User talk:Philafrenzy/Archive 25

DYK for Migrant Architects of the NHS
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Rudi Cormane
Ritchie333 00:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hi, i am sorry to see that you were unsuccessful (this time:)) for admin.

Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC) 
 * Thank you Coolabahapple. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to archive this page...
...because it's getting hard to navigate with all the discussions on here. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  19:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, the archiving broke due to a bad edit by someone else but I decided not to fix it now as it gives RfA voters a whole year's view of my talk, for good or ill! I will archive it later. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an edit by someone else. It was  in January.  Hopefully  will cure it when the archive bot next runs. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you pass RfA, you'll get loads more talk page messages. Mainly from people complaining about something that somebody else did - when they should really be posting at WP:AIV or somewhere. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I am sure I have complained about something on your page Redrose. I have a book on the Santa Fe railway. Would you like to borrow it? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Outside my field I'm afraid. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Commiseratory Bier

 * Thank you Amakuru. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Doug Gurr
Ritchie333 00:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you kindly. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Education Justice Project


The article Education Justice Project has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Written like an advert, and fails WP:NORG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hello User:Philafrenzy. I am sorry to report that I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. I hope you will not be too discouraged; well over a hundred editors voiced support for making you an administrator, and I am confident that if you are able to address the concerns of the editors who did not support the RFA, your next one will be successful. Many editors, myself included, became an administrator on the second try. "Oppose" votes are never fun to receive, but often they contain valuable feedback. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, 28bytes (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Does this qualify for a "crat chat" as it was 65% at the time it was scheduled to close and only went to 64% after? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not... normally crat chats are only initiated if the percentage is in the borderline range (around 70% support.) This one was not quite at that range. 28bytes (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The page says "In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats". Philafrenzy (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. That's generally interpreted to mean the discretion of individual bureaucrats; crat chats are typically only initiated if the individual bureaucrat has difficulty determining whether there was a consensus to promote. That said, if you feel my close was in error, you are welcome to request the input of other bureaucrats at the WP:bureaucrats' noticeboard. 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it's somewhat frustrating that I would probably have had this additional consideration at 65% and don't because of a last minute vote that pushed it down to 64% after the scheduled close time. I don't doubt the motives of that voter but there were errors in the oppose voting generally relating to articles I did not edit, images I did not upload and the formatting of references that I did not do. I realise it may not change the result but at least there would be absolute certainty. I probably won't run again so could you initiate it please? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t know if you’re referring specifically to me but although I happened to be the last Oppose voter it had already gone to 64% before I did that. It wasn’t just “a last minute vote” - there was a clear trend against you towards the end. A crat chat would not change the result. I realize this must be very disappointing for you but I do think you could pass in the future.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest that quibbling over the close of one's low support RfA is both unseemly and, arguably, an example of behavior which should, in and of itself, indicate one is unsuitable for being an administrator. Everything else brought up at RfA is reasonably addressable and would not preclude another attempt in the future. Wikilawyering the close, on the other hand, is very likely to be seen as an issue in any future RfA. Jbh  Talk  14:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Jbh just said. I'm sure 28bytes took everything you are currently concerned with into consideration before making the close. Focusing on the 65% and the small drop below it is rather peculiar given that it really wouldn't make a difference, as he stated above in his reply to you. Nihlus  14:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I respect the oppose votes that you gave but please allow me this additional consideration. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No I wasn't doubting the good faith of any voter. But I saw the count and it was 65% at the scheduled close time. I trust you can see the frustrating aspect of this Jbhunley. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, not really. I would not have posted if I had felt your quibble over some fraction of a percent to be reasonable behavior. As mentioned above the trend was downwards and the chance of a 'crat chat being anything other than 'unsuccessful' is essentially zero. There is no requirement for a 'crat chat and your belief that they would somehow feel compelled to open one but for a couple after time votes is, frankly, … concerning. Your belief that, should they have done so, they would have found a consensus to promote indicates to me a serious deficit in understanding consensus and the concerns expressed at RfA. If there were any chance of that being the case you can be assured someone else would have brought the matter to the attention of the 'crats or, much more likely, they would have opened a discussion themselves.  Jbh  Talk  14:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Although you're probably right that there's little chance that a crat chat would change the outcome, I disagree with your beating up of Philafrenzy for clarifying this point. The community expressly changed the rules so that 65% to 75% should be considered discretionary by the crats, which means that 28byte's point above about requiring 70% is incorrect. RFA is different from most areas of Wikipedia in that it concerns personalities and individuals rather than content, and I think everyone who goes through an RFA is entitled to feel that due process has been served. Rightly or wrongly, Philafrenzy doesn't feel that he's been given a fair run with this closure, so let him ask the question of the crats. That said, though, WP:BN is probably the place for the query given that 28bytes has already on this page declined to open a crat chat. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I had just done so. When the result is in or if they decline to grant it, that will be the end of the matter I promise. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * • point taken.  Jbh  Talk  15:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

My regrets at this event, and the "onrush" of voters for and against folks which implies that "accidents" are rare. I feel that you would make an excellent admin with broad experience around Wikipedia, and that you should give nice messages to those who opposed you to that end. Collect (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Collect. I wish everyone well. I am no wiki-lawyer I assure you - see my record. I hope you can see my point of view as well. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued service to Wikipedia. I appreciate your additional note in which you write, "I am sorry for past lapses, I would hope that they can be seen in the context of my whole body of work, and I understand the need for administrators to act as exemplars in this area, as in others. I will take on board the advice given and act accordingly." If my oppose vote can be taken in the constructive spirit with which it was given, I'd be glad to support a future candidacy!  Λυδ α  cιτγ  15:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As an opposer myself, it would be disingenuous to claim that I'm sorry you weren't promoted, but I sincerely regret how stressful this has been for you. My personal opinion is that the best account of the downward swing at the end was the argument about the rough translation of Draft:Arnold Dohmen, which ended up becoming a clear case of bludgeoning where some of us were seeing a pattern of sort-of doing it. If I may add my personal thoughts, as I have not seen anyone else express them, I would like to do so; I hope you will find them helpful. It isn't inherently wrong to engage with voters in an RfA; did this excellently in his recent RfA, and you may benefit from reading it if you haven't already. But there is a fine line somewhere between correcting factual errors and justifying oneself. My impression is that voters are fine with the former, but only tolerate small amounts of the latter, and generally only when it comes with an admission of error and an assurance that the problem won't happen again. The problem, and the reason the line is so fine, is that adding additional context usually comes across as the latter rather than the former. Voters just usually don't care: we assume that you aren't a doofus, and had one or more reasons that a mistake made sense to you at the time you made it. I think that towards the end of the RfA, you slid into a position where you felt compelled to demonstrate you weren't an idiot to everyone whenever some mistake was raised; an understandable behavior, but unfortunately, instead of redeeming yourself, you made it look like you didn't understand the real problem, which was that you had done something incorrectly and shouldn't do it again. Many times, it's best to just say "I'm sorry, I understand why it was a mistake, it won't happen again" and move on before the discussion encompasses many people and thus draws attention to itself.
 * Anyway, that's my two cents. I speak with no particular authority or experience, but am rather recording my own observations. I hope that you'll find them useful when (here's being very hopeful) you run again. If you clean up some of the concerns about low-quality creations, I think you'll be in a good place going forward. Best wishes, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was a supporter, but I second these thoughts. I think this goes beyond RfA as well – admins need to not take the bait even under great provocation. Responding to the factual errors was fine, but the level of commenting you did was not. I'm sorry to be saying this, but asking for a crat chat is also an instance of not walking away when under pressure; RfAs are about gathering consensus, not a specific percentage (a crat will fail an RfA at 74% if they feel it did not gather consensus), and accepting defeat gracefully would have been a much better way to move on. I understand RfA is a very negative experience, but I hope you can learn from it. Rather than justifying the articles you created, please move on and don't commit the same mistakes, namely creating poor quality machine translations in mainspace and closely paraphrasing even just a couple of sentences. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I must say I am glad that Philafrenzy was not 'bullied by expectations' into not addressing matters/comments they saw as problematic in their RfA. I think that the community is way out of line in that regard and I am sure if I laid out the analogy I see in that behavior there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. That said, I think Philafrenzy responded poorly many of the times they chose to respond and that is where they erred not in responding per se. We should be judging candidates on how they respond not whether they respond. RfA will be a bit better once that principle becomes ingrained into the process. Jbh  Talk  19:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, and blunt. Losing an RfA is no big deal, just like passing it isn't one either.  The fact that you are pushing to get any crat to dispute the close and overturn, when it clearly has fallen outside of the discretionary zone, shows an ulterior motive to becoming an admin, or becoming an admin for the wrong reasons.  This may not be your intent but this is the picture you're painting for everyone right now: "I deserve adminship because I was still in the discretionary zone, so you should have promoted me, or discussed this with other 'crats."  In addition to that, this creates a picture regarding intent of becoming an admin: "I'm an admin so now I can impose authority on other people here./I'm an admin so now I won't be bossed around by admins."  You may not be trying to, but you're certainly painting this picture.  Adminship is not glamorous, it's just a collection of buttons that can be abused in the wrong hands.  Fun fact, my first RfA was unsuccessful at 74%.  But I didn't complain.  The only reason I offered to run for RfA was to be of assistance in an admin capacity when it was needed.  I certainly can make do without it, and I still can.  So my advice to you, is to drop this now before someone remembers this and uses it as a reason to oppose you the next run around.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It was dropped hours ago. Who's pursuing it? I haven't edited since then. I said I would ask and not pursue it if they didn't accept it. That's what has been done as far as I know. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was very sorry to hear about your RfA not succeeding. I am sure the next one will do better. The opposers did raise some good points. It's not right that RfAs become stressful trials by fire. I hope that ends. Meanwhile I suggest accepting the judgment and moving on. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  00:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Figureofnine, I already have. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I for one think this whole process has evolved into a bunch of BS over the last few years, and you are an unfortunate victim. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and the nitpickers will dredge up whatever bogus negatives they can find and then it will snowball against an RFA candidate.  We are losing admins faster than we are gaining them, and good people like you are getting rejected.  It is truly a broken system.  I am pissed and I don't blame you for being pissed, too.  --rogerd (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just hope you don't get too upset over this. The opposers raised valid points but overall I think they made too much of them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since that was put under my comment, I don't know if that was directed at me or Philafrenzy. I have been an admin for 12 years so I am not losing a lot of sleep over it, but I worry about the welfare of the project.  Like I said, no candidate is perfect, and while some may disagree with the candidate on some finer points of policy/guidelines, you have to ask the question, is this candidate going to damage the project?  Can he/she be trusted to not abuse the tools?  I think the net of having Philafrenzy as an admin would be positive, as well as several other candidates who have been rejected recently.  --rogerd (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my lack of clarity. I was directing my comment at Phil, not you. I agree with both of your comments. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your support. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Record collection of Zero Freitas.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Record collection of Zero Freitas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Ken Hashimoto
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Storkan
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Graham Stack (surgeon)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Max Jessner.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Spooner Churchill
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Nelarine Cornelius
I had a chat with our copyright expert about Nelarine Cornelius here. I think we are in agreement that the initial edit is problematic — although not an exact copy, it is too close a paraphrase of the source. The more recent version is better but still has issues. She points out, and I agree that our copyright software detection often picks up list of degrees and publications, and we both cut them some slack because it's close to impossible to rewrite totally. However, there still are some remaining phrases that ought to be rewritten. I hope is that I can encourage you to do so and let me know when it's done and I will do revision deletion on the early edits.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. How does it read to you now? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. Looks better now.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Shiv Pande
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Polycleitos Cawadias
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Herbert R. Spencer
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Rook (dermatologist)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cite DNB
In May 2018 You created an article "Gustavus Hume". I came across this particular article because I was check up on the last use of the redirect in future please link directly to the template

-- PBS (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that was someone else as I don't use that template at all. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See Revision as of 09:21, 12 May 2018 -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That was copied from here: Thomas Hume where it appears still to be in use. What exactly is the problem with DNB cite vs cite DNB? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dawson Williams
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Preben von Magnus
Hi...are you able to help expand Preben von Magnus 5x from what it looked like yesterday, and if so, can you remedy red links please. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * anytime..even later Whispyhistory (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Made a start, do you have an image? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributions. Sorry, I only just saw this message. I've not come across an image...I will look. I have expanded and am struggling to go further. I calculate another 200 characters and should be ok.Whispyhistory (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's now 100 characters over and ready to go. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Navigation needed
When you create an article with a disambiguated title like Style (journal) or George Williamson (academic), please remember to make sure readers can find them (and also avoid risk of another editor creating a duplicate at a different title) by adding them to the relevant disambiguation page (or in other cases adding a hatnote). Thanks. Pam D  07:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

English?
George Williamson (academic) was a Category:English literature academics (scholars studying English lit), but why did you give him England-academic-bio-stub (scholars of English nationality)? You offer no evidence that he was from the UK: did you let Hotcat mislead you? Please take more care. Thanks. Pam D  08:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't, FeanorStar7 did. Please check the edit history before commenting in future Pam. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah: I checked the edit history but misread the edit summary and didn't actually click on the diff, sorry about that! Will have a word with the editor who stub-sorted it. But I see you're still adding bio-stub. Please don't do that: it means that it doesn't come to the eyes of stub-sorters. If you aren't going to add something more precise like academic-bio-stub, then please just leave it at stub so that someone will stub-sort it. Thanks. Pam  D  08:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I had no idea people weren't sorting bio-stubs. I thought that would be more helpful than just stub. Note, incidentally, that even for longer articles nationality is not always clear. Mary Paton Ramsay is stated to be Scottish but was apparently born in Oxfordshire. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, Category:People stubs is nearly empty. I don't know whether they're just being dumped into nationality stub categories: there are 1,411 in Category:British people stubs, let alone the English etc subcategories. Sorry about that. Perhaps I should go and do something else this morning. Happy Editing. Pam  D  09:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Walter Freudenthal.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article about Strumia
I hope it survives. I see absolutely no reason for deletion. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you add information about his science? I think he is a notable physicist but it's not my area so any expansion of that part would be welcome. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mary Paton Ramsay
Hello! Your submission of Mary Paton Ramsay at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Regina kapeller-Adler
Hi, Thanks for all help so far. I thought I would find a woman article, Regina kapeller-Adler. I can't remember where I came across this name but please look over. It is also an orphan. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will look later, thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

File:The Rise of the Meritocracy (1967 cover).jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas King (slave trader)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons?
Very strange idea.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Oxford Street Christmas lights
A while back, you purged the list of celebs doing the Christmas lights opening from Oxford Street.I've taken this and made a a spin-off list. Thinking aloud, given usual timeframes and stuff, it might well be possible to have a DYK coinciding with the switch-on this year in about four weeks time, and even possible to get it as Today's Featured List over the Christmas period. We will need to get our skates on for the latter, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * See also
 * Articles for deletion/List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights
 * User:Colonel Warden/List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights
 * List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights
 * WP:LIGHTBULB
 * Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't know about any of that lot ... however, I seem to be good at improving AfDs so they get closed as keep, and this article has more sources on the general concept of the light switching on (making it more likely to be WP:NOTESAL), so we'll see how it goes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The primary credit should go to Rangoon11 who was the first to start this. She was hounded off Wikipedia for creating pages like this – a good example of how toxic the place is. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah well, on Sunday we can meet up again for a pint at Pendrels and sound off about all the articles that should have been kept but weren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't make it, as I'm working on a Sunday - again. Please let me know how much a pint of guest beer costs these days (and if you can remember back a few weeks, how much it used to cost): I'm informed that Wetherspoons have recently dropped their prices across the board - in my local, guest beers are down from 2.25 a pint to 2.15; Sharp's Doom Bar is down from 2.35-ish to 1.99 and that's not the cheapest, either. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your local has a Modern Slavery Statement, Redrose. Shouldn't Wikipedia have one at the bottom of the page too? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So does The Penderel's Oak. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Karel Sperber
Hello, Can you help with Karel Sperber? Later is ok. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's later, so I will look. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't thank you enough. Whispyhistory (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * . Karel Sperber- requires your attention before adding to DYK nominations page for 8 Oct. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Regina Kapeller-Adler in 1930.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Friedrich Entress.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regina Kapeller-Adler in 1930.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Regina Kapeller-Adler in 1930.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Max Jessner
Alex Shih (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)