User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 20

Laura Diaz Anadon
Just so you know. I rewrote the article from scratch, so its current incarnation here on Sept 17th 2014 has no copyright issues, even though it is tagged as having them, but I'll understand if there are procedures to go through, such as possibly deleting older versions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understood that. The problem is, as the copyvio-revdel template indicates, prior versions of the article contained blatant copyright violations... but it wasn't necessarily so bad as to merit speedily deleting the entire article (actually I was on the fence as to that). In any case, the prior revisions need to be revdel'd, and removing the template will prevent a patrolling admin from finding the article. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanx for explaining.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI
Do you have any suggestions should the ANI be closed as you predict? If ANI is broken, where do things like this get addressed?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice several of the examples relate to the Gender Gap discussion where there currently is an open request for arbitration so you may add them to the comment you already have made there. Seems like the arbitrators have a hard time making their mind up on whether to take that case or not. If they do take it, other users' conduct regarding that topic will naturally also come under scrutiny, but I think that's the option. You may of course also make your own ArbCom request focusing specifically on Corbett, but my guess is that arbitrators are more likely to take a broader case. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd generally agree with this. Wikipedia Arbitration is not my thing, but the level of factfinding required given the extensive history and claims being leveled by all involved makes it something that pretty much can't be handled by anything else. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you considered collecting your $1 million for being psychic?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail
HazelAB (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sybil Brand
Good work. I've moved it to mainspace. DS (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I sort of had been sitting on that draft thinking about it since there are some sourcing issues with respect to Brand's first marriage; the sourcing is very rough, and as far as I can tell no recent sources even mention Brand's first marriage (apart from one or two vague mentions that Harry Brand was stepfather to Sybil's son). I also had found one source where Sybil Brand self-described as being of Jewish faith in an interview, but the context was weird enough to make me not want to mention it (she also seemed to call herself pantheistic in the same sentence). I'm not saying it should be kicked back to my userspace; I just wish I had better sources. Brand was quite a fighter, it seems. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm all set up. As the support page indicated I did have to use a different e-mail address than I had used with Questia. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?
A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "neutral". You raised a number of interesting points. I wonder if you'd like to discuss them further or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Piotrus, thanks for reaching out to me on this. While it's been several months and my memory of the RfA isn't perfect, I'd be happy to provide some insight into my neutral !vote.
 * First, my frustration with your response to Q3 stems from my understanding of how people in my profession may have to address past indiscretions when applying for licensure. One thing that has been advised, over and over again, is not to distance, but to fully own the mistake. Not to be proud of it, but to give your mea culpa, and go on to give concrete examples of how you've both learned from the incident, and to assuage fears that it could happen again. While I agree that you shouldn't dwell on past matters too much, I felt you were too summary in your handling of the mea culpa.
 * As I stated in my !vote, I really do believe that the strongest indicator of ability as an admin is past experience as an admin: usually, this is experience elsewhere, such as Commons. This is why, for people standing for RfA stating that they intend to do AfD closures, there is so much focus on their prior non-admin closes. I believe you may wish to focus on past positive experiences, while at the same time blunting any concerns that you might have what professional wrestlers call "ring rust".
 * Finally, I should say that my general belief with RfAs is that all the materials should be polished until they are gleaming. It is remarkably unusual for someone's bit to be reconsidered after they pass RfA. As such, it strikes me that the most sparklingly impressive a candidate will ever be is during the RfA. Where there are mistakes, typos, poor argumentation, and the like in someone's RfA materials, it's like submitting a resumé or cover letter for a job without ensuring the same. As onerous as the RfA process is, I would (and I believe have) argued that it's almost reckless to let mistakes stand. I'm not saying there was anything particularly bad with your RfA in that regard. Rather, I intend it as a reminder that you should take extra care with such things. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reaching out to concerned members of the community is, I think, the least I can do in order to not to waste everyone's time next time I decide to run (if I do so at all, of course).
 * Now, regarding my answer to Q3, I would like to talk with you a bit further on that. You say that I have not acknowledged my errors clearly enough. I have declared the incident as it happened - and it was indeed a while ago; five years is - I do believe - a rather large swath of time, either in "real life" or in the Wikipedia. Do you think that I should stay quiet about the fact that I have not been involved in any incidents since, or that the restrictions on me were lifted early? Or do you think that I should write more about the incident itself? I already link to a series of mini-essays that were significantly inspired by this incident, and I don't think I should turn the Request into another one. Perhaps it is the fact that I am not a native speaker and thus I miss an occasional nuance of English every now and then, but I am not sure how I can do it better. Perhaps it is also the fact that given my cultural background requests for extensive samokrytka are seen as not always inspired by the best of ideals. If you wouldn't mind putting myself in my shoes, I'd very much appreciate seeing how you'd try to phrase your answer to Q3 if you had to deal with those issues? Would you mind drafting a paragraph, or even a sentence, that you'd like to see me post next time? I hope it is clear that I am not asking this because I am lazy and want you to write a copy-paste text for me, but I am genuinely curious what you'd write in the same situation, and by reading this, I hope to understand yours (and some other's) concerns better.
 * Regarding admin tasks, as I noted, just like with any other activities, I foresee myself drifting from one task to another, through I would likely spend most of my time dealing with the items described in Q1 (primarily Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates), as I am steadily increasing my experience regarding copyright all over the world, and I think I could bring my not insignificant knowledge of it to reduce the related backlog (which I currently prefer not to touch much, as anything I do would require admin review anyway, so it wouldn't be the most efficient use of my and other's time).
 * On a final note, I wonder: do you think that if I became the admin last time, I would have abused my powers or otherwise acted against community's best interests? And if not, is there any benefit to the community in me not having those powers and not reducing the Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates backlog? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just commenting to keep this from being archived. I still intend to respond, I just haven't had time lately. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Contra poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Contra poster.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk: United States
I don't think it is still going on. I think it is again going on. Same principle. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply
Reply on Editor assistance -- 183.171.181.186 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

David A.
Dont listen to any of the presumptions he have he had my wikias vandalized because i didn't or anyone agreed kami tenchi is omnipotent. Beyonder (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod
 * You're making me start to regret asking David A. to moderate his post. You need to back off or you'll be gone from here. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Off topic) There's a facepalm template? I learn something new every day. Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also do take note that is an alternate form. It's rare that I get to use either. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aldrich logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Aldrich logo.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fluka logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Fluka logo.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Riedel-de Haën logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Riedel-de Haën logo.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sigma logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sigma logo.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Supelco logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Supelco logo.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fee tail
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Human-rating certification
An article that you have been involved in editing, Human-rating certification, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CCTB.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:CCTB.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you help: repeated anonymous vandalism
Can you help with or give me some advice about the continued vandalism to the page Orchard Park (town), New York? Thanks BuffaloBob (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it's all from the same IP, I gave that IP a warning. You should warn IPs when they do things like use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion (strictly speaking, it's not correct to call it vandalism). Usually you're supposed to go up through the stages of warnings (level 1, level 2, etc.). If the IP repeats it after a final warning, you should report them to WP:AIV. If multiple IPs keep it up, especially if it's promotion of the same person over a short period of time, you might try WP:RFPP. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Det Norske Veritas 1-color.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Det Norske Veritas 1-color.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI
Just want to stress that this isn't irony. I'd rather see you start a separate thread than engage in further speculation about sanctions against me.

Peter Isotalo 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hold off on requesting sanctions at this time. Thanks for your input. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Reformation (band) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) 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/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your closure of ANI discussion of Cleavage (breasts)
Hi Mendaliv, while I do agree there was emerging consensus to close the ANI discussion for Cleavage (breasts), I think it was probably not a good idea for you, as an involved editor, to close it. It seems that no one so heavily involved should close such a contentious discussion. Also concerning is you closed an ANI discussion where your own behavior had been questioned by multiple editors as perhaps not appropriate. I think it would be more appropriate in this case to let an uninvolved editor close it. If you feel it's dragging on too long, perhaps post an WP:AN request for someone uninvolved to please come and close it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't be unclosing it. It's not a contentious thread by ANI standards, more just a clusterfuck of involved parties swinging at the fences. That I took a single action in that case and found myself criticized by involved parties doesn't make me any more involved than the admin who acted on the page protection request. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mendaliv, I hope you will reconsider. I believe your participation in the edit war which led to page protection makes you an involved party. Additionally, your actions were questioned by uninvolved editor (see User:FormerIP's comment here: ) I think closing a ANI thread where your own behavior has been questioned needlessly raises eyebrows.  Best to let someone uninvolved close it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I disagree and will not be reopening the thread. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've considered reopening it myself, but feel it would incite more drama than would be helpful at this point. That being said, I would like to politely request that you amend your closing summary away from a statement that only you (as an involved participant) has expressed any agreement with.  Productive discussion is not ongoing.  If you don't believe all those who stated such on the ANI thread, check the talk page.  While it is true that totally separate discussions, such as the one about the main image (which was never reverted) is ongoing,  we have an unfortunate situation were all of those who have reverted have declined to participate in the discussion regarding those reversions, basically halting discussion in a an unproductive manner.  The "consensus to close" part seems reasonable enough.  Seems better (and more accurate) to leave it at that. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mendaliv, I looked at the ANI after a short break. I was taken aback by the following comment: "Peter's actions in this situation have been to take a minor gaffe by one editor and turn it into a full-blown edit war.".
 * Have I misread this or did you actually assign most or all of the responsibility for the edit warring over at cleavage (breasts) on just me?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at the Univ. of Chicago!
Hey there! The Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago is hosting an edit-a-thon to celebrate Women's History Month on Saturday, March 28th from 10 AM to 4 PM. Coffee and lunch is provided for free, and we'll be focusing on building a few biographical and organizational articles. We'll also have full access to archival resources maintained by the Special Collections and Research Center. If you're interested in joining us, please RSVP at the event page here! Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The irony is boggling
What "Competence is required" does not mean[edit] It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake." JesseRafe (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FFA logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:FFA logo.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Restored as historical logo. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DunBradstreet.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:DunBradstreet.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Restored as historical logo. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

TWL
Hi Mendaliv, thanks for engaging with the requests page - it's great to have input from a wide audience on what resources we should pursue. Would you be interested in signing up to be a coordinator? We could use help with both distributing accounts to editors and reaching out to potential new partners. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the invite. I'd love to participate, but it'll have to wait for a bit until I get some more room on my plate. I'm revising an article for publication, which is taking up most of my time. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

File:DunBradstreet.svg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DunBradstreet.svg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

invisible rail
Many people think this article is a jokeNaytz (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we put those kinds of disclaimers in articles. See WP:NDA. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv We do put these notices on articles, see article on Reference Desk, and April Fools for example --Naytz (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Your recent editing history at Invisible rail shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Naytz (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Two Chicago edit-a-thons this April!
Hey folks! We've got two exciting edit-a-thons happening in Chicago during the third week of April: If you're interested in meeting up and working together with other Wikipedians at these fantastic institutions, please RSVP at the event pages linked above. If you know someone else interested in learning about or editing Wikipedia, invite them! We will provide training and resources for new editors at both events. For questions about the events, please refer to the event pages or contact. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago edit-a-thon on Wednesday, April 15th from 4 PM - 8 PM
 * Pritzker Military Museum & Library edit-a-thon on Saturday, April 18th from 10 AM - 3:30 PM

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Newspapers.com check-in
Hello Mendaliv,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
 * Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips.
 * Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Article discussion
Regarding Operation Starvation and this edit, you replied on the talk page indicating you objected to it. If you or another editor who had an interest in it do not respond, I intend to revert the article. As the talk page says, we can expand the section if we need to, but it appears unnecessary to me. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment at Talk:Corfu_Channel_case. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you intend to reply regarding Talk:Corfu_Channel_case? If you don't reply here or on the article talk page, I can only assume you no longer feel your objections to the edit are valid. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it over the next couple weeks. I would advise against reinserting disputed material in the absence of consensus. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
 * When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam Matthew account check-in
Hello Mendaliv,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Adam Matthew through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
 * Please make sure that you can still log in to your Adam Matthew account. If you are having trouble let me know.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
 * Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you, Wikipedia Library Adam Matthew account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose at Talk:US RfC
Interesting dismissive comment at your Oppose for the lede sentence RfC at United States. The reasoning "insufficient prominence to the ambiguity" is actually better than the notation itself. It would be instructive if you were to share what the American Jurisprudence Encyclopedia uses to define the geographic extent of the US in an RfC Comment.

American Jurisprudence is a tertiary reference, inferior by WP policy wp:psts to both primary sources and the six scholarly sources published in US and Canadian reliable sources.

I would appreciate your reconsidering the discussion and sources available for reference at Talk:United States. Thanks for any additional time on this matter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I've said my piece, and I'm not about to let you drag me into your battlefield. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Elijay redirect page
Tell you what -- let's see how the pageview numbers come in on the L.E.J article and also let's look at the pageview numbers for the Elijay redirect page. If pageview tallies start to shoot up, almost certainly it is not folks looking for a river or city in Georgia, but fans wanting to learn more about this hot French trio, and then we should change the redirect accordingly. Another option: turning Elijay into a disambiguation page, with links to the river, the city, and the French trio.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ University of Chicago
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ University of Chicago on October 15! (drop-in any time, 3-7pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Mendaliv: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 03:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Indrani (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indrani (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Indrani (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gott v. Berea College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootlegger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! This really means a lot. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:Secretary of State
This is in regards to the discussion that is going on in the Wikipedia Administrators' Notice Board. I just changed the title in the box of offices held from United States Secretary of State to Secretary of State. The title is not United States Secretary of State. The diplomats who hold the title are all Americans. so I think it's unnecessary to have United States Secretary of State, so I shortened it to Secretary of State, the actual title. There are secretaries of state in all 50 states who act as elections officers, but their full title is Secretary of State of Washington (for example). I saw that all the Secretaries of State, the foreign minister essentially had this long unncessary title, so I went through the Secretaries of State and changed the titles. Just explaining my position, and why I changed the titles. Best Regards NapoleonX (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw what you did. I don't really have an opinion on whether it was correct. My point at ANI was that it's a content dispute and that ANI is the wrong forum for that discussion. Best of luck! —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Hippotherapy. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your edit summary did not assume good faith, and it is clear you are acting on behalf of a friend. jps (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A neutral observation that there's no consensus to merge/redirect is not bad faith. I'm sorry you disagree with me, but that doesn't change the fact that you're incorrect. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The broader discussion, if you are interested, is at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. Montanabw (talk)  19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite the discussion. The ridiculousness seems to be giving way to real discussion, at least for this morning, in the wake of my intervention. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion
Hi.

When you do something like this without also reverting this, it presents an awkward situation for the editor you reverted. Either you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to follow the discussion clearly, or you're being WP:POINTy. Either way, the fact that you have contributed precisely zero to the discussion you reference means that your revert is, at the very least, ill-advised. Please fix the situation and join the conversation or I will revert you.

Thanks.

jps (talk)


 * No, I don't think so. I'm just observing the behavior at this point. I'm not impressed with yours. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per, that one is just not worth the fight; at least, I've given up, I have to triage. The issues at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy about the weight of the evidence and how to describe it in the article there are, in my view, the bigger problem.  I believe that you have a legal background (based on your userboxen), and as such I think you are in a good position to look at the debate over the three meta-analyses (Anestis, Selby, and Lintini) that are in dispute for the "effectiveness" portion of the article. My position is to discuss all of them fairly, with a non-WP:SYNTH assessment of what each says and the appropriate weight of each.  I am not going to delve further into the motives of the editor who seems to want to remove two of them, leaving only the one negative review, but that's the issue.   Montanabw (talk)  19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail
Destiny Leo (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't receive anything. Did you leave this message in error? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Notre Dame Law School
Hey Mendaliv! I've noticed that you are an alumni of the Notre Dame Law School. I work with the WikiProject Notre Dame, and I've been working on the notre Dame Law School page. Despite serious improvement, there is still a lot to do. I just wanted to know if you were interesting in participating and/or joining the Wikiproject. Cheers!

Eccekevin (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a couple good books in the law library chronicling the history of the law school. It's up on the 3rd floor, call numbers around KF272. If you're still on campus you should take a look. I actually took them out my first year, just never had time. I'm kind of trying to work my Wikipedia involvement back up, though I'm not looking to make any commitments at the moment. Honestly I'd almost rather write a book about ND than articles, lol. Less constrained about original research, which would be necessary to do a lot of ND law stuff. I have a boatload of photos that might be good in my personal archives. I'll try to look in there over the next while. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion on Jacquil Taylor
Hi. I removed your speedy deletion tag under WP:A7 on the article Jacquil Taylor because I don't believe it meets A7. Playing at a college-level team that's notable and already has a Wikipedia article plausibly demonstrates that more about the player could be found online or in print. A7 is really intended to apply only when the article is either so implausible or so unlikely to have sources to demonstrate notability that there's no point in going through a process like WP:AFD. As soon as there are any sources online, or any mention of being a player on a notable team, it doesn't meet A7 and needs to at a minimum go to WP:PROD. Particularly, when an editor (like me) challenges a speedy deletion, please go to a different deletion process. Don't go back to speedy deletion when it's clearly contested by other, non-involved editors. I suggest you look through this user essay, which explains a lot of scenarios where A7 doesn't apply such as "played for a notable team, even if only on minor or amateur level". Thanks! Appable (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merely playing on a NCAA team is not a claim of significance. See WP:NSPORT. Please stop and allow an administrator, or another qualified editor, to evaluate this. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a notability guideline. WP:NSPORT does not apply as a guideline for determining significance. Please read WP:CCS, it clearly states "significance is a much lower standard than notability" as the first sentence. While I understand you have good intentions, I do not think it's right to put speedy deletion tags back when they are, in good faith, disputed by another uninvolved editor like me. Clearly, the issue needs discussion as soon as another non-involved editor disagrees, so it's better to go for another consensus-based discussion rather than get into an edit war. I'd rather not keep reverting myself - but I'm trying to make sure the article doesn't get deleted when the speedy deletion is disputed and I don't think it's right to keep re-adding such a tag. Thanks. Appable (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS - did you read WP:A7M and WP:CCS? Those are some great resources that discuss what a credible claim of significance is. The general conclusion, though, is that it's a very limited use. Appable (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you notice how A7M and CCS are both essays? Your interpretation of those essays is not controlling on how A7 works. Merely playing for a D1 team is not a claim of significance within the meaning of A7. It would probably be good enough with a professional athlete, but that's neither here nor there. Something that's a claim of significance—regardless of credibility—is one that, if sourced, would get the article past notability. Moreover, good faith disagreement is not grounds for unilaterally removing a speedy deletion template. It falls to an admin to make the call that A7 should be declined. This is of course different if the template is patently incorrect, and therefore disruptive (i.e., tagging gravity for A11, or Barack Obama for G3). But that's not the case here. Taking your argument at face value, reasonable people might disagree as to whether A7 applies. Removing the speedy deletion tag serves to prevent third parties (i.e., reviewing admins) from discovering the disagreement and rendering a decision. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do see, by the way, that the position I hold is at odds with what those essays say. Be that as it may, merely being on a college ball team is flat out not a claim of significance—regardless of whether it's for Purdon't. You can't have it both ways, by the way: Your initial edit summary when removing was there were plenty of sources out there (a false statement, as I've elaborated in the AfD). You can't move the goalposts like that. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know they are both essays. I think they're absolutely right, too. I don't think it's true that a claim of significance needs to demonstrate notability in that it's not a guideline asking "would it be notable with sources" but instead "would be be significant with sources" - i.e. does it have a claim of significance? Remember, A7 is not a consensus-based approach. While that's not a problem in itself and is very valuable for removing vandalism, spam, and other content from Wikipedia that just doesn't and won't fit, it's a problem when editors obviously disagree about A7. My concern with A7 is that while it's a good policy, it's been used in far too many ways and really should go to AfD. A7 was originally created to catch articles about random people that obviously have no significance, not to remove articles about people who clearly have some achievements (like making it onto a college basketball team. And since A7 bypasses AfD, I think that as soon as you say "reasonable people might disagree as to whether A7 applies" the A7 tag should be removed in favor of a more consensus-based process. There's no rush to delete an article on Wikipedia.


 * Also, poking around Google there might be enough to meet GNG. I'm still looking at that but I'm planning to add some more content - don't know how to phrase it though. I'll keep looking around for that and probably add to the article soon. Remember, it doesn't even have to meet a guideline like notability for athletes (in fact, he probably doesn't). I've already found a few sources that are reliable, independant of the subject, and significantly cover Taylor - for example this. Appable (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. This should be interesting. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't mean to get into a huge argument. If it doesn't meet GNG, that's fine. I'll try to rescue it as I'm able, but there just might not be enough to justify an article. Appable (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Added a ton of citations and claims. I strongly dislike the writing on that but I don't know how to write a sports article on Wikipedia (or anywhere). Appable (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walther arms.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Walther arms.svg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a textlogo, and it's on commons. Tagged as textlogo and nowcommons. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)