after all.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The filing editor also did not notify the other editors of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the example I gave does not insult anyone. A consensus among earth planners results in affirming that the earth is flat. Which is false.Cheers.193.52.24.13 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ;-) that is what I assumed.... I was just being.... my sarcastic self? Nightenbelle (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I came here because, if I understand correctly, you closed my request for a conflict resolution. Did I do something wrong? Your comment: "I have no earthly idea why in the world you are brining this here", besides being impolite, does not contribute anything. Your status on Wikipedia does not make you the possessor of truth. In fact, I came here with a honest intention (you should assume good faith too): What I intend to do is to delete a FALSE sentence from a Wikipedia article. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but there are debatable and non-debatable issues. An obvious falsehood, such as saying: "There is a consensus among scientists that the sky is blue", should be automatically excluded from the encoclopedia. I imagine you agree with this. Have a nice day.193.52.24.13 (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have accused me of insulting other users on the article's talk page. Can you retract your words or specify exactly where I have insulted? Cheers.193.52.24.13 (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You discuss articles on their talk page. You discuss DRNs on the DRN page... there is no point in discussing an article- as if you are trying to convince me of your perspective- on my talk page. That is why I am confused. You have come to an uninvolved editors page to argue a point I am not debating with you. In face- a point I have no opinion on nor do I have any intention of forming an opinion on it. I mediate preciesely because- I have no opinion on that article. You have insulted your fellow editors. Repeatedly. Most recently- when you compared them to flat-earth conspiracy theorists. I find it hilarious you are this upset at me calling yo out- when you have been beyond rude and combative to every editor who disagrees with you. Now- the sky being blue- an easily observable phenomenon by all people- is an excellent example of this. It seems obvious.... to anyone who has not taken the time to study- but the sky is actually not blue. Its clear. But it filters and refracts light particles in such a way that our mind reads this collection of clear molecules as blue. Perhaps this issue is the same. You are seeing blue and assuming thats all there is to it- when your fellow editors are seeing a collection of clear molecules. So what I'm saying is- check your attitude at the door and engage civilly if you want change. Otherwise- you will end up blocked.... again... because right now- you are digging a hole. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You haven't specify where exactly I insult my fellow editors. You say "you find my attitude hilarious", but apparently I can't say I find hilarious a sentence that is obviously FALSE.193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I specifically said when you call your opinion obvious and when you compare them to flat-earthers you were insulting your fellow editors. I gave two specific examples- have given them multiple times now. Again- above with the "obvious" above- You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've bolded the statement in my comments so you can clearly see it. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the example I gave does not insult anyone. A consensus among earth planners results in affirming that the earth is flat. Which is false.193.52.24.13 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing people to conspiracy theorists- which is what flat-earthers are... because they don't agree with you is insulting. Your behavior is wrong. Truth. Me telling you that hurts your feelings- truth. Your desired changes to the article in question opinion. Learn the difference. Also- you keep trying to convince me of your opinion- Nowhere did I say I disagreed with you. Honestly- I haven't really paid attention to what your opinion is. Your DRN was closed because it was filed too early. Not because I, as a mediator, thought you were wrong- just because it was too soon. Thats all. Thats why you coming to my page to bludgeon your point is inappropriate. Because I'm not arguing your point with you. I am condemning your behavior. Totally different. Your point may have merit- the way you are presenting it- has none. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Emiway Bantai (Indian rapper)
@Nightenbelle, Emiway Bantai has once declined (like an advertisement on reading). But I have fixed it now. Please review it. Please do not deny by giving any other reason, I hope so. 223.238.203.31 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I only review the oldest of pages. So yours will have to wait. Sorry. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle, This too is an old page, due to the decline I fixed it and re-submitted the submission. You can see — Draft:Emiway Bantai (indian rapper) 223.238.222.235 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It was denied 9 days ago.... there are pages that have been waiting 4 months. I focus on those. Sorry- the answer stays- not at this time. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a deletion discussion in 2019 which deleted an article about the subject, and this draft does not indicate that he has become notable since 2019. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving a declined draft to article space can be a quick way to get it into article space, and can also be a quick way to get it into a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
You have two unreasonable unregistered editors. I suggest that you request semi-protection of your talk page for a week or two. Maybe they will read this comment; maybe they will take note of it, or maybe they will ignore it. You also have reasonable registered editors posting to your talk page, and they will not be affected. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob. and if you'd like me to semiprotect, I will. Just let me know on my user talk.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * semiprotected for a month. If you need it longer, let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

AfC
I've recently come acrosss someo f your recent reviews, and there's not much I disagree with. I do want to make a few points, from my experience of doingthis mainly for bios for the last 8 or 10 years:

I accepted Holguin-Hernandez v. United States. All US supreme court cases, at least in hte modern period, are considered notable. It's not a good article, but it is much morelikely to improved in mainspace than as a draft--people in the relevant wwikiproject will see it

I shall probably accept Draft:Henry Francis after checking the citation record. The standard is WP:PROF, completely independent of the GNG.

The worst problem with Draft:Kazim Mechiev is not lack of sources--the sources given do cover most of the   contents. The real problem is that the draft is a very close paraphrase and in some parts a direct copy of ref.1. I almost didn't check, because I thought that the source would be in Balkar, not English, and therefore unintelligible to me, but I did, and it is English. I've left an appropriate notice.

I accepted Draft:Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre. The works are sufficient to show notability as a scientist.

The general principle that I use is what I think to be the true principle of AfC--our role as reviewers is to accept those articles that are not likely to be deleted if brought to AfD, not to have the contributor fix other than those problems so improtant that they would leadto rejection. Looking at most WP articles, they get improved very much in mainspace, whereas a draft once declined is all too likely to be abandoned. It's not necessary or expected that 2 reviewers would agree all the time--but too much inconsistency is not helpful tothhe new contributors. I'll be glad to respond about any of these, & of course you can challenge anything I accept, as other people also sometimes challenge them, and as I challenge sometimes what they accept. I make no claims to either judge right 100% of the time, or to always be in agreement with what turns out to be consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and coaching. :-)Nightenbelle (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The Dust Coda
Hi Nightenbelle,

Hope you're OK and thank you very much for reviewing the Draft page for The Dust Coda on March 10, 2021.

I have removed the social media sources as per your comment and have added further reliable, independent published media references to support the page, such as,.

I appreciate that you work to review older submissions first of course, but if you can catch a moment to review the page once more and see if it is worthy of being published now, I would be grateful.

Thank you once more for your time and hope you have a good day. SunGarden12 (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

HDIs
Yes, I would like to know what is the problem with using a consistent HDI data set like GlobalDataLab's for different places which seems to have been implemented in a number of city articles already instead of using a hodgepodge of different sources. In the case of San Salvador, you cannot even find the information when you go to the source, and it just makes no sense that San Salvador's HDI is 0.965 when Panama City's is 0.826 and Mexico City's is 0.827. You make a point about RS and NPOV, but in this case the original value in place seemed purposefully skewed. And I tried to pose this matter civilly in a discussion on the San Salvador page but got no response, so it seemed appropriate to take action in suggesting an alternative. I may be new, but isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an open-source collaboration? Lazarus1255 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Its been 18 hours since I reverted that.... and I was patroling recent changes and honestly- I have no recollection of why this one caught my eye as problematic. So I'm just going to apologize and say I made an error. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking Editors at DRN
You added an editor to the Sri Lankan Civil War dispute and said that all involved editors should be notified, and that cherrypicking was not permitted. I agree. There are a lot of disputes in which the filing editor tries to cherrypick who they want to discuss with. Cherrypicking is a good idea with fruit, and not a good idea when the objective is to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Reflist
I have put a reflist thingy and a ===References=== subhead at the bottom of the Sri Lankan Civil War dispute. The reflist thing causes all of the references that were defined after the last reflist thing to be listed there. I did this because about 50 footnotes were appearing at the very bottom of DRN. Maybe we need an instruction to reviewers about Reflists, but it is just something that I have learned. Most disputes don't have references, but some disputes have a lot of references, like this one, or like the dispute about the Hungarian Romani. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't know you could do that. Cool! Learned something new today. I have a bad feeling about this dispute though. I'm hoping we can work through it. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I know it seems like something out of a phrasebook, but I have found that there is a lot of battleground editing about areas that have been real battlegrounds, and about the battles that were fought on the battlegrounds. The Sri Lankan Civil War is of course a conflict that made an island nation into a battleground.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have an odd historical thought about the Sri Lankan Civil War. The tragedy of Sri Lanka is that it was annexed by Great Britain in the nineteenth century as a Crown Colony, and then decolonized as a separate nation.  At some times in its history, it was independent.  At some times in its history, it was part of an Indian empire.  If Ceylon had been colonized by Great Britain as part of Imperial India, then maybe when the British went home, it might have become a state of India rather than a nation.  If it had been a state of India, then when the Tamils and the Sinhalese began fighting, India would have imposed President's Rule, and the Indian Army would have crushed any rebellion and imposed martial law.  That would not be an ideal result for a nation that is the world's largest democracy, but it would have been better than a long war.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Dispute
It's an image dispute. They are usually A-or-B-or nothing, or something like that. The number of editors is not likely to be a problem, unless one of the editors is themselves a problem. It will probably wind up with an RFC; image disputes do. So the number of editors isn't a problem, and I am taking it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Two DRN Comments
It appears that your shuttle diplomacy is making progress on the Sri Lankan Civil War. Thank you.

I just noticed that WP:ANI has essentially resolved the Hungarian Romani dispute, about five days before the RFC would have run out. I didn't notice that there was a thread about one of the two parties to that dispute, and, by the time I did notice, that editor was community site-banned. Well, well.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your email
I appreciate your message and it is never too late for self-reflection. Please consider making the same gesture to Bruce Kluger. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I intend to- but wording his is a bit more difficult as he is the one I attacked. But that is part of what took me six months to respond to you- because that was the easier of the two. Apologizing to them took me more time to wrap my head around and figure out. And it needs to be public/on his talk page. If I was willing to insult him publicly- I better be willing to humble myself/apologize publicly as well. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Take your time. There are no deadlines. If he has email enabled, that might be easier since he is rarely active here. Thank you very much. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft

 * You declined Draft:Steve Smylie  a few days ago for  not showing RS to meet the GNG. In the very first sentence it says he is a member of the Idaho House of Representatives . According to WP:POLITICIAN< this is sufficient to show notability., and is documented reliably by ref.1, tho it could be documented better. I have just accepted it.


 * doh. I’m a moron. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you help with a review Draft:IThena? A lot of tweaks and changes have been made since your review. Can you give a hint as to what regarding the corrections? Can you look at this topic? ;) The page is now much better.

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Goths&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 13:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Careful
A while back, you declined this draft; given that Hanssen is an OSA Fellow, would you like to reconsider your assessment as to whether he meets notability criteria for academics? Thanks. DS (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * well, since that was added after I declined it..... I wouldn't have had that to consider at the time- so the careful title here must apply to the creator who didn't include this All they said was he was a member- that has now been changed to fellow. Being a member is not notable, a fellow- perhaps so. As to whether I will reconsider- I focus on drafts that have been waiting 3+ months- so for now, I will leave this for others who have different focuses until it reaches the end of the queue (IE the area I focus on.) I hope most of the primary sources have also been changed to WP:RS as well- since that was also a problem when it was declined. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I accepted it, of course.  DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Luc Laeven
I think the standard here is wp;prof, not wp:gng. As author of very widely held 3 mit press boooks in his field,, professor at a major university, and a very senior research official at several ofthe most prestigeous financial institutions in the world, i think he meets it. I accepted it. (Notall this may have been clear in the version you declined, but the books were there)  DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Message
Thanks for the advice! I think I will follow it. Do you have any advice about making WikiProjects? If you reply on this talk page, I might not see it, so please reply on my talk page. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mihajlo Hamzić article
Hello Nightenbelle! I was about to create an article for this Croatian Renaissance painter, but then discovered that Draft:Mihajlo Hamzić exists and that it had been declined. Having made my edits, I'm now wondering how to get it reviewed again. I've never actually used the draft process before! The sources (in Croatian and English) look fine to me, and I've seen many less well-sourced stubs! Is there a particular issue with it that gave you concern? Thanks for your help! Farscot (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In a VERY uncharacteristic move for me (Because I'm usually the mean old biddy who demands that you re-submit and wait 4 months)- I went ahead and re-reviewed and approved it. Thanks for getting the article to a publishable state. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, I appreciate you taking the time to re-review so speedily! Farscot (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticinium ex eventu
That case is going to end up with at least one more editor blocked. I have not studied it in enough depth to know what will happen next. There was a third editor who had gotten involved who was a sockpuppet and is blocked. It will simplify things if they revert six times in 24 hours and an admin can block them for edit-warring. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * They both need blocked IMO. They are just being rude to each other. I mean toddler level rude. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandip Prabhakar Dhurve
I've accepted this, in the same exact version you previously declined it for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. & This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article"

The individual is a member of a legislature, and therefore notable. The sources are sufficient to show it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

iThena article
Hello Nightenbelle! I don't know if you can help. However, I have a great request for you. Could you please help to further review the article Draft:iThena? I would like the article to get the status of accepted. Thanks for your help! Bam123456 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Shochiku_Studio
Thank you for your confirmation for Draft:Shochiku_Studio. I have updated some sources. Can you please confirm it again ? Please note kindly that This article is basically expanded with text translated from, the corresponding article in Japanese.

Claire Guimond tags
Hello, Nightenbelle. I have made some substantial changes and cuts to the text of Claire Guimond to improve its neutrality and make it more encyclopaedic. Could you have a look and remove the tags if you believe the issues were corrected? --Puzzi22 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewed. I think you and I have very different definitions of the word substantial. You changed perhaps two dozen words from HIGHLY inflated- to somewhat inflated words. Leaving much much more. THis reads like a Resume or job application- not an encyclopedia article. This has a long way to go before I would remove the tags. You are welcome to solicit more opinions- but thats my two cents. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

--Thank you for reviewing it. I didn't appreciate much your way of telling me your two cents. I believe I could have done with a more constructive, less sarcasm, approach to your feedback. May I suggest reading this page? WP:DNB I genuinely tried to improve the page I submitted for you to review, and I truly believe that I have removed any words with a subjective connotation. --Puzzi22 (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well... first of all- I have a freaking notice at the top of this page that IF you post asking me for a review- you may get snark. So I literally warned you before you posted. Second- I actually wasn't being sarcastic. I told you what needed to be improved- and I was professional in how I did. I'm sorry you are offended by blunt honesty. I'm sorry I didn't tell you it was amazing when you changed twelve words and left a very promotional article and hoped no one would notice- but I was not rude or disrespectful in my response to you. I'm not being nice or kind now- because you weren't very professional either. You didn't like that I told you it still wasn't neutral and wanted to come make me look/feel bad for not giving you a pass. Are you being paid by them? Is my opinion hindering your ability to cash a check? It sounds that way. Anyway- if my original response here is too harsh for you- when it really was not harsh at all- maybe you need to find a new hobby. If you ask for a review- you can't then get upset when its a negative one. If you just want someone to pat your head and tell you you are great- this is not the place for you. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for DNB- bless your heart. (I'm from the south.... if you don't know what that means- take it at face value hun. trust me). I didn't bite you- until you came here and tried nipping at me. My response to your review request- wasn't a bite. It was honesty. Honesty isn't biting the newcomer. especially when you come on my page and ask for a review~ Then you get snippy with me when you don't like it- So now I get to tell you what I think. Don't want that to happen? Don't get rude with people who give you honest reviews just because you don't like their opinion. I suggest you not ask my opinion again. I suggest you go through the correct channels to get feedback- because there is a damn good reason I don't volunteer to review pages like this. I don't sugar coat things. And I Have no intention of starting. I taught writing. And I'm good at it. But my students learned quickly- I don't review with their emotions in mind. I review with the intent of improving their writing. It can hurt- but it always makes you better. Or... makes you whine and stagnate and blaim the world for you not improving. Or for not accepting your half-assed wanna be attempt as good enough when you and I both know- you didn't give it your best effort- you did what you thought was the bare minimum and hoped I'd tell you it was wonderful. You're mad I called you out on still trying to slip a publicity piece by. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Puzzi22 - Do not use Do Not Bite as a cudgel. If you have been editing long enough to know to respond to comments by quoting Do Not Bite The Newbies, you are not a newbie.  Quoting that guideline in your own defense is often a sign of a difficult editor.  Are you being paid, or are you just quarrelsome?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Village Pump Discussion
You might be interested in discussion at Village_pump_(policy). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Mariecyber
I think it’s quite kind of you to try to communicate rationally with Mariecyber, however I wanted to advise you of the kinds of things they have represented on the Talk page as legitimate sources:. As you can see, it’s a mix of fringe mind control nuttery and paranoia. Regarding the “UN article” they promised, they have already shared it on the Talk page. It couldn’t be more anonymous and lacking in context, but note that the UN Human Rights Commission website includes searchable records of all correspondence sent to it. This includes letters from a number of delusional individuals who wish to report to UNHRC what they sincerely believe are human rights violations, such as:, ,. I do feel quite sad that this editor (and apparently too many others) believe they are a mind control victim, and I do appreciate your effort to reach them, but I hope you won’t be disappointed if it doesn’t turn out well. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I did see they self-identified as a victim.... which is why I advised them that they should consider it a COI and request edits instead of making them themself. If I can help them- peachy keen, job well done... if not- I got to follow some interesting rabbits down their holes and I'll continue on happy as a clam. :-) I won't take it to heart if I can't help. Thanks for the evening reading though! Nightenbelle (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

iThena article
Hello Nightenbelle! I don't know if you can help. However, I have a great request for you. Could you please help to further review the article Draft:iThena? I would like the article to get the status of accepted. Thanks for your help! Bam123456 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My entry has been archived by OneClickArchiver. I update again. Bam123456 (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can tell you by looking at the sources alone- this article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. You need significant coverage in secondary sources- all you have is primary and, worse, social media. Twitter should never be used as a source. Ever. I’m sorry- this article doesn’t need to exist at this time. I would recommend you find another project to focus on. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am highly disappointed in the level of assistance. Well... The Twitter reference is just one. You can check how many references lead to pure social media. The way I see it, one reference leads to Twitter, and one reference leads to a radio recording? Thank you so much for your helpfulness and golden advice. Bam123456 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * .... Why do people seem to be under the impression that I'm going to be anything other than totally honest. You want assistance? Go read WP:RS You have been told multiple times by multiple people that article is insufficient. You can get angry at those of us who are trying to help you- or you can fix the problem. But I'm a freaking volunteer. I'm not here to assist you, I'm here to make a better encyclopedia. That article does not contribute to that goal in its current form, and when I googled for better sources- they didn't exist- which tells me, its not notable enough for an article. Either do your research on what we consider WP:RS and then fix the article, or move on to another subject. But don't come sniping at me because I was honest with you. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Savar article
Hi, sorry i forgot to add the source for the Fantasy Kingdom reference (i will add it now), but it is one of the few, and also the first, largest and most popular theme park in bangladesh and most people who visit suburban savar is likely to be visiting it, or the national memorial. Hk12hk (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. As long as there is a source, I won't contest it again :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hotel Metropole, Monte Carlo
Hi, I included the reference in the Award section. It comes from the official press kit of the Hotel, founded on the Hotel's webpage. I did it in the first sentence of the Award section, before listing all the bullets. Please let me know how can I improve this.
 * You need to cite a source where you add the information- not just a random link somewhere on the page. Also- based on your username- are you by any chance a paid editor for this hotel? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought I listed the source (I thought that official press box can be considered as such)... And I thought that for potential hotel guests the awards could be interesting. Maybe it can be considered as promotional materials, but I strongly believe these are the useful once (I like Monaco, were there many times and that's why Edited this one), not that "this hotel has the most comfortable bed" or "the most delicious breakfast"... If you find it too promotional, OK. But maybe look from hotel's guest perspective. Thank you for sharing the WP-rules - I will review it again. And the last - I am not a paid editor and my username is not realy pointing on such a role. I'm not sure if I can link here my LinkedIn...?

Garbage time article
Hello, I added the word "effectively" to the garbage time article. This was my first Wikipedia edit. The edit makes the sentence correct, as the game is not over and has therefore has not been decided. Your revert changes the sentence back to a non-neutral form. It's not a hill worth dying on, and I'll refrain further Wikipedia contributions.
 * Well since your response to being reverted is to whine and throw a tantrum, thats probably for the best. The grown up thing to do would have been to have a discussion on the talk page and explain your reasons for the change- which I would have responded- "I think the change is unnecessary but I won't revert again." But you leaving over something small is a good option too. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually did neither, and you are being rude. Goodbye.
 * Adios pal. And yes, that is an acurate description of what you did in both these posts... but wanna come back a third to tell me how you're being mature, really? Again- you could have just explained why you did what you did on the talk page- you came here buddy, I didn't seek you out. You made one change, it was reverted- so you made two angry posts and left an entire website.... over 1 contested change? I mean... you effectively did pick that hill to die on, and as you pointed out- its a silly one to pick.  Nightenbelle (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

DRN close at Trans fat
The opener accidentally capitalized the word "Fat" when listing the article Trans fat, leading to a redirect that had never been part of this dispute. However, if you look at Talk:Trans fat (notice the lowercase "f"), you can see that there has been ongoing discussion, and a look at the article history shows an ongoing edit war between multiple users.

I figured I'd give you a chance to revert your close, or respond with a different rationale, rather than me reverting you over there. Given the number of editors involved on both sides, it seems ripe for trying to work something out. If some sort of discussion isn't started soon, it's going to end up at ANI or ANEW with lots of blocks going around. I'd rather give them the chance to avoid that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked at that page- trust me I found every page this has been discussed on. There has not been significant lengthy discussion there either. This dispute does not belong at drn- it needs an rfc. There has not been enough discussion- there is already an existing consensus, and too many editors involved. I strongly recommend you let them try an rfc- please don’t set a president for 10 comments being a meaningful discussion to overturn a year long consensus on the drn. This dispute isn’t right or ready for us. But check Robert for his opinion- if you both agree, I’ll revert. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'll let your close stand. I didn't feel strongly about it one way or the other (the discussion has been spread out over a long time, but whether or not there's enough to justify DRN is debatable), I just thought you might have missed what discussion there was. If you haven't, and you still want to close it, I'm good with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:MPants at work - In my opinion, when there are 15 participants, trying to mediate is like trying to herd 9 cats, 1 border collie, 1 Chesapeake Bay retriever, 2 rabbits, 1 sheep, and 1 llama. The only thing that we can possibly do with that many editors is to formulate the RFC neutrally.  Besides, it appears to be a merge/split dispute rather than a simple article content dispute, and my recollection is that we do not handle merge/split disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, June 9, 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the thing about the merge/split. However, I've organized a few RfCs, including some that were cleverly disguised as regular discussions (RfC's tend to be broad, but shallow, but discussions that editors are invited to participate in can get deep); doing just that, while trying not to let it get too deep was pretty much my plan here. The existence of the year-old merge discussion and the one-comment agreements with one side of that dispute made it pretty clear that a broad, but shallow approach should produce an outcome with some confidence.
 * I'll remember what you said about merge/split discussions, though, and decline those as I see them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2017
Well, well, I had not looked at Nguyen's talk page, and did not see that they had multiple level 3 and level 4 warnings going back to 2018. They had been lucky not to have been blocked much earlier. It looks like a reasonable result. Lukewon was warned and Nguyen was indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied. Problem solved, on to the next new onnnnne.... oh wait- I've seen that article title before.... crap. Nope. Nope nope. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Civil War
I will close the request, and will pull together a report to WP:ANI, but I am going to propose Community General Sanctions. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Pahonia
That case request has also been filed at ArbCom. It isn't an ArbCom case. It is probably an RFC, but I will try to work it out at DRN, maybe to neutralize the RFC, if ArbCom declines it, which they should.

Everything is being filed in one or another wrong place. We have had an ArbCom request that should be at DRN, and an essay dispute at DRN that shouldn't be anywhere, and a draft acceptance case that should have been just listening to the reviewer, and a civil war, and a beauty contest case where the answer turned out to be a ban, and .... Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

zebra murders
Hi Nightenbelle. Do you think if a white gang murdered between 15 and 73+ Black people in cold blood they ought to be described as 'small' group that 'killed at least 15 and wounded eight'? And to enforce that edit as a 'neutral point of view' using your apparent editorial powers? Zebra Murders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.173.77 (talk) 15:07, June 10, 2021 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that this question makes it rather clear that your motivations in making that addition were racial, which serves only to justify the revert. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I reverted because we try to keep neutral. It’s not always easy to keep emotions out of emotional topics. It’s not personal, it’s not racial. I would like to point out- you don’t know my race or my opinion on the topic. However- as an encyclopedia- things must be neutral. And mjolnair- please wp:agf. There is no need to assume they are a biased editor because they made an edit that did not improve the bias in an article. It’s okay. They can always question and discuss edits- there may be a way we could all work together and find a better way to fix the article. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am AGFing; else I'd run to an admin and ask for a block per WP:NONAZIS and WP:RGW. I don't think (and am not suggesting) that the IP is racist, but that any edits motivated by racial considerations should be quickly reverted and extensively discussed with a mind to ensuring their conformance with NPOV and WP:V before being reinstated. Note that I would say this is true even in cases where there is a very real racial bias in one of our articles which the edit corrects. Race is a highly sensitive and complex subject, and any edits motivated by or addressing it deserve careful scrutiny and much consideration before being introduced to article space.
 * If my comments came across as an accusation of racism, then I apologize. They were intended as a critique of the edit, not the editor, and any failure to convey that was mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You literally said "This comment makes it clear that your motivations in making that addition were racial." That was absolutely a personal attack and inappropriate. Honestly- this is why I have concerns about you working the DRN- you came to someone else's talk page, responded to a comment not directed at you, and intensified drama which could and should have been diffused. I've seen this from you in multiple places. Now- I've also seen you be a good editor... but you can't keep doing this. If you're not part of the drama- stay out of it. And if you are part of it- find better ways to handle the situation. I'm not even saying I'm the best role model for that- lord knows I have a temper too- but I at least keep it under control and only direct sass to people who come for me first on my own talk page. And even then- I do my best to be professional first and don't get salty until they attack first. Please do not respond to any more comments on my talk page which do not relate to you. I appreciate the intent of watching my talk page- but I already have a few people who watch it for trouble and alert me when necessary. I don't need any more at the moment. Thank you for the good intentions though. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll respect your request not to comment here again.
 * As for the rest of your comment above and below, I believe I explained my initial comment well enough in my last edit, and your refusal to engage with that explanation and repetition of your earlier misconception is as telling as the IP's excuse, albeit for different reasons.
 * Here's a bit of advice you might want to keep in mind, free from an editor with significantly more experience than you in editing controversial topics: new editors frequently benefit more from having their specific mistakes explained to them than from having someone waffle vaguely about policy because they're averse to discussing the specific mistake. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve been editing Wikipedia for over eleven years.... long enough to know not to try to pull rank. Do better. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A better way to address that may have been "If you believe the current article has NPOV issues, why don't we discuss options for changing it on the article talk page". Not "This confirms racial intentions." One invites collaboration- one leads with an attack... which would you rather work with? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Nightenbelle, I appreciate your response, but I'm still not clear why it is more 'neutral' to effectively downplay the scale of the violence of the Zebra Murders. My comment was not intended as racist, but rather to highlight what I feel is a racial double standard (and I would *not* support any similar downplaying of white-on-Black violence such in the KKK article, for example, either). Anyway I may take it to the talk page, but if your interlocutor is anything to go by it sounds like a rather toxic environment. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.173.77 (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I do t support downplaying it either- what I will propose is tomorrow let me read all the sources and see if we can find a better way to summarize that doesn’t downplay either.

And don’t judge all of us by that. Most editors are friendly and cooperative. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. Thanks Nightenbelle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.173.77 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I read the sources- they all use the exact number- I don't know a better word to use other than small group- and small is so subjective. Seven is small for somethings, but it would be a lot in others so....i think we should just use the exact number- 7. So That way any implications or small or large or group or whatever are removed and we have just straight facts. I hope this is acceptable.

Screaming(music)
I added this link because i don't have article as source. I have only this video for screaming in Rockabilly. Diener666 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If you don't have a reliable secondary source, than it shouldn't be in the article at all. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * My intention was only to improve the article. You have to help me instead of just deleting. Diener666 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your good intentions. And I've told you what you need to fix- a WP:RS. Beyond that- I don't have to do a darn thing. All I'm doing today is patrolling recent changes and making sure no one sneaks in any information without sources or vandalizes pages. So if you are still confused at what a RS is- please visit the WP:TEAHOUSE and they can answer your questions. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Screaming (music)
I have only audios in many genres for support to improve that article about screaming in music. I don't know how to out them there. Diener666 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't. That is Original research which is not allowed on WP. You find secondary or tertiary sources or... YOU DON"T ADD THE MATERIAL. Period. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Screaming (music)
I don't know your point in restoring my edit on Screamin Jaykins even on top it says gospel screaming existed til the 1920s. It contradicts the song "I put spell in you" as the first song featuring screaming. Diener666 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have literally no idea what you are talking about. All I'm doing is removing vandalism or unsourced content.... if I restored something you want out- peachy- remove it again without adding unsourced information. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Diener666 - Starting three separate sections on a user's talk page is unnecessary and annoying. I will advise her to advise you to leave her talk page alone.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Civil War
Argh. Yuck.

Apparently the community isn't about to do anything about that dispute. Apparently personal attacks are ignored in that area. I think it will restart in a few months and in that case, if no one else writes a Request for Arbitration, I will. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is unbelievable that the POV pushing, lying, personal attacks, etc. Are just being ignored. It was bad enough the first time around. I mean - Oz straight up admitted he intended the article to persuade the UN to do something about it- as if WP has that power!- if that's not POV- I don't know what is! But.... it will pop up again, and that will be the third time... and maybe it will go to arb com then. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Happy Birthday!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy Birthday! Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you!Nightenbelle (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hi Nightenbelle. I've listened to your criticism at dispute resolution here and am taking the feedback on board. I'm quite upset, however, as in your closing remarks at the dispute resolution you are (probably unintentionally) implying I am the one who wished to use the YouTube source, as you place the sentence "Youtube is a questionable source at best see- WP:NOYT" in between two sentences criticising me, and specifically after one that (justifiably) criticised my previous use of OR. This permanent record will lead readers to form the opinion I was wanting to cite YouTube during the dispute with Ladvirex, when I was actually the one opposing it. While I previously raised the possibility of citing YouTube in conjunction with independent sources purely to address another user's concern on the talk page, the entire dispute resolution you commented at was about me opposing Ladvirex wanting to cite YouTube exclusively. I'd very much appreciate it if you updated your closing remarks to reflect that I was not the one pushing to cite YouTube to be included in the dispute in question. I agree with your criticism about me in general (sometimes it requires a third party to step in and put everyone else in their place), however, I find this particularity closing remark very hurtful as any reasonable editor would think, due its placement, that it implies I was the one pushing to use YouTube as a source. You may think this is a bit pedantic of me (and maybe it is), though I am genuinely hurt by the inaccuracy of this particular comment of yours, though acknowledge it was likely unintentional. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * early on in the discussion- you were in favor of using it. That changed later on -=and I missed it. I'll fix that. I'm sorry I missed that. But I hope you did listen on the comments about the rest of your behavior- because it really was bad. You can't be that condescending and dismissive of editors even if they are new. You can't disengage and assume that means you win. You disengage- they win. So find a better way to get a consensus- like you are doing now. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been amended. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do appreciate it, and thanks for clarifying what I was asking about on the article's talk page too. Believe it or not I normally adhere to WP:DONTBITE. I lost my cool with the other user not because they are new, but as I believe based on their history that they are a single-purpose account pushing an agenda. I understand I should have taken that to ANI though, rather than just being condescending and dismissive about them myself. I'll try and be better in the future. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * that’s all anyone can do. I’ve lost my cool before too. Much worse than you did. And I got called out for it and did a formal public apology. A bad day doesn’t make you a bad editor. But it can make you a better one. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A comical troll attempts to hurt my feelings
A few of us had a little chat and ... you are loathed by your fellow Wikipedians ... just sayin'!


 * and I care about the opinion of an anonymous troll who doesn’t even sign their posts because?? Nightenbelle (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Li Xiaolai has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Li Xiaolai, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Li_Xiaolai help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Nightenbelle (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 08:31:47, 10 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by YNovakovic
Hi Nightenbelle,

Thanks so much for looking into the draft article I've submitted; Afripedia.

You have rejected the draft article and suggested I merge it with an already existing article: Afripedia Project. However, the subject of the article Afripedia I submitted and the already existing article Afripedia Project are NOT the same.

The already existing article Afripedia Project is an initiative organised by Wikimédia France, Institut Français, and the Agence universitaire de la Francophonie and "aims to expand offline Wikipedia access in French-speaking Africa, and encourage Africans to contribute to Wikipedia".

The Afripedia article I have suggested is a completely other initiative, a documentary series and a platform that aims to bridge the gap of employment of diverse talents in creative industries across the globe. It is run by different people and it is an active project, 2010-now, unlike the Afripedia Project.

Please see this discussion page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afripedia_Project

To clarify this ambiguousness, I have inserted the form indicating that the page should not be confused with Afripedia project.

I have resubmitted the article, please see if that solves the issue raised.

Many thanks,

User YNovakovic

YNovakovic (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:City of David&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.


 * My count w/list of pages Current pages reviewed = 34
 * 7-8-21 (19)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blaine_Greteman# (Decline- not notablie)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joint_Council_for_the_Welfare_of_Immigrants# (decline- copyvio- SD)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kudzanai-Violet_Hwami# (decline- copyvio- SD)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Jarrett_Collins# (decline- circular sources & Puffery)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raphael_Chikukwa# (decline- copyvio- SD)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Singltn# (decline- copyvio)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Igor_de_la_Sota# (decline NN)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Molloy (accept)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daliah# (decline- nn)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kwik_Stop# (decline - npov)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Decentralized_Internet_of_Things# (decline- definition)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Icy_(Kim_Petras_song)# (decline- nn)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Social_Internet_of_Things# (decline definition)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindMed (accepted)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Davies_(poet_and_wood_carver)# (declined- OR)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martin_Stone_(lawyer)# (declined- sourcing)
 * User:Nightenbelle can you please help identify which sources are considered not reliable. As Martin Stone was in business pre-digital age I have used only searchable articles and corporate annual reports. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. User:StoneyBellingham
 * The entire article needs to be written to only contain what can be directly pulled from a source- no analysis of that source, no synthesis, no assumptions. You need to read WP:RS and start from the ground up. Thats my suggestion and opinion. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Malivani (accepted)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samuel_A._Culbert# (declined- sourcing issues and NOT)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_A._Glazebrook (accepted))
 * 7-9-2021 (10)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ari_Lehto# (decline- notability not established)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Gorski (accepted- tagged)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Asian_Couture_(trade_organization)# (decline- notability)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andy_Pavlo# (decline- NPOV and sources)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afripedia# (decline- duplicate)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Francisco_Reyn%C3%A9s_Massanet# (decline- NPOV)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Irasutoya# (decline- NPOV & Notability)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cyprus_Forum# (decline- Notability)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Langston_High_School_(Arkansas)# (decline- notability)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epi_(humanoid_robot)# (decine- notability)
 * 7-12-2021 (5)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masood_Akhtar_(actor)# (decline - notability)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Xiaolai (accepted)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Melsa_Ararat# (decline - notability)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Northaven_Trail# (decline- notability)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jessica_Dickey# (decline- notability)

Nightenbelle (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Server Embedded Infrastructure Software
I appreciate your review of this draft article which you declined for lack of reliable sources. I wanted to understand which sources in the article you deemed unreliable? Chris Mellor who is the referenced source for Server Embedded Infrastructure Software is probably the premier Data Storage Analyst/Journalist in the industry and the major "go to" source for anyone interested in articles about the subject. I am not sure who could be a more reliable source. Your feedback would be most appreciated. NewCI (talk)

Article about John Vogelstein
Thank you for your help with the article about John Vogelstein and bringing it live. I noticed that there was still an editor's comment at the top of the live article. Would you mind deleting it? I would do it, but I have a COI and don't want to edit a live article. Thank you. Fvogelstein (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The World War I Meetings
Hi. I just received your review on the "Dury, Compiègne and Abbeville Meetings". I think you may be confusing 'Sources' with 'Further Reading'. I am from the United States, but because this story is primarily for the English, it must be written their style ("en." noted at the beginning of the internet address). Because of this, the words "Footnotes" and "References" are replaced with the words "Citations" and "Sources". I learned this from previous editors. In the above article, all citations are supported by sources. The last category, "Further Reading", consists of simply informational and helpful sites to the reader. I am certain that all my sources link to at least one citation, and I will verify this. By the way, you have a very nice name. Lord Milner (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC) UPDATE: I removed one source, Lloyd George, Vol 6, and moved it to "Further Reading". Also, the first item in the source list, "Archive.org", must be explained. Most footnotes are able to be linked to the actual book and page on the internet site "Internet Archive". This internet site is a depository of all books, "the internet's library", just like Wikipedia is the internet's encyclopedia. This line can be transferred to "Further Reading", but then it will be less useful for the reader (it will probably be overlooked). However, if you sign up to Internet Archive (as a Wikipedia editor I think you will like it more than most readers), and then select the footnote links to the story, you will be surprised how great it is. Because "Internet Archive" takes the reader right to the source document (like pulling a book and opening it to the source), I left it in "Sources". Lord Milner (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not confuse the two. I have a degree in English (literature and composition) education. I think you need to re-read my criticism and review the wp style guide. And, as a suggestion- drop the condescension when commenting on reviewers pages. Try assuming we are of equal intelligence to you instead of less. You might actually make friends that way. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Assam Lokayukta (July 26)
Hi Nightenbelle. Thank you for your time and interest showed in reviewing my article and guiding me on the same to correct. Duly noting your concerns about copyright conflicts in the content of my draft, I will clean it up and resubmit it. Thanks once again for letting me know this issue.Gardenkur (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about Clare Reimers
Thank you for providing comments about Draft:Clare Reimers. I have two questions. 1. I provided the text of her citation from the American Geophysical Union because it is unique to her. It is not surprising, but a statement about why she was elected a fellow. I thought that was a valuable addition because it indicates what the society felt was valuable about what she does. Is that not a good idea? 2. For the MOS:PEACOCK terms, is that related to my use of Distinguished Professor, or was it some other portion of the page? Her title at Oregon State is 'Distinguished Professor', so I thought it appropriate to include in the page. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. No- its not a good idea to add what the statement says- because it is not historically relevant- its just nice to know. If it proclaimed her the single greatest contributor to science of all time- that would be unique and historically relevant. 2. You have many many peacock terms on there. They do not belong. Period. This is not a fan page. Its an encyclopedic article. Maybe go look at some existing pages to get a better idea, but this page needs to be toned down on the NPOV. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Quinta de los molinos
This article is a translation ovA_165443 (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * just because an article is approved on another language wiki, does not guarantee its approval on the en-wiki. We each operate according to our own policies. Please resolve issues before resubmission. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Winning Jah
Thanks Nightenbelle for your opinion about Winning Jah's article on draft, i have improved it as you instructed, kindly review. NOTICE501 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Assam Lokayukta (July 26)
Hi Nightenbelle. After checking your suggestions, I had corrected and completed the article according to your suggestions. Thanks again for your suggestions and time given.Gardenkur (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Quinta de los molinos
Can you please if you can update the name to "Quinta de Los Molinos", thank you. ovA_165443 (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome Back
Welcome back. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks... hopefully no other insanity will come and interrupt my WP time again. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: User Sakura emad
Please look at her talk page. You'll find numerous complaints about her reverting good faith edits or even legitimate writing improvements and SOURCED content additions. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned with those- I'm concerned with this one- which was not sourced. Once again- I advise you to step away and sto. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to be concerned about her overall behavior, which is ridiculously disruptive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sakura_emad#I,_ROBOT 136.49.32.166 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * judging from your talk page and your posts on her talk and the other one- so is yours. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't even understand the concept of the idiom you just used. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * keep harassing me and her and I will take you to the ani. This conversation is over. I don’t engage with rude editors Nightenbelle (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:NBC News&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC Closure on Talk:Andy Ngo
Hi, I thank you for trying to close the RfC on Any Ngo, however, I think it was a complicated and controversial RfC that needs to be closed by an administrator. There were several mischaracterizations of the consensus in your closure. RfC is not a vote, and there were key points brought up on boths sides that you did not cover in your overview. Would you mind reversing your closure to allow an admin to close it please? –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  19:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not participate in the RfC, and I agree with FormalDude that this RfC is 100% something that needs to be formally closed by an admin. Please reverse your closure to let that process play out. Neutralitytalk 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem- done. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Assam_Lokayukta
Hi Nightenbelle. I had completed the article Assam Lokayukta incorporating the suggestions given by you removing copyright content. Could you please help me with reviewing and getting the article to the main space. It can be found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Assam_Lokayukta. Thanks and have a nice day. Gardenkur (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me- but I would rather someone with more knowledge of validity of Indian sources actually approve it. Thats just not an area I am an expert on, I'm sorry. I would go ahead and submit it to AFC at this time. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Assam Lokayukta
Hi Nightenbelle. Can you please help reviewing this article and moving this to main space. As suggested by you I had removed the copyrighted content and made it matching to the wiki policies. The institution is similar to Ombudsman being followed in many Scandivanian countries. The link for this article is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Assam_Lokayukta and also my other article on similar lines got approved. Looking forward to contribute more to Wikipedia. Cheers.Gardenkur (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. thank you for fixing those. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Assam_Lokayukta_has_been_accepted
Hi Nightenbelle. My heartful appreciation and thanks for your guidance, time and efforts in reviewing and publishing this article in Wikipedia. Being a global and credible platform for a source of information, would like to contribute more. Gardenkur (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

academics
in reference to your review of Draft:Anthony Campbell (British biochemist), as improperly sourced. When you reviewed it there were several dozen inline references to his work and awards. And in any case, the relevant standard is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is often met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work, but can also be show by major awards.

In reference to your review of Hartmut Löwen, the same applies. As WP:PROF is interpreted, anyone with several papers with several hundred citations each shows the necessary influence in their field to meet WP:PROF. Although this was not shown the way we prefer-- only a total citation information was given, he's a full professor in a German research university, and it's not imaginable that such a person wouldn't have the necessary qualifications.

I haven't yet checked further back.

I suggest that you not review further articles on researchers until you learn the standards. The relevant standard is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work.  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed
Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you. Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

Pentagon UFO videos
Are you ready to handle this dispute? I have personal opinions about the matter and am not sure that I am neutral and would prefer to let someone else deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I got it :-) No problem Nightenbelle (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And you copied the words of my introductory statement for the most recent DRN. I'll take that as sort of a compliment to mean that you agree with everything that I said.  Well, well.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * lmao Yup. Well said and good for consistency Nightenbelle (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Allahabad&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Yoruba people&#32; on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 12:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Grunwald Poznań (handball)
Greetings. No discussion page was created for this AfD nomination. From what I've seen, Page Curation is buggy as hell when it comes to AfDs--I've found Twinkle to be much more reliable for this purpose. Thanks. --<b style="color: green;">Finngall</b> <sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk 20:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I created a discussion page at Articles for deletion/Grunwald Poznań (handball) for Grunwald Poznań (handball). Please add a comment there explaining why you think the article should be deleted. There is also a version of the article in the Polish Wikipedia at  pl:Grunwald Poznań (piłka ręczna) Sometimes an English-language article can be improved by copying references and other information from the corresponding article in another language's Wikipedia. Alternatively, you could suggest that the Polish article be deleted, pr make improvements to the Polish article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you!!Nightenbelle (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
Thank you!! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)