User talk:Ohnoitsjamie/archive33

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

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

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 However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Davis
Hello, Ohnoitjamie I'm wandering how I can creat the page Tyler Davis I saw it was deleted multiple time for the article was in appropriate and non sense. But I was wonder how I can create this page for Penn State Kicker Tyler Davis when it is protected from violence and to prevent vandalism. Cclark0 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using the AFC (articles for creation) process; if the article is accepted, we can unprotect it at that point. Also note our notability guidelines specifically as they pertain to college athletes. At a glance, I'd say Davis might qualify, but it's not a slam dunk either. The three reliable sources with non-trivial coverage I was able to find were all local; I think usually college players need wider coverage than that to merit an article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Violation of an indefinite image upload ban
Hi Jamie,

The reason I'm writing you this is because the admin who personally unblocked the user in question hasn't been active for some time now (Coffee), but I saw that you had left a comment on the page as well back then, which resulted in the eventual "verdict". This user in question, "NadirAli" had his/her indefinite block lifted on 24 February 2016, on the condition that he'd receive an indefinite topic ban on uploading images. However, it seems that he has violated this 2-3 days ago on numerous ocassions as he uploaded a new WP:OR-loaded map (without any sources) on several articles -- a map which he in fact has created himself on top of that as well.
 * I'd like to add to that, that even though the block log of this user reaches well into the double digits for a plenthora of reasons, and apart from this topic ban violation, he has continued with quite a few of these very same reasons for which he was blocked priorly, such as deleting sourced content without an edit summary, adding sources that blatanty violate WP:RS,, as well as still a battleground-like editorial pattern, whenever he/she feels like doing so.. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , excuse me, did you miss this above, or is it because its TL;DR? :-) Just wondering. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did read it but got sidetracked; my apologies for not at least providing a timely perfunctory response. As far as I could tell, the ban was on uploading new images; I don't see where the user has done that since the ban with put in place (rather, they added old images to an article).  If the image they've added is inaccurate/original research/whatnot, then that's more of a content dispute.  Let me know if there's something I'm missing here. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks much for the reply. No problem. Well, that's the whole thing. The image was in fact not new; he uploaded it himself on 19 November 2016 (well after the ban was imposed as you can see),, and then went on to add it to numerous articles here on Wikipedia. straight after, without any edit summary. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...not sure how I missed that the first time I looked; I think I was looking at the image it replaced instead (which had been uploaded in February). Since it happened a month ago, I'm just going to remove them for now; if he persists in re-adding them, will block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aight. So no ANI needed? That's what Katie told me to bring it to namely (I explained the whole matter to her, just in case you wouldn't reply anymore), as she said that that was one of the conditions of the unblock given by Coffee himself (quote: "If you violate this ban, you will be blocked indefinitely and a siteban will be proposed at WP:ANI, considering your past actions.").Link here. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome to take it to AI. My only involvement with the matter was declining one of the unblocks, and as such, I don't feel 100% comfortable handing out a block a month after the fact. If Coffee or anyone else feels a block is merited, I won't dispute it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just about to form a section at ANI, but to my amazement, I noticed that he's at it once again; literally two hours ago, he reverted you on every place where you removed his map, and thus blatantly reinstated it once again. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon, I should have been informed of this complaint as even ANI requires a reporting user to inform the one he is complaining about. The file was loaded to commons. No evidence was given for the alleged original research. The chart is a visual illustration of reliably sourced content already on the article and the newer edition was added onto commons. You ought to be coming directly to me rather than mis-reporting me for uploading a file to commons (the same file was already on Wikipedia, I just replaced it with an updated commons file). As I see it, this is dodging WP:BRD. Why was evidence of the alleged "original research" not brought forth to me?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:OR? You created a image yourself without sourcing the information represented in that image. How is that not OR? There's no requirement to discuss topic ban breaches before blocking. Given that your were only unblocked with the explicit closing of a loophole on your topic ban that you attempted to exploit, I'd hardly classify it as a "mis-report." OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The chart was already there prior to the ban. I just replaced it with the commons file to ensure accuracy. As the for the OR, the it's directly based on the reliably sourced text it represents, nothing more. Specifically this section. When I asked for discussion, I meant for my alleged OR to be brought up on the talk page or me directly contacted. Regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Carl Hart
Hi, I'm CaroleHenson. Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for creating Carl Hart!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This is a great article, and based on his experience, I am guessing that there will be a number of newspapers, magazines, and books that could be used as sources. This will help prove notability over use of primary source.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. CaroleHenson (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Advice about possible advertising
Hi Jamie

When I first started editing on Wikipedia you were kind enough to give me somehelpful advice. I found out that I was not really cut out for editing but still enjoy reading articles, mostly on bands and artist on Wikipedia. There are a number of pages which I return to and one of those is the Seasick Steve page which I was at today. I saw to my suprise that someone had put a new section in the main article about an unauthorised biography with the name of the book and the authors name. I couldn't really see how an unauthorised biography could warrant its on section on the main page of an artist. I went to the talk page and saw there was much discussion about it, some pretty contentious. What bothers me is that this seems to be pretty blantant advertising of an unauthorised book on a internationally know artists Wikipedia page. I don't know if this was done by the author or people associated with the author but to me the bottom line is, it is still advertising. I was wondering if you could have a look at the page and see if you agree. Thanks for time  Aircastle (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The current version of Seasick Steve handles the issue reasonably by mentioning the new biographical claims but not giving them too much weight. The sources around the claims (The Guardian and ArtsDesk) seem to meet reliable sources.  I also agree with this removal per our WP:NPOV policy. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jamie Thanks for your input. One of my concerns is that one of the references,The Arts Desk, was written by the author himself as he apparently works there. The Gaudian reference being just a blog.

It seems to me it would be sufficient enough to mention the book without title or aurthor since as it stands, it ends up being an advertisment for a book on an internationally known artist Wikipedia page which is currently for sale. Thanks again for your time Aircastle (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

John Lujan
Earlier today I created the article John Lujan. When I created it, it said an article with that title had been deleted (if I am remembering correctly, by you) due to block evasion by a user named Billy Hathorn. I have recently become familiar with that user's edits due to my work on Texas political pages. After I created the Lujan article, an IP address editor made substantial edits to the page. See:. These edits seem to me to be similar to Hathorn's edits, which are characterized by what I perceive to be excessive biographical detail about individuals and their family members. Wasn't sure exactly what to do in this circumstance but wanted to bring it to your attention in case action is needed. Marquardtika (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've blocked the IP. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This edit looks like it is of the same variety. Marquardtika (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict (?) at AfD
Out of curiosity: did you screw this up, erasing link to Articles for deletion/Lazarus Pit, or was it a software glitch? (I spotted it purely by chance and fixed it meanwhile). No such user (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A little bit of both. When I tried creating the Afd, the afd2 template did not work correctly, so I was trying to cut-and-paste from previews to fix it. In my frustration I apparently deleted an entry for the list step. Thanks for catching and fixing that! OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in closed and is now at merge
After it closing as no consensus, it was immediately listed in a merge discussion at Talk:Forever (website). Since some people found their way already, making the same arguments they did in the AFD, I figured it only proper that everyone involved in the past discussion be notified regardless of whether they said Keep or Delete, I contacting all those who hadn't found their way there already.  D r e a m Focus  18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your name on Wikimedia-l
See [Wikimedia-l MediaWiki project]. This seems like not you.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is most definitely not me. Block away. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you don't see an email in your inbox in the next day and a half, please ping me. Thanks, -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ? OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please reinstate two state legislator articles deleted in August 2016
Hello, you deleted Jon Ackerson and Bob Heleringer in August 2016 because "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". This may well be a fair reason to delete them. However, these are real current/former state legislators in Kentucky, and per WP:POLOUTCOMES, they are reasonably considered to be notable (or at least their articles should be given the chance to demonstrate it)., and therefore I would like to see them restored. It's also possible the editor in question developed articles for other Kentucky state legislators -- I would like to see those restored too. All these articles will be taken under the wing of their respective WikiProjects (Louisville, Kentucky). Thank you for your consideration. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Youtube Project
Hi Ohnoitsjamie,

My name’s Alexander Harrisingh. I’m a student at American University, and I’m working on a project on Wikipedia and Youtube. I noticed you made a relatively large amount of edits to the List of Youtubers Wikipedia page and I was wondering if I could get your input on a few questions.

1. After talking to a few Wikipedians and doing some research, it seems as though Youtubers have a harder time obtaining a Wikipedia page and/or higher quality pages than other “traditional” professions. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, why do you think this is?

2. What could Wikipedia change to better accommodate notable figures from newer platforms like Youtube? What could Youtube do to better live up to Wikipedia standards?

3. If you could change the guidelines on Notability in any way, what changes would you make and why? If not, why do you think they’re stable enough that future societal progression could still be covered equally?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you,

Alexander Harrisingh Ah2681a (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Fluidware article restoration
Hello,

I would like to request that the article be restored. I put the request here originally, but was told to contact you directly...

Any guidance would be appreciated... - Aminiland (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Draft:Fluidware. Mkdw  talk 18:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Bougenvilla page protection
Hi, would you be able to lower the protection level for Bougenvilla? The sock-puppetry problems seem to be over and having the page editable only by administrators doesn't seem to be needed. Thanks! – Uanfala 17:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Lowered to semi. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

the article "Maryann Keller" Testingblog (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Ohnoitsjamie, I will very much appreciate that you help address the issues raised by the warning tag in the article "Maryann Keller" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryann_Keller. I appreciate very much your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testingblog (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (2nd nomination)
Hi Ohnoitsjamie. You were the most recent admin to block Light2021 for disruptive behavior.

37signals was renamed to Basecamp (company). At Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company) (2nd nomination), Light2021 pinged users at Articles for deletion/37signals who had supported deletion (as well as several other editors that I don't know how he found). But Light2021 did not ping users who had supported retention at either Articles for deletion/37signals or Articles for deletion/Basecamp (company).

Light2021 had also returned disruptive behavior for which he was previously blocked. See this edit and this edit for examples. Cunard (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

.
So?--79.76.54.198 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Lifelock and Equifax Partnership Section on Talk Page
You you please take a look at the proposed new section I edited on lifelock and provide feedback on it? TX much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Italian Connection
Hi, I find that you protected Italian Connection at 20:13, 5 May 2016 after it was deleted at 18:49, 5 May 2016. Could you please create it as a page redirected to The Italian Connection? Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * → OhNo itsJamie Talk

to
 * → OhNo itsJamie Talk

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Question
Just wondering, since no edit-summary was left: Why delete two individuals at High School of Art and Design with RS cites for having attended? Thanks for any information.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted both given that they didn't have their own articles, but after taking a closer look at the provided sources, both are reasonable candidates to have their own article, so I restored them. I usually try to be somewhat conservative when I do "notability sweeps" on school and name pages. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I again removed them. One of which had a reference from a tabloid newspaper (The New York Post), the other a source from a mid-level newspaper 25 years ago. If they are notable, there would be more than that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While I'd personally like to see WP:WTAF become policy, it's an essay as it stands. The policy I was attempting to follow was from Stand-alone_lists:  Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.  I agree that the sources provided were by no means a slam dunk for notability (and if that's all there were in the wake of an article creation, I'd !vote for deletion). Other relevant links:

I'm adding these here for future reference, as I'm sure this is bound to come up as I continue to cleanup large swaths of non-notable names from school, city, and name articles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy
 * Stand-alone_lists
 * Notability_(people) (which refers back to the above link)
 * Essay
 * Your alma mater is not your ticket to Wikipedia
 * Write_the_article_first


 * I've been cleaning up Notable people (NP) sections of town articles for a long time. Of late I have been also working on school alumni sections. They have the same problem as NP. Mercy College (New York) being an example....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

 * Thanks for the exciting message. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * glad to be the messenger! 🌈✨ keep up the great work, - 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 23:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Comment
Thank you for deleting that spam url from the spamdexing page. I spent a good hour trying to recover my account so I could do it. Then I gave up on the email and made a new username, only to find that you'd beat me to the punch. Lol. Just wanted to say, "Hi," and, "Thanks!" Helwriaeth (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you're back in business with your account! Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Derby
Hello Jamie

You deleted the subheadings in the section of the Derby article covering notable people, e.g sport / writing / acting etc. and the whole list is now run together. Your deletions are not helpful and I want to explain why I shall reinstate the subheadings on my next edit. As you have left it, the sections are all together. But they listed notables in their own date order, so without the sections there is no sense to the overall order - its neither date order nor alphabetical. Nor has it "condensed" the list, it's just removed a couple of blank lines.

As you will see from earlier edits, I'm in the (rather length) process of getting the list into a manageable and readable state. My objective is to be able (appropriately) to delete the warning at the top of the list. I've added citations for the various sections and my final step will be to cross check the list with the formal list of (253) people from Derby. That will include some additions and deletions, but the list will probably still need some subheadings.

Regards ArbieP (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of things: (1) The first word of a heading is capitalized per our manual of style (2) while there are limited rules and guielines for lists of notable names, if you look around you'll see that by far the most common convention is to list the names in ascending alphabetical order. (See Manual_of_Style/Lists. Only in large lists that merit their own page (see Stand-alone_lists does it usually become useful to break the list into categories. The size of the Derby list is probably borderline. The way you're currently approaching it is going to result in too many categories given the size. I'd suggest a single category for "Arts, literature, and entertainment", a section for Political and military, etc. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Jamie

I'm pleased you now see the merit in subsections and I'm happy to go along with the way you've done it. That said, your edit caused me an edit conflict in adding further citations. I've saved my work and will try and again tomorrow to complete the missing citations. I'll also re-order the new subsections in date order too. Might we try somehow avoid getting on each others' toes like this? May I gently and politely suggest you park Derby for a few days? I'll add a note here when I'm done.

RegardsArbieP (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I didn't see any activity within the last hour so I assumed you weren't in the middle of working on it. I'll leave further edits to you. As an aside, it would be nice if we had a more standardized format for these lists; some pages use bulleted lists (with or without multi columns), some use table.  I personally prefer the former; I think tables are awkward and pointless for list of notable people; they're best suited for information that benefits from multi-column sorting. In the meantime, the best we can do is keep it simple and reasonably consistent. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jamie

I promised to let you know; all done on new notables for Derby. Further thoughts at Talk Derby

ArbieP (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Poor English
sorry about poor english. Chirnjiviii (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Peace
This page is in the making and growing on a community basis, and has just begun. Wikipedia is a community of authors and not a solo affair, right. So are the donations for wikipedia. So for the sake of peace, and collective responsibility for peace, let's keep it that way. thankyou. Ehr1Ros2 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Penn state child abuse scandal
You removed the 'Further reading' section in Jerry Sandusky because it contained only one (contrarian) book. I now added a similar section in the article on the scandal with the four books that I could find, including Pendergrast's. The three other books appear more relevant to the scandal than to the biography of Jerry Sandusky. I hope this is reasonable. Aerkem (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable way to balance the section, I'm OK with it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Schweinfurt
Hallo Ohnoitsjamie, why did you revert my second edit with a reliable source? Greetings --Kim117 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to a bonfire
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/April 2018. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)