User talk:Normal Op/Archive 1

Talk:Zara Kay
I have added the necessary archiving code and talk header to expose the archive files. Next time you archive threads, please do so yourself, so that they are not hidden away. I was shocked to find them missing, seconds after I'd viewed the threads on the talk page, and no archive links. Elizium23 (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the archive code there. I had just checked all three threads and marked two as done/moot, so I had archived them with my new-found tool, "OneClickArchiver. I hadn't noticed there was no link on the page for retrieving the archived threads. Now there is. Thank you. I guess it was just one of those coincidences that two of us were working there at the same time. I put a new photo on the page (the last one was poor quality) and made a few minor edits. I was also thinking of removing the POV tag on the page when I saw it was now missing! And then I found your note here. Ta da! Normal Op (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a late for giving me an example to reproduce again and again (of adding code to Talk pages for auto-archiving). I have since used your method about a dozen times, and have uncovered "hidden" surprise archived threads that were archived long ago. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , ha! Very cool discovery. Perhaps this can be addressed by a bot or something. Elizium23 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National edeposit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remote access ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/National_edeposit check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/National_edeposit?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Courting Songs
Hi... I'm just wondering on what basis you removed the PROD from this article, considering it still has no sources and no indication at all of notability? Richard3120 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "no obvious redirect target", see Oscar Brand discography. I might recommend moving the information there, make a link from the entry in Jean Ritchie, then perhaps recommend deletion of the Courting Songs article. Normal Op (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. But why choose Oscar Brand's discography over Jean Ritchie's? This was my initial thinking behind a deletion - normally I'd have no problem with just redirecting the article, but in this case both artists are well known, and WP:XY becomes an issue. Richard3120 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because in Brand there's already a placeholder for the content, a request for the content, and the content styles match (album plus list of songs). In Ritchie, there's only a summary list of album titles, not the album's list of songs, and the album is already listed and wikilinked. I'm not using any policy to make the X or Y judgment call; simply matching what content and styles are already in use. Normal Op (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay... thanks for your reply, that makes sense. Richard3120 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

KY article
With regard to Gravel Switch, I briefly mention on talk page, the station at the locale later became known as Jessup. Not sure if I want to bring this up at current AFD to further complicate matters at this time. If this article needs to be re-named I think that would be the way to go per:
 * I love the photographs. [This one] is perfect. It's the same "view" (winter, zoom lens) as this (summer, poor resolution) google maps street view one.Normal Op (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I love the photographs. [This one] is perfect. It's the same "view" (winter, zoom lens) as this (summer, poor resolution) google maps street view one.Normal Op (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I love the photographs. [This one] is perfect. It's the same "view" (winter, zoom lens) as this (summer, poor resolution) google maps street view one.Normal Op (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I love the photographs. [This one] is perfect. It's the same "view" (winter, zoom lens) as this (summer, poor resolution) google maps street view one.Normal Op (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I love the photographs. [This one] is perfect. It's the same "view" (winter, zoom lens) as this (summer, poor resolution) google maps street view one.Normal Op (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I love the photographs. [This one] is perfect. It's the same "view" (winter, zoom lens) as this (summer, poor resolution) google maps street view one.Normal Op (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I love the photographs. [This one] is perfect. It's the same "view" (winter, zoom lens) as this (summer, poor resolution) google maps street view one.Normal Op (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)



Thoughts? Djflem (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Added two more.Djflem (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC) More formatted Djflem (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC) AnotherDjflem (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The articles were interesting. I had an idea and starting poking around at KY corporation search, starting with "Reed Crushed Stone", I quickly found that Reed merged into Vulcan in 1995. In "The Survivors" story, it said "he built Reed Crushed Stone Co. into one of the largest quarry operations in the country." I recall reading earlier that Vulcan was one of the largest (in present time). So I was thinking the Reed quarry might be the same as the Vulcan quarry (which is a great big hole in the ground on the satellite view). Poking at some of the Reed Crushed Stone documents, I see Gilbertsville KY, Lake City KY, and Grand Rivers KY. Those all exist on current maps. I don't seem to find anything about a Jessup KY (not even as a town submerged by the lakes). But Kentucky is a funny place and people get these ideas about naming this or that, and it doesn't seem to matter to them that no one else uses the term. I wouldn't mention Jessup unless we can solve that mystery. I tried to find a copy of Trains magazine for November 1986 which The Survivors article mentioned; that's where the word Jessup originally appeared. But I wasn't able to get access. Normal Op (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's clear that Vulcan acquired Reed and they may own all the quarries in the area. Still trying to figure out what BRT stands for: BRT Terminal is transloading spot. Lake City Mining also comes up.Djflem (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I agree that the area may well have been known as Jessup. Perhaps, though, it's the name of the stop/station that a particular railroad had there at one time. (Next task: I'll look into BRT.) Normal Op (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

, ugh, this is some of the messiest most complicated research projects I've gotten myself into.

BRT Transfer Terminal, Inc. was a Kentucky corporation with an address in Grand Rivers. It was incorporated by Smith and Reed 5-20-1981 and dissolved in 1997. Corporate info

I'm guessing BRT stands for barge-rail-transfer. According to The Survivors article, Reed (the owner of all this) got into the rail business because of the acquisition of the BRT which was outside his usual quarry-and-rock business arena.

Vulcan bought out Reed's quarry, and Vulcan is the largest aggregate producer in the USA, I'll bet they didn't want to bother with an operation to transfer coal-on-train to barges... and so they didn't buy that part of Reed's business. I'll bet that dark gray pile on the northwest side of the embayment is the coal pile, and the "box" on the railbridge that crosses the mouth of the embayment was (and is) a transfer box for unloading a rail car contents into a barge. It does match some other photos I found about rail-to-barge loading facilities. This one. Short description of process/method.

PADUCAH & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY, INC. was formed by Reed & Smith in 1986, formerly known as C G & T LINES, INC. also formed by Reed & Smith, Grand Rivers.

Union Pacific, which operates on P&L/PAL and has several rail-to-barge transfer stations, has a new 2012 coal transfer terminal just downstream in Calvert City. See the satellite images of Calvert City Coal Terminal. The PAL website has a systems map which mentions Jessup.

They also have a rail-to-barge transfer at Grand Rivers.

This google book mentions Calvert, Grand Rivers, and Jessup (page 104).

This document mentions Jessup and calls the company GRT Transfer Terminal, Inc. which is probably a typo. Quote: "If authorized to operate over P&I’s lines, P&L proposes to establish an interchange with UP, 2 which has trackage rights over BNSF’s line to Metropolis, in order to facilitate movement of coal trains for delivery to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) at the rail-barge transfer facility of GRT Transfer Terminal, Inc. (located at Jessup, KY, on the Tennessee River and on P&L’s line east of Paducah), and at TVA’s Shawnee Steam Plant (located at Chiles, KY, adjacent to P&I’s line near the Kentucky end of the Ohio River bridge)."

After all this, I cannot yet tell if Jessup=GrandRivers or if they are two separate stops. And if they are two separate areas, then is Jessup east or west of Grand Rivers.

— Normal Op (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * GRT is not typo: GRT=Grand River Terminal (now Kinder Morgan).
 * Grand Rivers (GR) and Jessup are two separate stops: see PAL system map and Kentucky Division Condensed Profile (above). Unclear is when the term came into use, but certainly before the 1965 date of condensed profile.

My assessment: What you have added to article is description of (privately operated) spur from from the junction/interlocking/switch that left the Paducah-Louisville line (Kentucky Division) and ran between the mine itself the PAL junction and river terminal. The current coordinates are not precise enough and should actually be of the junction/interlocking/switch. The current coords on the stretch south/east of the junction is the area known as Jessup. So ultimately the article should be re-named and re-cast as Jessup, Kentucky with a history section that starts with Gravel Junction and moves on to discuss building of dam and re-alignment of rail line, development of port, and the introduction of the name Jessup (for which I can find no source as to why).Djflem (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

George P. Jessup
Am going to stick my neck out on this and suggest that the name Jessup comes from the project manager during construction of the Kentucky Dam. Don't have access to newspapers.com to check regional news from period, but he was quoted and had 15 minute of fame with a rooster (and like you said, KY can be funny about names) Wouldn't make the claim without a RS, but would mention the him in context of dam building. (under the direction of)

Djflem (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Info?
have limited access to these, perhaps your alogorythm will permit moreDjflem (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * [Uploaded] some screenshots for you. Password is your username. They will auto-delete in 7 days.
 * [Uploaded] some screenshots for you. Password is your username. They will auto-delete in 7 days.


 * [Uploaded] some screenshots for you. Password is your username. They will auto-delete in 7 days.
 * [Uploaded] some screenshots for you. Password is your username. They will auto-delete in 7 days.


 * Thanks, just had chance to look. Interesting stuff, tho not of direct relevance here.18:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Corporations
The corporation-spaghetti was getting out of control. I'll try to put them all in a single list.


 * Grand Rivers Terminal Corporation (aka GRT Terminal): corporate record; incorporated in KY on May 21, 1981; corp papers; purpose: to operate one or more terminal facilities at which coal and other commodities may be received by rail or truck and loaded onto river barges, and to engage in any and all activities related in any manner to such terminal facilities and their operation. Was merged into Andalex Resources, Inc. on April 16, 1986


 * Tower Resources, Inc.: corporate record; incorporated 1977 in Delaware; purpose: mining, transporting coal, acquisitions, mineral rights


 * Cimarron Coal: a 1967 Tennessee corporation; purpose: general coal mining; was merged into AMCA Resources, Inc on March 11, 1986.


 * AMCA Resources: a 1976 Delaware Corp; purpose: mining and selling coal and minerals; was merged into Tower Resources, Inc on April 16, 1986


 * AMCA Lands, Inc. (a 1976 Delaware Corp, purpose: acquiring real property and mining rights; was merged into Andalex Resources, Inc. and filed on August 5, 1986.


 * Andalex Resources, Inc.: corporate record; Andalex became an assumed name of Tower Resources, Inc. on Feb 28, 1986; April 14, 1986 Towers revokes the use of assumed name; April 16, 1986 officially changes their name to Andalex Resources, Inc.; Andalex continues to file in KY as of 2019.


 * Andalex Resources Management, Inc.: incorporated in Delaware May 8, 1989; corporate records up to 2007; corporate records 2009-2019


 * AMCA Coal Leasing, Inc.: (was mentioned in a February 6, 1998 letter by Andalex like it's a subsidiary). Also connected to AMCA COAL SALES, INC.


 * West Ken Coal Corporation: (was mentioned in a February 6, 1998 letter by Andalex like it's a subsidiary); corporate records; corp recs mention predecessor is Badgett Mine Stripping Corporation, successor is AMCA Processing, Inc.


 * V M V ENTERPRISES, INC.: incorp'd by Smith & Reed 2/24/1986; corporate papers; merged into VMV ACQUISITION, INC. May 27, 1994; merger docs mention Kentucky Railwords, Inc. (a KY corp) and Dimeling, Schreiber and Park (a PA partnership)


 * VMV ACQUISITION, INC.: incorp'd by Schreiber and Dimeling May 6, 1994; corp papers

Outing
Regarding this edit of yours, be extremely cautious of posting information about users gleaned from other websites. WP:OUTING is taken very seriously. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 10-4. Normal Op (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to follow up on the above, I have suppressed your edit from public view. If you think that there is off-wiki information that indicates a user is abusing multiple accounts or otherwise editing disruptively, instead of posting that on-wiki, I would forward that information to a checkuser or other functionary in private, for example by emailing . Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no problem. And thanks. I've been trying to find who to send my information to. Been researching it for hours to no avail. Sometimes wiki instructions just plain suck. Is that who I'd send a private COI report to? Normal Op (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh, sorry about the instruction creep. Unfortunately, I think my answer is going to be a bit roundabout as well. I wouldn't say there's a central location where you can lodge private COI reports—rather, there are a variety of different places that specialize in different things. would be a decent spot for a private report, I suppose, especially if you think the user is abusing multiple accounts. There is also the address paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, which is best for concerns of undisclosed paid editing. An alternative would be to individually contact a functionary via Special:EmailUser to see if they might be willing to look into the case (although I am a functionary, personally I'm not very skilled with COI issues). If the case is urgent for some reason, or if you suspect an experienced user is engaging in inappropriate COI editing, you could also try emailing your evidence to the Arbitration Committee at . Finally, consider whether you need to include private information in your report—if you don't, a public report at WP:COIN might be best. I apologize for the roundabout answer, but as I said, there isn't one right answer—the section at Conflict of interest has some further advice that might be helpful. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for volunteering, (LOL); I sent you an email. I think the instruction-creep confusion is the description it gives for these "email lists". It does NOT come across like it's something we should use to send a report to "those that are working on this sort of task at the moment", but it instead reads like it's a private list for internal inter-functionary business (not something you'd send to unless you were also an active member of that group). At least that's what "email list" traditionally meant to me (me who cut my teeth on LISTSERVs). Normal Op (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I knew I was gonna get volunteered, heh. I just want to acknowledge that I have seen your email and will try to respond by the end of the day. Mz7 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The River of Blood (monument)
The thing is, Trump and his cronies are so incredibly incompetent and vague that it's not even clear that this is a "Confederate" monument! It was fun writing that up, though. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL,, yeah I couldn't decide if I should edit it, remove it, or leave it. When I discovered it had its own article, I settled on the shortest possible summary and a link to THAT article. Normal Op (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, right on. Remember when we had a gun discussion? One day it's "yes Diane Feinstein whatever you want", and the next day it's "yes NRA whatever you want". Who can keep up? Drmies (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't remember that. I am pretty much apolitical. Normal Op (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

recent edit on Confederate monuments list
Hi, you removed the current count of WV monuments. The citation for that was SPLC's own information. The information you put in is out of date. I suggest you go to Whose Heritage Is It and click Download Report and that will take you to the .pdf report. The correct count is 21. Dubyavee (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just downloaded another copy of the PDF file. Page 37 it says 17 for West Virginia. Page I got the download from is here. The "citation" that was in the article previously, was a raw URL to a google docs, with no indication WHO was hosting it or where such a spreadsheet came from (therefore cannot be determined to be a reliable source). ...poking around... Ah!... I see a downloadable link on this page, which is the same google docs with the 21 for WV. However, there is a disclaimer which says "Please note that this data set includes removed symbols. If you filter by a single column to find out how many symbols are in a particular state, for example, it will include ones that were removed. If you only want to view symbols still on public land you will need to exclude removed ones." So... I'd rather go with the full PDF version from 2016 and indicate the "2016" in the article. Normal Op (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * None have been removed in WV. Here is the recent NPR article which links to the pdf . The SPLC has a total of 21. That is the most recent data. If you want to use old data I don't really care, I just wanted to point out your error. Dubyavee (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, I get it now. You were confusing me by calling the googledocs spreadsheet "a pdf" (which it isn't) and the only pdf file is the 2016 one. There are TWO pages on splcenter.org titled "Whose Heritage": one that includes links for the 2016 PDF report, and one published on Feb 1, 2019 with links to the google docs spreadsheet. I have made some changes to the article so that one can use either of the two citations (refname = "SPLC2016pdf" or refname = "SPLC2019" as specific choices, and the old refname = "SPLC" defaults to the SPLC2019 one). I started reading all the instances of "SPLC" and explicitly selecting either SPLC2016pdf or SPLC2019, but I ran out of steam (with 40 more items to look at!). You're welcome to edit WV all you want (it is at the bottom of the list of 40 more to do) but please be sure to mention "the year" in the wiki article. These Wikipedia pages do not get updated in real time, so you need to basically put a time stamp on it. Especially if you're going to be using the googledocs as a source (via refname="SPLC2019") because I see that they are updating it regularly. Earlier this evening the citation I removed (changed) was pointing to a googledocs URL that was timestamped as last updated 7/28/2019! We need to avoid linking directly to the googledocs, and instead only link to the splcenter.org webpage with the up-to-date googledocs link. When I went there, the current version is stamped 6/25/2020. Hallelujah! Even the link from the npr.org article you gave me is using an older 6/24/2020 version. I suspect that the google docs URL changes each and every time SPLC changes the file. Anyway, I hope this leads to a clarification of what is what, and how we should refer to it in the article. I'll work on the other 40 tomorrow. Normal Op (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Project completed. Normal Op (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Zara Kay
I have added the necessary archiving code and talk header to expose the archive files. Next time you archive threads, please do so yourself, so that they are not hidden away. I was shocked to find them missing, seconds after I'd viewed the threads on the talk page, and no archive links. Elizium23 (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the archive code there. I had just checked all three threads and marked two as done/moot, so I had archived them with my new-found tool, "OneClickArchiver. I hadn't noticed there was no link on the page for retrieving the archived threads. Now there is. Thank you. I guess it was just one of those coincidences that two of us were working there at the same time. I put a new photo on the page (the last one was poor quality) and made a few minor edits. I was also thinking of removing the POV tag on the page when I saw it was now missing! And then I found your note here. Ta da! Normal Op (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a late for giving me an example to reproduce again and again (of adding code to Talk pages for auto-archiving). I have since used your method about a dozen times, and have uncovered "hidden" surprise archived threads that were archived long ago. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , ha! Very cool discovery. Perhaps this can be addressed by a bot or something. Elizium23 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , they've created bots and templates for everything else. I'll bet there's a substitution type template that covers this. If I find it, I'll ping you with the info. Normal Op (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PETA
Normal Op, regarding edits like this and this, where was it deemed that PETA is unreliable? Even if it was the case that PETA falls under "questionable sources", WP:About self applies.

Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , I use a Wiki editor tool called Cite Unseen and it classifies each source you find in the References section of a wiki article. PETA is classified as "This source has been identified by Media Bias Fact Check as conspiracy-pushing." See here the PETA entry at Media Bias Fact Check website. That puts peta.org squarely into "questionable source" territory. "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."


 * From WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information ABOUT THEMSELVES, usually in articles ABOUT THEMSELVES or their activities ... so long as: it does not involve CLAIMS ABOUT THIRD PARTIES". (Caps emphasis is mine.)


 * Other policies/guidelines also apply including link spam, over cite, advertising, covert advertising, promotion, advocacy, fringe, etc. I can only put so much in an edit summary. So if you want to use peta.org to quote PETA's mission or their address, then go right ahead. But pretty much anything else they publish is not acceptable for use in Wikipedia. Capisce? Normal Op (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Normal Op, I will take this to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. This isn't about me wanting to use PETA. I am not a PETA advocate. It's about you removing PETA when the source is being used to report on their own activities, such as whatever celebrity appeared in their PSA or whatever celebrity they gave an award to. Capisce? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And so you did. Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Normal Op (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

PETA (B)
Hi Normal Op. I see there's been some pushback at Sia (musician), a bit at Nostalgic for the Present Tour. Anywhere else? The RSN discussion has become active again, and I think specifics might help clarify the concerns. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I checked all of my watchlist pages and checked back through the last week of my edits (from contributions list), and have found very little pushback. Most editors have been either finding alternative citations for the content they wish to keep in an article (which I'm fine with), or they are ignoring the changes I've made, or they are fine with the edits, or they are discussing them civilly on Talk pages. The articles that have been problematic and noisy are: Veganism, Sia (musician)‎‎, and Nostalgic for the Present Tour‎‎. The noise is on their Talk pages, and on RSN. Normal Op (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:List of vegans too. Let's see how the RfC goes. While I wouldn't be surprised if there's some spamming going on, I don't think we should be assuming it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've not paid strict attention, but my understanding is that there's general consensus not to use MediaBiasFactCheck to determine the value of sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I did see that and also experienced that the tool was using too much memory in my computer, so I uninstalled it a week ago. Normal Op (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Destructive edits / vandalism on Jewish/Israeli Wiki pages
Dear "Normal Op" -- You created a talk page for me and said that if I had anything to respond that I should add it on your talk page, although it took me a while to figure out how to do that since you did not sign your message.

It is really interesting how you seem to have taken a sudden interest in articles on Jews, Judaism, Israelis and Jewish organizations — and that your contributions to many of those pages mostly have been tag-and-runs, not improving anything and instead simply tagging these pages on Judaism and Israel and moving on.

I read through the lists of all the pages you have edited on Wikipedia, dating back to November 2018. Of the many thousands of pages that you have edited, the first pages that I saw that addressed Judaism and Israel (and Jews and Israelis) were last night, Aug. 18. Basically in the past 24 hours you have edited seven such articles, including three that you nominated for deletion, two that you added other tags without assisting in the editing of those pages, one that you added tags and assisted in the editing, and only one that you helped without adding tags:
 * Judaism_and_environmentalism -- you nominated for deletion
 * Hazon -- you nominated for deletion
 * Lois_Leveen -- you nominated for deletion
 * Ruth_Messinger -- you added tags and removed citations but did not fix problems you saw
 * Aytzim -- you added tags and removed citations but did not fix problems you saw
 * Ron_Ben-Israel -- you added tags and fixed a few problems
 * Jewish_vegetarianism -- thank you for helping this one. (It seems clear that animal rights / veganism / vegetarianism is an interest of yours.)

Your output on Wikipedia is quite impressive. I can't imagine ever editing as many articles as you have unless I were to make editing on Wikipedia a full-time job. Yet, this experience you have with the site does not give you any superiority over those of us with less Wiki experience. Nor does it give you the right to willy-nilly nominate so many pages on Jewish topics for deletion or to tag so many pages on Judaism/Israel/Israelis without actually fixing them.

In other words, Wikipedia is a collaborative system for both old hands who love making sure everything is correct about fatal dog attacks — as well as for newbies like me — and I'd ask you to please play nicer in the Wiki sandbox, particularly with newbies still trying to learn the ropes. 216.164.60.237 (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC) (talk)


 * This is the second rant that you've addressed to me. I have a lot more experience than you do in editing on Wikipedia. You may not like what my edits are, but I am doing them per my understanding and experience of editing here. Before you attack me (or anyone) in the way you have, YOU need to get a lot more experience and understanding about Wikipedia editing. First, WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. Second, despite what you think, I don't have any beef with Judaism, and I do NOT check an article's religious affiliation before making an edit. I work on one article and it tends to lead to another, then another, then another. I don't know how I wound up in Judaism-related topics, but it's not surprising that one led to another and they are all linked somehow. I DO have a beef with WP:ADVOCACY and WP:PROMOTION. Go read some more Wikipedia policy, because no one is going to listen to this sort of personal attack, especially from someone whose edit history shows you have exclusively edited one single article (Aytzim) for the last 2.5 years! So then I happen to edit it yesterday and you start a hostile WP:EDITWAR — which is even more evidence of WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. For your information, tags on articles are intended to engender improvement of the articles, not reactions from advocates who think it is disrespectful to their favorite article. And no, it's not my job to fix every single article I come across rather than tagging it. If that were the case, tags wouldn't have been invented in Wikipedia. I have my own "to do list" to handle and it doesn't include delving deeply into every single article I encounter. And though I'm usually willing to be helpful, unless you write with a collaborative and civil attitude, which so far I haven't seen, you won't get any help from those you attack. I was feeling helpful and generous earlier, but I've lost my appetite for it after reading your second rant. I won't read a third. Normal Op (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification
You recently wrote "Per Wikipedia guidelines, if I am mentioning you, I should notify you. If you don't want the pings, use the mute function." Could you name the actual guideline that says that?

Once someone asks you to stop pinging them, purposely continuing is a blockable offense. Please don't do it.

(The above is not to be interpreted as support or opposition in the underlying content dispute.) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have a specific policy in mind, but I've read many policies/guidelines which say how you must notify the other editor. Here are some samples: . Therefore, I regularly use  or   on talk pages and noticeboards and had never before encountered anyone telling me not to ping them, nor imagined any reason why someone wouldn't want such notification. The last time I used either of those methods that would have pinged that editor was two weeks ago, and not once after the moment when they explained why they didn't want pings in general from anyone. Since up until then the tone of every single communication from them was hostility and rejection, I interpreted their 'request' as "I'm going to say my piece and I don't care what you write because I'm not going to read it". Deliberate ("purposely continuing")? Only in the sense that I felt it my duty to notify in general, coupled with the belief that their request was disingenuous and a ploy. Once they wrote their explanation, I thereafter used   until I ceased communicating with them altogether ( since that was a completely futile activity ). Normal Op (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your "Here are some samples:" link simply listed pages that contain the three words "must" "notify" and "editor". For example the first result is Template editor, which says
 * "When a template editor's edit is reversed by a peer, the edit (or a similar one) must not be reinstated by the original or another template editor without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision."
 * "In the unlikely event that your account is compromised, notify an administrator immediately, so they can block your account and remove any sensitive privileges to prevent damage."
 * "This page contains information about the template editor right, relevant policy and guideline considerations concerning the use of the template editor privilege, and details concerning the editing of template-protected pages on the English Wikipedia."
 * None of which is talking about pinging another editor.


 * To be clear:
 * There is no requirement to ping anyone. You are simply wrong in thinking that such a requirement exists. It is purely optional (exception: reports at certain noticeboards such as WP:ANI require talk page notification, but also say the a ping is not an acceptable way to meet that requirement).
 * You are not allowed to ignore a request to stop pinging someone because in your opinion "their request was disingenuous and a ploy". In fact, the general argument "it is OK for me to do X because the other editor did Y" is pretty much always invalid. Either X is allowed or it isn't allowed, no matter what the other person does or doesn't do. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries
I read that you collect dictionaries. Here is a fun question for you: What is another word for Thesaurus? Hint: One word, four syllables, eight letters, one letter is used three times, another letter is used twice, and I found it in Roget's Thesaurus. No fair searching the web; I posted the answer on my webs site and several other sources have copied it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An oldie but goodie... synonymy! for the smile in my day, .  Normal Op (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please consider using the talk page
To avoid a back and forth of edits, please consider using the article talk page. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Lists and List of English monarchs
I read your WikiProject's criteria for rating importance here, and for the Low rating it says: "Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study." So your claim that it "does not represent anything about the article, its content, its notability, or any other aspect about the article" is incorrect. Richard75 (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:TALK
Regarding this? What I stated is no worse than you speaking of my supposed hubris and accusing me of activism in that WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion. Take me to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Go away, FF. If I never encounter you on Wikipedia again, I will be happy. I have other things to do than bother to spar with you. I will do whatever I want in my own time frame. Just go away! Normal Op (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't post a detailed rep[ly to another editor at 19:24, 11 September 2020 and then tell them "If I never encounter you on Wikipedia again, I will be happy... Just go away!" at 20:46, 12 September 2020. If you want User:Flyer22 Frozen to leave you alone, don't respond to their posts, don't revert their edits, don't talk to them, and don't talk apout them. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring her up; I didn't revert her edits — I just flagged her PA with Template:RPA per the advice at No personal attacks. This is like the sixth or seventh time she publicly posted a PA towards me. I'm getting tired of a certain few editors following me around. So how/why did YOU even come to be into this discussion, huh? Hounding, or called in as reinforcements? Normal Op (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you not post a comment at 19:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC) that started with the words "@Flyer22 Frozen: Such hubris to..." that does not match your description "I just flagged her PA with Template:RPA per the advice at No personal attacks". Does someone else have your password and are they fighting with Flyer22 Frozen without your permission?
 * Please note that my valid criticism of your behavior in no way implies support for or criticism of Flyer22 Frozen's behavior. Someone else breaking the rules does not excuse you breaking the rules. For the record, I consider "your twisted, activist logic" to be considerably worse that "your hubris", but neither is allowed and you both need to knock it off.
 * As for your accusation of hounding, feel free to report me at WP:ANI and see what happens. I saw this thread not because I am following you around or because I am somehow supporting Flyer22 Frozen, but because of . They appear to be having trouble of some sort either with someone else using their account, someone else using their computer, or with someone else posting on the same topics from the same household, so I have been monitoring Flyer22 Frozen's contributions in case it happens again.


 * None of this changes the fact that you and Flyer22 Frozen are fighting. Now that I am aware of this problem I definitely will be "following both of you around" and reporting any further civility violations I see. I strongly suggest that the two of you avoid future trouble by leaving each other alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you. You're saying that somehow you monitoring someone else's computer security problem has become MY problem because it led you today to interlope in an exchange you knew nothing about (and NOT to calm the situation but to inflame it further) and now you're backpeddling. No, this is the second time in a month that you have white-knighted for FF at my expense. I don't buy it. Don't communicate with me further on this topic. Normal Op (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon isn't white knighting for me in any way. We do not get along. And since he has admitted to following me, with some lame excuse regarding my account that hasn't been a problem since 2012, I will state now that if his following me becomes a problem, specifically a WP:Hounding problem (meaning him showing up to articles and talk pages I'm at), he will be reported...just like all of the others who have hounded me and have been reprimanded and/or sanctioned for it. He should know to stay out of this. For someone who claims to have muted me to now be following me? And, again, for a nonsense reason? I mean, should I ping certain WP:CheckUsers who will tell him to move on? Non-CheckUser admins who know that I am certainly in control of my account? It's not like he'd succeed in getting me sanctioned for anything. Maybe I should report him now, given our history and that he's admitted to following me. I wouldn't haven't even commented in this section if not for him butting in yet again with his pseudo-admin tone. So I wonder if I should think of this matter as a WP:Bait case, or him trying to get the WP:The last word because I shut down discussion with him on my talk page. All he has done yet again is inflame things. I have emailed admins about this and will not be commenting in this section again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

TBAN Removed
Hi Normal Op,

Per the ANI consensus I have closed the discussion as in favour of removing the TBAN. Please take care with future editing in this area.

The final comment in the ANI discussion raised a concern outside of the dogs TBAN area about potentially risky edits in other areas. It didn't specifically pertain to the TBAN or indicate a likely violation, but please make sure that the general care you've been showing in other areas of editing doesn't slide.

Have fun!

Nosebagbear (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Fan editing again
Hi, sorry to bother you but there is a Paulina Rubio fan who keeps adding content on different articles in order to promote the artist that they like even if the content is irrelevant or can't be verified. They first add content and as a source they use the YouTube link to the official music videos on her channel when it's not even proper source. They first did it here (which I spoke to you about and we fixed it) and they most recently did it here. I reverted the most recent one since they clearly used it to promote the artist since their source it's just a link to the music video which doesn't verify that the video was actually inspired by that anime. They recently added back the content with a new source that still doesn't verify that the video was indeed inspired by that specific anime but instead it says that part of the video was made like a Japanese cartoon. I still wanted to challenge that content but when that user added it back, their response was passive aggressive as you can see here. They have tried edit warring with me in the past as well with a couple other users so I want to avoid that but they just won't stop linking Paulina Rubio onto articles (such as the Akira manga, Kylie Minogue, Madonna, Selena Gomez) even if the information they add is either irrelevant, unverified, or of minimal impact on the articles they are adding it too. Can you help me out please? FanDePopLatino (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll look into this. Normal Op (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I appreciate it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I researched his edits; wow! That editor is headed down the path to AVI or ANI. He is too far gone for WikiProject Spam to do anything about the editor, but they may be able to correct a bunch of his edits if you report the spam there. Five years and 2,000 edits with 99% being about Paulina Rubio makes him a WP:Single-purpose account. Considering that for the last two years other editors have been repeatedly correcting him on his User talk page, and apparently he is ignoring the advice, he probably doesn't deserve any further warnings before AVI/ANI. However, it might make an ANI easier if we revert his incorrect edits and tag his User talk page according to an appropriate template at Template index/User talk namespace. His edits are definitely spam, occasionally outright false, usually include original research, and together they make a pattern of promotion (with a potential COI/PAID thrown in). He fails to follow numerous guidelines about citations, but his predominant "error" is using inappropriate links (MOS:EXTERNALLINKS, WP:RS). I doubt seriously he will stop. Let's do that and see what happens. Normal Op (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * sorry for the late reply. Thanks so much for looking into that. I really appreciate it. Now that you reverted some of his edits and warned him on his talk page, should I report him now or should we wait to see if he continues to spam even after being warned? And if I should report him right now, which specific page should I report him to? FanDePopLatino (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It would probably be AVI or ANI. But after reading those policies, they clearly mentioned wanting someone to have been warned. Therefore (though I have drafted a report already) I decided we need to warn in present time and not rely on the older (over last two years) warnings. The editor's reaction, if any, will indicate which board to report on. Normal Op (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ok thanks. I'll let you know if I see the editor spamming/vandalising again. FanDePopLatino (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

IABot
No need to run IABot if there are no dead links (and/or no other reason to run it). All of the links are already archived in an offline database by the bot. Running it just moves those links (and a whole ton of code) into the article, where it takes up space/bytes. There are times when it makes sense (I came across an intermittently inaccessible source recently, so the bot didn't catch it). Just FYI. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I use it frequently to add the archive links before I sit down to evaluate an article. It's a pain in the ass when half (or more) of the links are all dead and there's no archived links immediately at hand. In a lot of cases, such as with the Fatal Dog Attack series which I IAbot-ed recently, most of the citations are news articles and they link rot very quickly if you don't force IA to archive them. That's the one article that was already huge and became 'huge-er'. I cannot imagine why one should NOT run it on ordinary sized articles. Normal Op (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * if you don't force IA to archive them IABot is archiving them whether or not you (or anyone) add them to an article. They're just offline so they don't bloat an article. The idea is to only bring them in once they're dead. Most of the time IABot will do that automatically. The manual interface is if you find one that is indeed dead (or, like the one I mentioned, seems to be up/down, so the bot isn't catching it -- but to be clear that just means it's not moved over yet; it doesn't mean the bot hasn't archived it yet). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have taken to clicking the checkbox "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". I'm finding that a lot of the citations in articles do NOT have any copies in IA. And IABot won't ADD a new version just because I click that checkbox; they only add a new citation if there are none previously saved. There is no option to run IABot where not-found-in-IA citations are added newly to IA while leaving the article alone. Normal Op (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm finding that a lot of the citations in articles do NOT have any copies in IA - hmm. Wonder if something is wrong or if I misunderstood. can you shed some light? Thanks. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is one example from the batch of articles I IABot'ed earlier today. Click that link then search for "1 September 2020". There are only TWO results. Then check IA (archive.org/web) for the original URL for those two and you'll see that previously there was no valid saved result in IA... so it created a new archive today. It doesn't create a new archive if there's already a valid copy in IA, but the fact that it IS creating them means that your assumption that "everything is already in IA" is mistaken. Sometimes I use IABot to make reading/evaluating the article easier; and sometimes I use it to ENSURE that all citations are copied to IA. Two different reasons; one tool. Normal Op (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , most common reason would be a robots.txt that prevented that. But in most cases Internet Archive should be almost immediately capturing any link that was added to any Wikipedia article. — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 23:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , wouldn't robots.txt be the same whether a user clicks the button "Add archives to all non-dead references"? Besides, I've discovered that archive.org ignores robots.txt files. That's a separate issue unrelated to this discussion except that "robots.txt" is unlikely to be an excuse for why a URL didn't show up automatically in IA after being added to a wiki article. Normal Op (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD warnings
Hello,

Please take a breath before further participation in Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. As well as relentless dispute of every participant's comment (individually, rather than more general rebuttals) in an AfD as bludgeoning, your most recent participation is particularly problematic - given a vague, non-rebuttabal, accusation "long game, perhaps" (and also an insinuated attack on the renamer). That, and a couple of other areas are also AGF issues.

Canvassing, to ping specific contributors of an article is also not allowed.

Given the recent TBAN removal specifically named concerns, and you've made multiple rule issues above, please cease all of those three concerning areas (not that they'd be fine without the recent TBAN). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Hello Normal Op, I hope this finds you well, we here in the Victorian state of Australia are currently in the longest severe covid lockdown of any jurisdiction in the world. I am writing this to say I am taking no pleasure in our interactions at the list of US fatal dog attacks AfD, I had hoped (and continue to hope) to work collaboratively, which we had seemed to be doing upon the lifting of your TBAN. It is possible to disagree and remain civil, as you are well aware I have had some pretty big disagreements with fellow members of the dogs project yet we remain on very good terms. I hope you take this for its intended purpose, an olive branch and a request to stop personalising disagreements on interpretations of policy. Cavalryman (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)