User talk:Rhododendrites/2014c

Designer notability - sorry, this turned into an essaylet!
It's a very interesting point. Looking at WP:CREATIVE, it doesn't really mention designers at all. Due to technicalities, a great many fashion designers would probably fail notability despite being quite well known in their field/area. The issue with fashion designers (and indeed, other designers, but fashion is my specialism), is that an individual may frequently be interviewed or sought out for soundbites/quotes, but not receive coverage of the "right type" to demonstrate notability as per Wikipedia guidelines. My take on it is that if someone receives regular features/coverage in the main magazines, say - a fashion designer often has their collections covered in WWD, Vogue, or Harper's Bazaar, or in the fashion pages of the major press, but not with a great quantity of text or editorial commentary (except from unacceptable sources such as blogs (no matter how major the blog is) or rehashed press releases) then this exposure is something to mull over. Plus, a lot of the sources we might find acceptable in such cases are frequently inaccessible (unless you are prepared to subscribe), with titles that tend not to give a fair indicator of what's actually within the article.

For example, I have just been trying to rescue Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Auguste Soesastro - Indonesian fashion designers get a LOT of pretty good quality coverage in the Indonesian press, with good online digital archives enabling us to double-check them - but that coverage is so often in the form of interviews or "fashion press" which some people at AFD like to sneer at and dismiss offhandedly as PR/trivia/fluff. I think Soesastro is very much notable, especially in his field, and he has a small (but still significant, for a fashion designer) international presence. But I can see how others might not accept the sources simply because they are largely interviews, despite the fact they're pretty high quality ones. Another AFC I rescued was Boris Bidjan Saberi - again, the sources might give him a bit of a rough ride if it were taken to AFD, despite the fact that he clearly has notability and significant long-running respect within his field and is admired by those in the know.

The AFD for Articles for deletion/Andy Truong is another example of a designer who, IMO, seems to have received sufficient third-party coverage, in a variety of sources, from different reporters, to be at least a keep, but who is receiving a lot of "delete" votes because people won't accept the sources. Personally, I think Truong is borderline, and most of those sources exist because he's got a good public relations agent, but it's STILL varied coverage over a period of years, in a variety of sources, and I can't dismiss that offhand or support a delete in good faith.

It would be nice to have clearer guidelines about what makes designers - not just fashion - notable. Mabalu (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - Hi, I got distracted with other things for a little while and realized I dropped this thread. Has there been any progress at any of the policy/guideline talk pages in the last 2 weeks? (Perhaps you could point me to where the discussions are taking place currently, if anywhere). Thanks. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!
Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - Hi there. I don't do as much disambiguating as many others, but I'm curious about how you're keeping track of these edits? (What "board" exists that I can go to to aid in "clearing"?) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  05:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked - this month's contest is at Disambiguation pages with links/May 2014, and the rules are at Disambiguation pages with links. Cheers! bd2412  T 12:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox
As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 03:23, 29 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) 13:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Yovisto
Hello Rhododendrites. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Yovisto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Blatant solicitation
You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exaltado. There are a number of other non-notable albums up for nomination. Would you be kind enough to add a similar comment to them if you feel it's called for? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Blatant indeed :) Well, I would never commit to a particular opinion in advance, but if there are specific others you'd like me to take a look at I'd be happy to (depending on the number -- evaluating XfDs is sometimes a relatively time-consuming activity). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The nice thing about the articles, the editor who is promoting the group has attempted to record any information that might make the albums notable. There are about four articles that clearly meet WP:NALBUMS while these others do not.
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Águas Purificadoras
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preciso de Ti
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nos Braços do Pai
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esperança (album)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainda Existe Uma Cruz
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Por Amor de Ti, Oh Brasil
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tua Visão
 * I fully understand that it's only if you have the time. Thank you regardless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. All the same band, all the same article creator. I didn't understand that there was a common thread other than that you felt they weren't notable. I don't have the same reservations about this since these could have probably been nominated as a group, even (though I tend to avoid that myself). Anyway. I'll take a look. Thanks. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  05:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I did my own due diligence searching for sources for three of them without luck and added my !vote accordingly. Will look at the others later if I can. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  05:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on important issue in Fractional Reserve Banking
Hi, I am just reaching out to a few people that have previously made edits on the fractional reserve banking page. There is an important issue being discussed on the talk page which IMHO needs some neutral opinions. If you could make a comment, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Reissgo (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of list of manufactures as not notable
Hi Rhodendrites, You removed a number of manufacturers of Scuba equipment from a list as "not notable as they have no Wikipedia article". I was not aware that this is a necessary notability criterion. Could you direct me to the policy page specifying this please. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * - Hi, WP:WTAF is an oft-cited essay that summarizes the idea. Basically, lists of "examples of x" have to include only notable entries to assure encyclopedic importance and neutral point of view. As it's not an exhaustive list (like Bob Dylan discography or List of continents, a list of manufacturers such as this one would be such a list of examples. As Wikipedia is often used for promotional purposes, with people inserting names of non-notable companies, products, or people into lists, removing commercial entities is particularly common. There is a gray area where an item is included on a list as a redlink but cites sources to show notability and relevance to the list subject, but none of the manufacturers were accompanied by sources.
 * I see that you're an experienced editor, so perhaps you disagree with my understanding or application of the above? It's possible there are exceptions or precedents I'm not aware of. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  17:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Rhododenrites, WP:WTAF is a personal opinion, possibly shared by several people, but not a policy. Some of the manufacturers that were removed from the listing have been major manufacturers of diving equipment for decades, but no-one has yet written an article about them, or possibly there is an article, but no link -did you check them all?. My opinion is that it is not necessary to write an article first, as the notability of a manufacturer may be determined adequately by other means. I also do not agree that a list must be exhaustive as Wikipedia is a work in progress, contributors add to the list as they see fit, and some additions are notable, others maybe not. Also, it is an industry where new players may enter and old ones leave, so a the list may change from time to time. Unless you can definitively show that the removal of the listings follows a policy agreed by consensus, I intend to reinstate the lists, and you may challenge any of the specific manufacturers for notability as is the accepted procedure as I understand it. If you feel that the list is inadequate or biased in some way, please let me know the details (list them on the talk page, for easy reference, and for everyone to see as is customary) and I will try to fix it, as I feel this is more constructive and useful to the reader than wholesale deletion. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed WTAF is an essay, one which synthesizes various policies and guidelines in such a way that has pretty significant consensus. As I'm sure you agree that it's not good practice to admit anything to a list, and as no policy specifically addresses the matter, past consensus is really all we have to go on: the burden is on the one who wants to include list items to demonstrate notability and relevance. (i.e. if I add myself to List of polymaths, it wouldn't be sufficient to just tag it with a citation needed tag -- I would fully expect someone to just remove my name). You are right, though, that including citations is another commonly accepted way to demonstrate notability.
 * My point about exhaustive lists isn't at all that every list should be exhaustive. Quite the opposite. Lists that CAN be exhaustive (where there are a fixed number of knowable items as with a discography, tournament winners, or U.S. state capitals) can be sensibly exempted from notability requirements for each individual item in favor of notability of the whole. Lists that aren't exhaustive (like the vast majority of lists) are the ones that must demonstrate a reason why a particular example is being included in the list.
 * Go ahead and reinstate if you want to also include sources (otherwise you're simply promoting certain manufacturers you personally decide are notable). As none of them had sources, the burden is not on me to argue what is not notable.
 * I think the issue here is that we have different levels of sensitivity to promotional activities on Wikipedia and the nature of encyclopedic lists. People insert themselves, their companies, etc. into lists constantly. Editors compile lists of this or that using only original research/anecdote all the time. My understanding of consensus, to which there are exceptions, is that the burden is on the one who wants to include the examples in non-exhaustive lists to show notability and relevance. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  22:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not searched through the history to identify who added each name to the listing, as I worked on the general principle that if the company was well known to me, it was probably sufficiently notable. I don't even know if I added any of them myself - it is possible. I try to remove anything that appears promotional and where possible retain any useful information. Obviously usefulness is also in the eye of the beholder. I will try to indicate notability by a reference or two for each listing, and would appreciate your comments if you think more rigorous evidence is necessary, preferably with an explanation of what you would consider satisfactory in each disputed case. Give me a few days to sort it out, as I have other priorities too. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Works for me. I apologize for lecturing. Seeing in particular a section for a list of resellers may have sapped my AGF meter a bit. I don't know how a resellers section is justifiable unless that means something different in the diving industry, but I won't quarrel with a list of manufacturers if you feel they're important for the article. They should all have citations or Wikipedia articles, yes, but you saying that it'll happen eventually is good enough for me to back off and stop being a pain about it. :)
 * Thanks. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  07:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, The article should be better as a result. I take your point about the resellers and have deleted that section until a better way of handling it comes up, if ever. I think the list of manufacturers is reasonable as there are not really that many. As it stands it is fairly representative of worldwide production by in house manufacturers who market under their own brands. There are also the usual few Asian generic manufacturers who sell to anybody with the label of your choice, which I will avoid. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Les Baux de Provence
Put link to Botinelly as there is a statue by him in Les Baux de Provence dedicated to Charles Rieu which you would have seen if you had followed the link. Why not put link back but add "Statue of Charles Rieu?

Weglinde (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I did see the statue (and mentioned it in my edit summary). The see also section doesn't have to be limited to links directly about the subject of the article but at the same time shouldn't be too far removed. (WP:SEEALSO: The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.). List of works is an awkward link to have there (like linking to List of aluminum ores because of bauxite). That said, the article could use some development, so I created a redirect and an anchor at the list of works so we can link to Monument of Charles Rieu. Is that the name you would have chosen, or would you go with Statue of Charles Rieu? --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  14:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2014
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> 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) 11:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks :)
 * ...now if only we could get any third parties to respond... --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  18:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving content between scythe & war scythe
When I read the main scythe article, I noticed there was a substantial amount of information about military uses outside of the article's section on war scythes, as I combined it with that section, I looked at the war scythe article and noticed that the combined war scythe section of the scythe article was almost as long as the war scythe article itself. I then cut that section down to size and moved it to the war scythe article, only noticing your message after I had finished editing that second article. Can we come to an understanding? 98.155.130.227 (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the message. I have to apologize for my own ignorance. It's not an article I watch regularly, but I happened to see your edit removing a block of sourced content and leaving behind what in my haste I mistook for typos. In fact it was just my own unfamiliarity with the subject matter that was to blame. I undid my own edit. Thanks for your work to improve these articles. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  05:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I usually submit multi-page edits all at once, but I got lazy this time :-p. Sorry for any confusion, you might want to be more cautious when using automated tools. 98.155.130.227 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A necessary evil for catching vandalism. I think I'm pretty cautious but nonetheless obviously make a bad call once in a while. Anyway. Glad it's sorted out. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  05:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect editing
Hi Rhodendrites,

You are correct that the edit of 'United World College of South-East Asia was incorrect. However, the part about a main, school-wide principal is. Please revert your editing.

Crustulumfelismonstrums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crustulumfelismonstrums (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * - You changed the name of the school to "Underwear Washing College of South-East Asia." So reverting certainly won't work. As for the other information: Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability, which means information must be verifiable in reliable secondary sources. When I search for '"Dhruv Verma" united world college' I do not get any hits that verify the information. More importantly, when I search the official site of the school, the name returns no hits. Feel free to add it again, but please cite a source for where people can verify the information.


 * Thanks. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  06:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you also vandalized Australian International School Singapore, changing the name to "Australian International Cult" and the like. If there's any accurate information here, you're undermining yourself by vandalizing at the same time. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  07:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolving of proposal for deletion of both Mailtor and Galaxy?
So is This and This Resolved? Also, I'm working on trying to get the Mail2tor page up to proper standards. Thanks, Rhododendrites -<tt> Alphaslucas <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk </tt> 08:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - not resolved, no. The articles for deletion process is designed to allow for discussion, which stays open for at least 7 days. It's not, however, just a vote but rather a forum to make points about how well an article meets Wikipedia's standards (primarily WP:N and in this case WP:NWEB). Basically it comes down to not how important or useful something is (which are subjective) but how important reliable sources (typically not blogs, wikis, social media, press releases, ads, etc.) say it is (a measure that's a little more objective). If many sources are talking about it, and doing so in depth, it's considered notable. The Hidden Wiki, for example, has been written about in a number of newspapers, magazines, and well-known websites.
 * also, if there's more you can do at mailtor, I wouldn't rest yet. Despite what the other user said at the mailtor afd, notability isn't established by those sources (which will become clearer as more people weigh in).
 * let me know if you have questions about the processes. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  13:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Crooners
Hello regarding the list of contemportary crooners, you have listed David Serero but the link is wrong. It's linked to an homonym who is an architect. His wikipedia page in french is: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Serero_(chanteur) thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerneuilDidier (talk • contribs)


 * Indeed you are correct. I had not added the link myself originally, but do see that it links to the wrong person. The reason I undid your edits was because an external link is typically not appropriate for such a list, especially when there is already a fitting Wikipedia article (which there appeared to be). Regardless, I changed it to link to the French Wikipedia article. That is similarly inappropriate most of the time, but since the French article cites so many sources, he appears to meet notability criteria for the English wiki and thus should be included. We'll see if someone else removes it, I guess. Thanks for the correction, though. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  01:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you! all the best. Didier

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) 15:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Non Native pronunciations of English
I replaced Québécois with Quebecers because Québècois is singular and because there is an English equivalent.--93.44.187.55 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. As far as I know, unlike French/Français there is no standard preference for Quebecers in English. Nonetheless, I've restored your edit to leave it to those with more knowledge in that area of the WP:MOS. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  19:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

28
Hi Rhodo - I'll poke 28 too, but look at his talk page. After apologizing for accidentally removing it and offering to readd it, he was pretty explicit about not wanting it readded. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - As I wanted to make clear, I don't think any bad faith was involved -- I just think it's bad practice. You really should have just restored his comments regardless of his talk page and left it to him to make that determination. Especially as an admin, regardless of whether acting in that capacity, removing someone's comments and not restoring them has a connotation (it is, after all, against the rules to remove someone's comments). The same person who accidentally removed it going out of his way to re-remove it in particular gives the appearance of ulterior motives. His comment that he'll "hold off re-adding it" (something to that effect) is not the same as "I was going to remove it anyway" and perhaps he would not have if you didn't. In short I just think it's bad practice to (a) do anything but immediately restore accidentally removed talk page comments, or (b) get into interpreting what someone would like you/one to do with his/her talk page edits. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  04:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly breaks TPG to remove someone's comment intentionally, but I've been running in to an increasing number of editconflicts that do not pop a warning message, which is what happened in this case. I never went in and deleted his comment; we were editing at the same time, and my commit overwrote his commit, rather than me going in and actually deleting it.  If buggy editconflicts start to violate the rules, I think we'll be entering interesting territory :).  I think you could fairly suggest that me removing his comment (after it was added by someone who wasn't him) as me trying to skew the discussion in a certain way if 28 hadn't voiced an opinion about it, but when I went ahead and directly asked him about his comment and he said he did not intend to restore it at this time (and, ftr, the reason I asked him about it instead of just doing it myself was that I already had his talk page open to thank him for removing the extraneous editrequests) I don't view it in quite the same light.  In the same way that I would view intentionaly removing someone's talkpage comment as bad practice, I think most would view intentionally restoring someone's talkpage comment that they had indicated they did not presently desire restored as bad practice.  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Again, not saying there was any bad faith involved here. Those reasons just don't fully jibe with my own understanding of best practices for dealing with other people's talk page comments. Not sure what else to add without being redundant. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  05:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Phantom island
I removed the category "Fictitious entries" because Phantom islands do not fit the definition given at Fictitious entry: a deliberately incorrect entry (and see the section Fictitious entry). Most phantom islands were the result of errors, not copyright traps or hoaxes. Goustien (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Most the result of errors, but isn't it the same term we would give something which were intentionally placed on a map, too? There's a paragraph in Phantom island beginning 'some "errors" were later thought to be intentional...'. Fictitious entry does not explicitly link to phantom island, but does talk about "phantom settlements, trap streets, paper towns, cartographer's follies" (the first and the last of which seem relevant). Regardless, it's not something I intend to push any further than this response :) You're largely right -- it just seems like good navigational practice to include it as such. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  15:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bunge
Hi! Thank you for reviewing Bunge (Gotland), it is by no means finished! A couple of days ago me and another user realized that we were sort of working on the same project but from different ends, each of us with our own template/list. So now we are connecting our works as much as can be done right now, by just creating small articles. After this we will continue to expand the "intermediate" stubs. It is our project, and we are being monitored by senior editors. An explanation to this can be found at Talk:Alva (Gotland). I live on Gotland, so of cause I only want what's best for my island. Cheers, - W.carter (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - So if I understand correctly, you're creating stubs for all of the populated places currently redlinked as part of Template:Gotland County? Generally speaking it's not good practice to just create a tiny page with minimal-to-no sourcing as it's likely to be deleted (see WP:Notability for the most common cause of deletion). Populated places, however, are one of the very few subjects that are, effectively inherently notable.
 * This is tangential, but several years back, when Wikipedia was still relatively small, an editor figured out a way to automate the creation of articles for every single town in the U.S. using census data (basically, the location, basic demographic information, etc.). It was controversial at the time since it practically doubled the total number of articles at the time but it's since become accepted that it's better to have a little stub about a populated place than nothing at all. As long as it can be demonstrated to be real, there's less pressure to develop it quickly.
 * ...anyway. That's over-explaining :) In short, I'm glad you're contributing time/effort to developing these [apparently neglected] articles. If you have questions about editing, etc. along the way feel free to leave me a message. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  22:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I was perhaps a bit too brief in my explanation. The ones I am creating stubs for are only the ones which already have existing articles about the churches. These are real settlement for which expanded articles can be created later. The rest is on a case to case basis. I'm only doing an article if some other article mentioning the place already exists. For example: Some astronomer named a bunch of asteroids after places on Gotland (see Gotland, Astronomy section), and lots of stubs were made about the asteroids and the "real" place on Gotland were only redirects to the asteroid! Right galaxy, wrong planet!


 * So other users have made a mess of it, and I am trying to sort it all out without creating any unnecessary stubs or articles. Once the first wave of mess is sorted, I will remove the links from the most insignificant places or features at Template:Gotland County and they will turn black, and just be ordinary text. I just keep them red for now while I work on it. I'm not totally crazy. :)


 * Anyway, Gotland has a very rich history and it keeps popping up in the most unlikely of places. Here are some examples that were only redirects to asteroids before I got hold of them: Mästerby, Kräklingbo, Fleringe. I hope these articles reassures you somewhat, this is the minimum for an article from my point of view. And as you can see I am very serious when it comes to references. Thank you for your kind offer to help! I will be in touch. Best, - W.carter (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand not wanting to take on everything. That seems like a reasonable scope. Thanks for cleaning up other people's messes :) --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  14:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * On a separate note, have you looked around at the Wikimedia Commons for media related to Gotland? Pictures can add a lot to an article, but more to the point this may be an area of the encyclopedia you could contribute your own work to quite easily. There's a Category for Gotland that may be a good place to start. By uploading images there people can use them on any language Wikipedia (i.e. Swedish included). Just a thought. We have a lot of English-language Wikipedians in America and the UK, so there are millions of pictures covering those areas (even though there are still huge gaps), but we have fewer people who have the opportunity to take pictures in Gotland -- fewer still who likely already have a bunch :) --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  14:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your kind advice. The fact is that I'm VERY familiar with Wikimedia Commons. My boss is a good photographer and it was she who "lured" into the Wiki-community. She was one of the Swedish winners of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition last year. I am already using a lot of the Gotland pictures in my more finished articles. Example Ljugarn. I also use it to upload pictures that are available for public use from the Swedish National Heritage Board for my articles. (My uploads so far.) And while I do have a camera I am by no means an accomplished photographer, but I have already planned to take pictures if none exists. I am also trying to persuade my boss to donate some or her pictures since she has hundreds of very good pictures of Gotland on her website. The problem is not adding pictures to articles about Gotland, the problem is adding too many to an article. There has to be some kind of balance between the amount of text and the number of pictures.

While I may be a newbie as an editor here at the Wikipedia, I have been a Wikipedia fan for as long as I can remember and I work with computers at a publishing house (both writing and translating articles and keeping the computers in check). This has given me something of a head start here. My first article, Einar Jolin is now nominated for GA. I am mostly interested in writing art articles, and I have expanded some about Swedish artists just to get the hang of "how to Wiki". The Gotland thing is something I got sidetracked to when I saw what sorry state most articles were in. I just could not leave it like that since I care a lot about "my" island. So I've made it my "pet project" while working on some other art articles. The next two months will be hell since this is when Gotland gets invaded by 750,000 tourists, but I will try to relax with some editing as much as I can. And I will take you up on your offer about help, there are always new things to ask about and learn, and even though I already have a most patient senior editor to ask, I dare not pester him with every little thing I want to know. And I am a regular at the Teahouse. Best, - W.carter (talk) 17:22, 13 June 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) 13:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The So Called "Nuclear bunker."
I am sorry but you have it all wrong. The change I made to the Cheyenne Nuclear Bunker Page was all true. The contribution was a key to the understanding of NORAD! I had edited it and it was true. The "Bunker" is not a bunker at all, it is rather a NORAD center for security from ballistic and aerospace attacks. I feel as if misleading readers to thinking the center of information and catastrophe prevention is a bunker is completely wrong! What you should have looked at first to prove me wrong was NORAD.mil! That website is the official page of NORAD and should be used! If you don't mind, I will go back to edit that again and have a nice night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamLLOLLOLL (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - True or false isn't the point. The text you added didn't improve the article -- it inserted a comment into an article. If what you're saying is accurate, the entire article would have to be changed. You will likewise need to provide sources, as I see you have included here, supporting your changes as Wikipedia has a verifiability policy. The first The first thing to do, however, is usually to start a discussion at the article talk page (just click the link at the top of the article that says "talk" or "discussion"). If you just insert a comment contradicting the article, no matter what article, someone will revert it guaranteed. If you have questions about editing Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help, but I would use the article talk page to talk about the article content. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  03:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

36 Crazyfists
Hi Rhododendrites, I hope this is the correct place to discuss this (I'm new to Wikipedia). Regarding the add you deleted: I understand why you say Facebook is not a reliable source generally, but in this case I think it is. Indeed, the link I provided shows that the band itself announced on their FB page that they were planning to release their next album in the fall of this year. Maybe then it would be better to phrase it this way: "In June 2014, the band announced on their Facebook page that they were planning to release their next album in the fall of that year". What do you think? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramaj (talk • contribs) 03:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - Hi, and thanks for the message. I've personally never seen an instance in which FaceBook was considered to be a reliable source. There are a few reasons, but in short it's not reliable because it's a self-published source. That something can be proven to exist or can be proven to be factual doesn't mean it's fit for an encyclopedia article. For something to be added to Wikipedia it must be verifiable in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. In other words, someone other than the band has to have picked up on it and written about it. Otherwise it would be [WP:UNDUE|undue]] to include it. What I would do if I were you is to look around for other sources (reliable sources, not just some blog post or social media post) that mention the new album announcement, and cite that. If it was a recent announcement, perhaps it will take time -- maybe even until the album comes out. I hope that helps. The blue links are links to policy pages if you want more information.--&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  04:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! Just a remark: what would you do then with the preceding paragraph, which cites a similar post (and actually does not provide a link to the source): 'In February 2012, Drummer Thomas Noonan has announced via an online post, that he has left the band due to personal and family matters. He explained, "I just lost my passion for [playing heavy music] and drumming for that matter. I'm not saying I will never play again, it's just that I'm ready for something different, and more challenging for me that will not take me far away from home to do it. I love what we have built as a band and with friends, but after years and years of dealing with the in and outs of the industry, I'm just over it for now. I'm not a person that can do two things at once, and I feel I want to put everything I have into pencil art. I know that sounds crazy, but it's something I fell in love with and strive every day to excel at. So it was a very hard decision for me to decide between the two for this year, but I choose art. I choose being happy and spending time with my family and not touring."' --Muramaj (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that one, but it's even more problematic, actually. Wikipedia has particularly strict rules about including anything substantial about living people without citing reliable sources. Citing the original post would satisfy those concerns but still, as above, Wikipedia waits for independent reliable sources to talk about something before including it. Removed it. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

About deletion
Hi Rhododendrites, you put template for deletion in veron(software) page because for largely promotional in features option. I changed it. can you again see this? Jamesb6545 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - Hi. The bigger reason for deletion is that Wikipedia includes subjects as articles only if they meet standards for "notability" (a quasi-objective measure of importance). The gist is: if something has been covered to a significant degree by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it's considered notable. There's a specific set of sub-criteria for products (including software) at WP:PRODUCT. So while promotional tone (see WP:PROMO and WP:TONE for more on that) can be cleaned up, it doesn't look to me like there are enough sources that talk about the software. If you know of more, do add them. In the meantime, all I did was nominate it for deletion. It's not a final decision. There is a discussion that will stay open for at least seven days in which you can voice your thoughts (but people there will be looking for the same thing: sources). Find that discussion here: Articles for deletion/Veron (software). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  22:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At (Windows)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/At (Windows). Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. ✅ --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  23:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Rahul Kumar Page
Respected Sir, Rahul Kumar has enough references from leading newspapers I am surprised to see that it has been nominated for deletion. If you check the history of this page, we proved to Ascii002 the notability and he accepted the same too. The page is credible and is a short biography and must not be deleted, rather it should be suggested what is missing. Notability is not the issue as article have references from leading newspapers, and most of the credible links are over 3 years old, proving the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontri1968 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - I think there's some confusion. I have not expressed any opinion about the article Rahul Kumar (businessman). When an article is nominated for deletion, a special page is created for discussing that deletion. When that page is created, it's good to categorize it -- the categorization is all that I did in this case. Please see this page: Articles for deletion/Rahul Kumar (businessman), which is the best place to express your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  05:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2014
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC) <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, please update your subscription.

Template:Tor hidden services
Why did you revert Template:Tor hidden services to this state? It is not useful to have inactive services listed as if they were in use. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The defunct websites are written about in online news all over the internet too. --David Hedlund (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's a navbox to help people navigate Tor-related subjects, not a guide to using Tor or accessing these sites. The manual of style section on navboxes additionally says that because they're horizontally formatted page elements you should restrict the number of categories/rows (basically that if there's something on a line by itself, there's a problem). Separating defunct sites into a blanket "historical" section also removes all context the navbox otherwise provides (i.e. what kind of site it is). Other than serving as a guide to Tor, what purpose does separating them as such have? --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI moving my reply here to the talk page to avoid parallel discussions. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  00:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Could we at least add "Name of Service (defunct)" in the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Hedlund (talk • contribs)
 * That may be a good compromise. I replied in a little more detail over at the article talk page. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  00:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Seth Abramson assistance
Hello, I wonder if you might be able to help out once again? I'm having my edits and those of other editors on the Seth Abramson page "Controversy" section deleted, removing any criticism of Abramson's widely-perceived attention-grabbing behavior, which is (objectively) one of the key reasons for the controversy in the first place. I would very much appreciate your assistance and guidance in editing and restoring a NPV to this page, especially as these issues are similar to those experienced on the Metamodernism page, concerning related subject matter. Many thanks in advance! Esmeme (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding why this is a "controversy" section rather than "reception" or something similar. I didn't yet dive into the article but looking briefly at that section it looks to largely consist reviews, no? Isn't attention-seeking something every author, artist, maker of things does? If several reviewers accuse Abramson of that, it may make sense to include it, but to give it its own section seems unusual to me. Given Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, if there's a disagreement about content relating to a living person, it's usually best to err on the side of less controversial material until it's worked out. That being said, I'm not seeing anything too egregious here -- again, really just reviews -- but I'm also not seeing any discussion on the talk page. Are there threads elsewhere where this has been discussed already? --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the "controversy" section, but it seems appropriate, given the controversy in recent weeks, but I agree that this could perhaps be better integrated or placed in the article in a "reception" section. There is nothing on the talk page, but in the article history comments I note several previous editors accusing the page of being "whitewashed" for various reasons. In what may be some kind of retaliation, the Metamodernism has just been completely rewritten, and now does not make much sense in terms of the article being about the popular cultural theory coined by Vermeulen and van den Akker, which has always been the subject here. Your edit to the section on the manifesto has also been deleted, quite perversely. I would be very grateful if you could look at this, as I suggest it reverts back to the version that so many editors have spent years working on, and not one single editor's vision. Esmeme (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Metamodernism, my aim was only to improve the structure of the article--and I really feel this has been accomplished. The "Usage" section is now chronological, so that the development of uses of the term "metamodernism" is established in a narrative form that's easily readable; the removal of names, as I emphasized in my edits, was only temporary. These names will be added back in the "Notable Metamodernists" section of the article with the appropriate sourcing. I think this was previously discussed by all of us, i.e., if there are going to be names of famous metamodernists in the article, they should all be compiled in a single section of the article, rather than scattered about. To me this just makes basic sense as a matter of being reader-friendly, and I'm surprised it's controversial--I've been speaking about cleaning up the article in this way for weeks (i.e., "Usage" section should be chronological, "Notable Metamodernists" section is the right place to mention people who are metamodernists). I hope you will agree, Rhododentrites, that the article reads much more cleanly now! That was my only aim here. Festal82 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think the only disagreement I have with Rhododendrites is that I feel like the sourcing on Shia LaBeouf having authored the Metamodernist Manifesto is much stronger (by way of using WP:N sources that are recent) than the sourcing on "Luke Turner" being the author (which requires the use of sources other editors have described as suspect). I think, Rhododentrites, you had previously suggested simply removing the Manifesto from the article, because it appears on a self-published website. I'm amenable to that too, though I think a better fix might be to simply put it in a "Related Documents" section at the base of the article, thereby letting readers read it if they wish but side-stepping the issue of its sourcing and authorship altogether. Would that work? Festal82 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm happy to take a look at this but FYI it won't be until tonight (working on a few other things at the moment). I'll follow up here or on the article talk page then. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  17:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rhododentrites. The content of the first two paragraphs of the "Usage" section now appears to be unrelated to the post-postmodern theory that Vermeulen and van den Akker first described in 2010, and which is the notable subject of the article. Having these other unrelated authors listed first is simply confusing (e.g. William Blake can't possibly be a metamodernist/post-postmodernist in these terms, because he came even before modernism and postmodernism). Vermeulen and van den Akker's 2010 text, and Turner's 2011 manifesto with Shia Labeouf--the date/authorship/citations of which have already been discussed at length and clarified--are widely regarded and cited as the key texts here, so it only makes sense to have them appear first. Also, the removal of any mention of the first metamodernism exhibitions, which took place at notable museums and galleries, is extremely unhelpful. The previous editor's reliance on "fame" is also unproductive I feel, because by definition all key metamodern figures are likely to be young, and may not yet have wiki entries. Thanks for taking a look at this. Esmeme (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Esmeme, I only used "fame" as a shorthand for WP:N. As you know, you have previously taken the position on the Metamodernism article that no artist who is not WP:N should appear in the "Notable Metamodernists" list--in fact, beyond removing any/all such names on the list as soon as they appear, you have even removed the names of WP:N artists and essayists whose work (as you wrote) you personally felt wasn't metamodernist, even when and where there were WP:N media outlets saying otherwise. I am confused by you now saying that names of non-WP:N people should be preserved in the article--not even in a special section, but in the body proper of the article!--because "they are likely to be young." The solution is to create Wikipedia entries for these people as warranted, not create what I'd term a "laundry list" of such persons in the main body of the article. We don't want to encourage future editors to enter in the main body of the article every single metamodern art exhibit, do we? Or list every single person who appears in such an exhibit? That would lead to chaos, I think, especially as metamodernism becomes more broadly adopted and discussed as a cultural paradigm. I think we can use the "Notable Metamodernists" list to make brief mention of WP:N living persons who are identified in WP:N sources as metamodernists, but to use a scattershot approach just seems to me to be courting future dangers. Re: the chronology, this article is not called "Tim and Robin's 'Metamodernism,'", it's called metamodernism--which means a chronological history of usages of the term is what's appropriate here. I hope Rhododendrites will agree. Festal82 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , - I've left some pretty thorough (I think) comments at Talk:Metamodernism. No strong feeling one way or the other concerning Festal82's recent reorganization as a whole, but several general comments about improving the article as well as some specifics. As I mention there, I want to be clear that while I know Wikipedia and am [relatively] competent with postmodernism and modernism, I have very little knowledge of metamodernism, post-postmodernism, and other derivatives/responses beyond the present article. So I'm not going to be much use when it comes to questions like whether the article weights different aspects of the literature properly. If you'd like additional participation that may be better suited for such contributions you may want to try to recruit people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy or another relevant wikiproject.
 * Going to consider Seth Abramson a separate issue for now which I'll get to, if still necessary and if it would still be helpful, in the next day or two. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  05:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Error in Pi
But i mean. Just watch the movie, and look for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.101.105.65 (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but Wikipedia has a policy of no original research (only writes about things that have been covered by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject). If there are sources that make the same criticism, by all means cite one and re-add (I haven't looked but there are enough people who would be looking for such a thing, I imagine). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  13:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Course in General Linguistics
Hello, Rhododentrites - I was reading the article on Post-Structuralism, and then clicked on the link to Course in General Linguistics and read that article. I made a few minor copy-edits, but I have a few questions. Since you have been editing the article on Post-Structuralism, I thought you might be able to help me.

1) In the section Course in General Linguistics, the first sentence reads:


 * "The basic principle of the what arbitrariness of the sign (l'arbitraire du signe) in the extract is: there is no natural reason why a particular sign should be attached to a particular concept."

I don't know if "the what arbitrariness of the sign" is supposed to mean something. Perhaps it does, to experts. Or perhaps it's a typographical error. If it's a typo, perhaps you could fix it. It it is specialized language, perhaps you could clarify it for the average reader.

Second, I don't know what "in the extract" refers to. What extract?

2) In the fourth paragraph in that section, Lewis Carroll's poem Jabberwocky is discussed. I know there are links there, but I thought it might be helpful to give at least one example from the poem to illustrate the point that is being made. The poem is also mentioned in the sixth paragraph, also with no example.

3) In the fifth paragraph in that section, the fact that English has two words for the animal and the meat product while French has only one is discussed, and "ox" and "beef" are given as the examples for English. I was surprised to see "ox" instead of "cow". Is there a particular reason for that? Or was it just an arbitrary selection of one of the two or three words used in English for the animal (ox, cow, cattle) to serve as an example? There may be some native English-speaking readers who are not even familiar with what an ox is.

4) In the early section "Semiotics", langue is in italics. In the sixth paragraph in "Arbitrariness", it is not. Shouldn't it be in italics also?

Thanks in advance for your time. CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (1) - That's awkward indeed. It looks that text goes all the way back to the very first version of the article. Looks like the page could use some attention. Regardless, the basic idea of arbitrariness is sort of what it says at the end: there's nothing about a signifier that connects it to a signified (and vice versa) except for that it happens to be used as such in the sign system we have agreed upon. Here's my guess on "extract": I'll bet this is somehow connected to someone's homework for which they were provided with an extract of the Course. I can't imagine it was intended in some technical sense. I did a quick rewrite of that first part. Hopefully it reads better.


 * (2) Agreed. I spent a little while trying to rework part of that section for clarity, fix a couple things that seemed to confuse things for me, etc. Also added a little Jabberwocky quote and expanded on that. The paragraph beginning with "but the picture" is more than I have time for at the moment, though. Articles like this shouldn't, in my opinion, be quite so technical, so if you feel comfortable reworking some of this, you should go for it. The worst thing that happens is someone reverts your changes :)


 * (3) I don't have the work in front of me, but I imagine ox is what Saussure or his translator gives. I don't think there's anything more to it, and it could probably be changed to cow without a problem.


 * (4) Yes. Fixed.


 * Hope that helps. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  06:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You did a great job. It all looks fine. I'll take a look at the article again. I don't think there's much I can do since I'm not an expert, but I'll look at it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Chinatown, New Haven
You keep deleting relevant information about the various Asian-owned and operated businesses in the region that MAKE THE AREA qualify as a chinatown. Without this information the page might be deleted permanently.

Please justify yourself in these deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.0.132.137 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate your frustrations. Let me first go into some Wikipedia policies and why the content you added is problematic and then I'll circle back around to how to more effectively accomplish what you want. All of the blue links below are links to pages with more information about how Wikipedia works.


 * Wikipedia only includes information that is verifiable in reliable secondary sources. You included a reliable source for the Dim Sum restaurant, but the other two are not at all. Keep in mind also that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so shouldn't have any language that could appear in marketing copy, a review, a travel guide, a phone book, etc., and everything it does say needs to be a neutral summary of the most important aspects of a subject per reliable sources you're able to find.


 * This is the most important thing, though, based on your justification: That there are Asian-owned restaurants there may mean it meets the common definition of a Chinatown, but the only thing that matters for it to be called that on Wikipedia is whether reliable sources specifically refer to the area as "Chinatown," and do so to a sufficient degree that it's considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia (a quasi-objective measure of importance) (see this page). If you can show that, you don't need to name a single restaurant or business.


 * Your edits caught my attention because people insert themselves, their restaurant/business, and various other interests on Wikipedia constantly. Wikipedia doesn't want to be a venue for advertising. I understand and appreciate that's not what you're doing, but because the problem is so common, content with a promotional tone, regardless of intent, tends to be viewed harshly (perhaps more than it should be).


 * I don't know if you've come across how this works yet, but when an article is nominated for deletion as this one was, a separate discussion page is created where people voice opinions about whether, according to policy/standards, the article should be kept, deleted, merged into another article (in this case probably the article for New Haven), or redirected to another article (again, New Haven). That discussion page is Articles for deletion/Chinatown, New Haven. My advice to you is to remove anything not properly sourced, adjust the tone to be more neutral, and then focus on searching for as many articles as you can that talk about this Chinatown. More than just a passing mention, but it doesn't absolutely have to be a feature story. Newspapers, magazines, prominent websites (not usually blogs and never sites that take user-submitted content like Yelp or YouTube), and so on. Take all of those sources and link to them at the articles for deletion page. Show people that it's notable. I have no idea if it is notable or not, so you might not be able to find those articles, but that's how it works anyway.


 * One final note: there is a bright line rule about edit warring (repeatedly removing/reinstating the same content): more than 3 times in a day is an automatic block. It looks like a separate IP added it back the fourth time, but for future reference... --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  04:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

New photos on Commons from the Royal Society Library
Thanks for thanking me! I'm stopping now, but there's plenty more to add from these. Potential COI concerns somewhat restrain me from touching the big names. Here's the notice I've been posting:- As part of WikiProject Royal Society a special photo session in the Royal Society Library in London has resulted in Commons:Category:Royal Society Library, with over 50 photos of their treasures, mostly 17th century manuscripts, including several of Herschel's correspondence with Charles Babbage, Charles Blagden's diaries, the 1st edn of Sylva, by John Evelyn, one of the early minute books, Robert Boyle's notebooks etc, the manuscript fair copy of Newton's Principia etc. Please add these as appropriate. Thanks! Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say
I love your user name. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha. Thanks. I was at a Wikipedia-related conference recently where we wore badges bearing our real names. While [obviously] I like it too, I realized it's a rather terrible one to have to vocalize over and over :) --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

New user on pages
Hello Rhododendrites! We spoke a while earlier on the "Bunge" section here at your talk page. I am still very much a newbie when it comes to the way things are run here at the Wikipedia, so I need some advice. A new or old/new user have made some edits on pages I work on. The edits seems to be in order but the user has made very few edits and seems to be quite unaware of how to do proper referencing. From the users edits I can guess that it is a Swedish user, who might have edited on the SweWiki where references are not taken seriously. The user only have an IP address. I think that a proper welcome WikiWelcome on the users talk page might be in order but I am unsure of how to do something like that, and it might be better if a senior editor did that. Do you think that you could help me or direct me to someone who knows? The IP is 83.253.9.99 and these are the edits. Best, - W.carter (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * If you look through your Preferences and look through the "Gadgets" tab, you'll see something called Twinkle (click that link for more detailed information). It's basically a tool to make things like welcoming, reverting, warning, and so on much easier.
 * More relevant to your question, I'm not seeing among that IP's edits much to indicate a poor understanding of referencing. It seems he/she has only updated climate information, which while indeed should be referenced is something that people often don't cite a source for because there's no obvious place for one in the table. If you suspect the user may be active on the SweWiki and may need help becoming familiar with different standards here, I'd be happy to post a welcome message but I have no experience on svwiki and don't speak the language so it seems you might be a better candidate to help him/her. If you don't feel comfortable, just let me know and I'll go ahead, but installing Twinkle will solve any technical barrier to doing so (literally a matter of going to the user talk pages, clicking the "wel" tab (if using the MonoBook skin), and selecting one of several predefined messages).
 * One other complicating factor is that an IP with few edits and spaced several years apart isn't necessarily going to see a talk page message and may even be on a dynamic IP in which case he/she would have no way at all to be made aware a message was waiting. Another approach is to briefly explain a rationale and link to a helpful page in the edit summary when you revert (if you revert). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again and thank you for your very instructive answer. The refs are ok now because I fixed them. The user seemed unfamiliar with the templates and had missed some parameters, and in another he/she had neglected to switch ref when he/she updated the numbers. I went and had a look at the urls he/she had left as refs. Well, maybe it's just a "random" user and knowing Swedish is really irrelevant since all conversations here should be in English. I've had some experiences with other Swedes trying Swedish here since it's my language, and it has NOT been welcomed by other users who feel excluded. The Twinkle part is still beyond my skills here so let's divide the task: You activate the talk page and post the welcome message and I'll write a friendly note to the user. Cheers, - W.carter (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this what you had in mind? Or something more targeted? I would urge you to check out Twinkle as I assure you it's not beyond your skills. If you just to Special:Preferences, look for "Twinkle," and enable it, you'll see new options at the top of user talk pages that automate a number of actions.
 * I know that on article talk pages the guidelines it to WP:SPEAKENGLISH, which makes sense for collaborative purposes, but I don't think that holds firm for user talk pages. I could be wrong though. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  15:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! :) That is exactly what I meant. I will write something appropriate and within the guide lines of the codes of conduct here on the Wikipedia. And I'll try to stop being so chicken about the Twinkle. I'll do the reading and see where it takes me. Again, thanks for your help. Cheers, - W.carter (talk) 17:58, 27 June 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) 12:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)