User talk:Rhododendrites/2014b

Hey thanks
I was reverting his vandalism not even realizing that there was even more before that edit, so thanks. Wgolf (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - No problem. But User:MAYBE IM NAKED was actually just inefficiently reverting the IPs vandalism. One of the IP's last edits was to remove some of its own vandalism, so when M.I.N. undid that one it looked like he/she added it. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  18:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested for consensus
Please comment over at Draft talk:Abby Martin. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Abby_Martin
Hi Rhododendrites,

(cool name BTW),

I'd like to address a coupla' things regarding an edit of yours.

First off, to be clear it was not me who initiated discussion at Draft talk:Abby Martin. That distinction belongs to Viriditas, I believe. I as well received a talk page comment—like the one I see here on your page preceding this—prompting me to take interest. Personally, instead of a direct invitation, I'd have been more comfortable if it had been worded as a general statement of fact that the article had been declined by a reviewer and moved to Draft space—perhaps also noting that this move had allowed a talk page to be created in which to engage in discussion.

Things continued to evolve somewhat organically from there. I felt it would likely be prudent to make sure some broad input was included so I posted an RfC and a Village Pump notice. Viriditas and/or others may have already posted in venues with broader exposure as well. I don't know, I didn't ask. I did what I saw a 'my part' to attract a fair sampling of editors and left it at that.

I'm not categorically opposed to Deletion Review as a venue. I've not previously given it much thought actually. If it had been brought up earlier in the discussion I might well have embraced the idea—particularly if someone had pointed out that it was typically a faster/more responsive venue than the backlogged review process which had just resulted in a glib dismissal by an editor using automated tools.

It seemed to me that at the point DGG suggested Deletion Review the community opinion had already reached a tipping point in favor of inclusion. While the evolution of the discussion was surely flawed in some ways, I didn't feel that it was so much so as to warrant scrapping it and starting anew elsewhere.

In my, perhaps overly optimistic, view things had progressed to a snow close level of moot-ness as to whether the article qualifies for inclusion in mainspace and I was hoping attention might be directed to the practicalities of smoothly making the move without breaking anything. Frankly, at this point I kinda' regret weighing in (and maybe soapboxing my pet peeves) in response to DGG in the first place as it likely just provided distraction and drew undue attention. IMHO, of course. Sorry.

As I read through the lede of Snowball clause if find that if one replaces instances of "being accepted" with "being [accepted/declined]" it pretty much sums up a large part of my feelings on the Abby Martin article at this point. The last line of the WP:SNOW lede in particular.

Ah, well, it's likely moot at this point. I noticed that an IP editor double(?) submitted the article for review again and, Rhododendrites, if i understand your edit summary correctly ... ooh ... actually I think I misread/interpreted it ... I'd read "Self-rv. moot now. it was recreated" as "Self-rv. moot now. it was created." and assumed it referred to a Deletion Review proposal ... I was going to wrap up by asking you for a link to it ... Uh, 'feet-of-clay', I don't quite know what you're referring to in that edit summary. Could you elaborate for me, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevjonesin (talk • contribs)


 * - There are occasionally articles that are deleted based on consensus, but which maintain a dedicated group of advocates who periodically recreate, declare a change in consensus, and even canvas those who agree. This article was deleted twice, and recently rejected as an AfC, so when I received notice of the discussion on the Draft talk page and saw the overwhelming show of support and a straw poll taking place among interested parties, effectively a secret from those who would otherwise see it by watching the proper channels (i.e. deletion review), I was a little cynical, maybe, but also -- as someone who voted to keep the article previously -- concerned that using any kind of consensus formed on that Draft talk page as justification to recreate the article would be begging for trouble (from those like me who might get a little cynical upon seeing a page recreated, pointing to consensus at a draft talk page!). So when multiple people, including myself try to steer it towards that proper channel and people don't want to, it reinforces the illegitimacy of the consensus. I don't really think anyone's acting in bad faith here -- especially after looking closer at the threads -- but it's not just bureaucratic nonsense to go through that process. If nothing else, as I said in my last comments there, it provides a kind of shield. My edit summary was simply me removing the comments I had just left because the article had already been recreated by someone and thus there was nothing to talk about. Viriditas reinstated my comments when he/she brought it back to redirect.
 * I don't know if that's a very clear response. Ultimately I support the article's recreation, but think it should go through deletion review to keep things clean (and fair, and to ensure proper consensus can be established). That's all. :) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Right on. Thanks for giving me a detailed reply. I'm hearing "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and may well be drifting to concur with you. I was hoping that an admin—with the tools and skills to navigate the concerns others have voiced about it being tricky to make the move and preserve records in this case—would have stepped up already and 'made it so'. Then I was figuring to deal with any further deletion attacks if/when such arose after that. As none such have stepped up to embrace such a venture it seems other means of proceeding are needed.


 * One thing that keeps crossing my mind, and then slipping to other distractions, has been a question of whether there is some precedent for best practice in appealing a review? For I think a questionable decision on 28 Feb.—i.e. glib dismissal which failed to directly address new details of the article being submitted, perhaps due in part to hasty use of automated tools, I was just reading some critiques of such tool use actually—anyway, moving on, that dismissal on the 28th informs where things stand now, in fact it is how Draft:Abby Martin came to be in Draft.


 * I'm hesitant to try and address such an appeal directly though because it would likely put Hasteur in a position with a great deal of pressure to try and save face. "Oops, sorry, let me fix that" would of course be an optimal response but I'm not so naive as to expect it. While I might hope not to, in practice in similar circumstances I and many others might well give in to defensiveness unless the topic were approached in a particularly gentle and tactful way. Damn shame that there aren't more women around the Wiki to help temper things. Anyway, While I'm curious on a technical level whether there is an established protocol for appealing a reviewers decision, on a sensible socio-political level I'm inclined to think it inadvisable to actually pursue such a route. Unless details were to come to light that a reviewer's history showed an ongoing pattern which warranted direct confrontation.


 * Which brings me to the conclusion that Deletion Review may have been and may still be the most effective route to bring in the attention and expertise needed to wrap this up. With a bonus of providing a buffer against spurious deletion proposals in the future. Dangitt, I think we've 'sold' me.


 * I've yet to parse exactly where things stand now though in regards to edit history about copy/paste and recreation ... I guess I should go check and see if something shows up in the Abby Martin redirect page's history ... Though, Rhododendrites, please do enlighten me as to what I missed if you're able.


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuing "Regarding Draft:Abby_Martin"
p.s.— Rhododendrites, I think Viriditas may appreciate an opportunity to reflect on some of what we've discussed above so I'm taking the liberty of tagging him here:

Thought you might find the preceding discussion to be of interest.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

p.p.s.— Rhododendrites, I checked the redirect page's history and am 'caught up'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not the best person to ask about AfC procedure. In fact I've never spent any time at all in that neighborhood of Wikipedia. Probably should. But the tools those articles are talking about are the anti-vandalism tools like WP:STIKI, WP:HUGGLE, WP:LUPIN, and WP:TWINKLE (of which I've used all but Huggle). The idea isn't to look at entire articles (or, I imagine Articles for Creation) in a semi-automated way, but to scan the recent changes logs for certain patterns common to vandalism. When such a pattern is found, the changes are displayed like a diff, and the user can just click, using STiki's interface as an example, "Vandalism" to undo it with an appropriate edit summary and leave a notice at the user's talk page, "Good Faith Revert" to undo it while pointing out it wasn't vandalism and hopefully giving a more specific rationale for doing so, "Pass" if you're not sure whether it should be reverted so that it will appear to someone else using the tool, or "Innocent" if it should be removed from the queue of edits users of the tool should be looking at. There is absolutely a concern about uncareful use of these tools scaring away new users, but that's a separate conversation we can have that's not really related. In short, I have no idea about AfC appeals and such :)
 * Back on track, I did see that at least one admin took an interest. appears to support the article's recreation and seems to be assuring against speedy deletion anyway. An admin's opinion is just that of an editor in these kinds of matters, but an editor we can assume is experienced and who has the ability to undo the hasty actions of another admin. As far as I can tell, while I still think deletion review is the best course of action, with his/her backing it may be safe to recreate. I supported keeping the article and still do, but this is frankly taking too much energy now. :) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  14:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Consignment stock
Having consignment stock in another EU company is not easy. I do it for a living. It is much easier, for an EU company, to have consignment stock in the US. An EU company would have to register for a VAT in the other EU country and do monthly intrastat reports and quarterly VAT reports for BOTH the countries involved. If you prefer to keep the article the way it is, fine, but it's not the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.50.192.40 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are talking about this edit, right? I do not disagree with you or doubt your knowledge. The problem is that in order to avoid chaos on Wikipedia any substantial change in meaning, such as that which you added, must be discussed on the article talk page first. I would encourage you to start a thread there. Alternatively, if you can cite a third party source that backs up what you're saying, that would also likely be fine. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research to avoid relying on individual anecdote/experience. Thanks for the message. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:PCC
Please talk to me simple english, because i'm understand Michał Sobikowski (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Why my edit is Wikipedia's notability guideline ? Please answer me ? Michał Sobikowski (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . The reason I removed your addition is because everything on pages like PCC must already have its own Wikipedia article. Lists on Wikipedia are for Wikipedia articles, not everything that can go on the list. If you believe something should have a Wikipedia article, you might want to look at this page: WP:N or WP:Your first article. The English and Polish Wikipedias are a little different, but share many of the same rules. I do not speak Polish, but you may want to see pl:Wikipedia:Encyklopedyczność. Thanks. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your help desk question
I have attempted a response.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Catalan culture Challenge
Hello! I've seen that you are one of the main editors of the Ramon Llull article and I just want to inform you that the article is featured at the the Catalan Culture Challenge, a Wikipedia editing contest in which victory will go to those who start and improve the greatest number of articles about 50 key figures of Catalan culture. It goes from March 16 to April 15. You can take part by creating or expanding articles on these people in your native language (or any other one you speak). It would be lovely to have you on board. :-) Amical Wikimedia --Kippelboy (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix to Alphonse & Gaston page
Thanks. I was correcting a spelling error (mordent -> mordant) but it looks like I also inadvertently pasted the contents of my clipboard nearby (must have bumped the mouse middle button). You kept the spelling correction, so all is well. 96.234.192.171 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Shallows
Could you please explain how giving the title of an article in a citation is a copyright violation? Canis5855 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops! I intended to revert the edit before yours which added the section. Indeed the block of text is copy/pasted from the Bookmarks Magazine review. Thanks for updating the citation but even though it's cited copy/paste isn't ok for Wikipedia (or enough to constitute a "reception" section. Fixed now. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  21:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How would I get rid of this AfD, then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fifa_15

I was recently warned just yesterday for nominating too many articles on A7, and to hone it down a bit and read the relevant policies. Nonetheless, I see that this article warrants it. However, if I tag it on Speedy Deletion, and it's deleted. What happens to the AfD? Ging287 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen it go a couple ways: deleted and AfD closed as speedy delete and declining of CSD specifically because an AfD is ongoing. But the letter has typically been when it's not quite as cut and dry as this case (e.g. spam/promotional rather than no context/no significance). I went ahead and added the SD tag. We'll see, I guess :) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

This Month in Education: April 2014
Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits on Tor Hidden Services page
what about listing also these GlobaLeaks? GlobaLeaks Hidden Services are really "ethical" so that they would attract good opinion on Tor Hidden Services and support good public opinion of Tor. what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.46.144.236 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you asking about including specific implementation of GlobalLeaks at List of Tor hidden services? Well, as you probably saw, GlobalLeaks is listed, but with any "list of notable [anything]" on Wikipedia, "notable" basically means it has a Wikipedia article of its own. In other words, if there were a separate article on PubLeaks, for example, then it would be fit to include. It's what keeps lists from being dumping grounds for whatever anyone wants to add. So while I think these are great initiatives, they aren't ready to include yet. Thanks for the comment. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  19:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Civil disobedience
I'm not sure what you mean? How is this related to a bucket list? And how is it promotional?

I tried to follow the guidelines here for a good caption. Previously, the image was just decorative because it had no caption explaining why the image was even in the article. I figured a single sentence to provide relevance to the article would make it better and more appropriate?

Please let me know where I went wrong, thanks. Gary ( talk  ·  scripts )  13:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * - Sorry about that. That was actually rv of this edit (on a totally different page). I must have had multiple tabs open of watchlist diffs, went to check that image site, then closed it and reverted the wrong tab. That's a first. Anyway, I restored your edit. Apologies and thanks for the message. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)