User talk:Rhododendrites/2016b

DYK for Syrnet
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Saturday, March 5: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Arbitration
You are mentioned here in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Destruction of ivory
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

WIR A+F
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Mess
Yeah if you could either reach out and help and/or alert someone like me, Pharos, etc. who are editing the event pages so that we can fix the errors that would be very helpful. Versus saying it's a mess in the comments where everyone gets a bad feeling, myself included. I am volunteering here doing the best I can within the constraints of a very large project / infrastructure where I have had very little input into the organization and process. So I have tried to do my contribution towards order, which has taken a lot of effort and time and personal cost on myself, time and energy that I am not compensated for like some folks in the process. I am trying to focus on constructive solutions here, but semi-dismissing the effort made as a mess like you did bummed me out. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, first, I apologize for making a comment that was discouraging. Expanding on my subsequent edit summary, "mess" wasn't a necessary or very accurate description. More of a kneejerk response to having come across the list and seeing some problems off the bat.
 * In part, it comes back to the free labor thing that came up on Twitter the other day -- it was a list of event outcomes that ~"claimed" unrelated edits and gave the wrong person (me) credit for someone else's work.
 * The first re: "claiming" is fraught, of course, and as someone who's long been part of other programs (e.g. the education program) that in some ways take credit for other people's work, there's a limit to how much I can complain about that. And indeed, I get it. The "mess" comment was more in response to the latter, which, perhaps compounded by the other thing, said to me (right or wrong) that listing articles was more important than making sure the right people were credited. It's not that I think there's actually some ill intent behind it, but it seemed messy. Maybe "messy" is less harsh than "a mess". Regardless, it was just one instance of the credit thing, so, again, sorry for generalizing.
 * To be clear, regarding personal cost/compensation, I'm not being paid when I show up at Wikipedia/WMNYC events. We're all volunteers. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding.
 * FYI - The edits were pulled directly from User contributions, so if it was pasted into the wrong place, it's just a mistake, and as an experienced editor, I would expect you would be somewhat understanding of that and simply fix the mistake. To be clear, it's not always evident what type of edit is made, and if you did a redirect or something and I didn't see that, to me it's splitting hairs on whether that's an edit or not, and should be counted towards edits. I think it should if it's in your User contributions. But again, there is absolutely no way in going through sweeps of edits by editors during editathons to be 100% precise. And to gripe about this I think is just not super productive, especially given all the work it takes to capture edits.
 * I don't know anything about taking credit for other people's work. That's not my concern, and I am only looking at what shows up in User contributions, which is facts. I don't really care about attribution myself, so I don't get the issue. I really think it's a waste of time and energy to focus on. I didn't see the Twitter exchange. Don't really care actually.
 * re: "Mess" comment: Again, if I am pulling the information from User contributions, how is that mis-crediting people?!? Honestly I'm just trying to get metrics off the events. I don't have an investment in who has edit counts or whichever. And I'm being EXTREMELY precise, so whatever messes you're seeing, I take issue with that. I know that I am doing the best I can. Again, if there are mistakes, for goodness' sake, FIX THEM! If there is something about the process you don't like, JOIN IN and volunteer to be someone doing the work and fixing issues and processes.
 * You are paid by WikiEdu, so you are paid somehow by an associated organization. I have NEVER gotten money for all the work I've done, which has been significant and impactful. So I think that's a bit disingenuous to say you are just a volunteer.
 * I guess from this conversation, maybe think about criticisms of events, and how you verbalize them. If you want things to change there's a place for that. But just being critical and publicly so without doing anything about it, it drives me bonkers. I expect that from newbies who don't understand the model here, not from someone who is part of the community. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there may be some miscommunication here.
 * My comments that sparked this thread were in the edit summaries of edits in which I fixed all of the errors I mentioned. So I don't understand the all-caps "fix them" and "without doing anything about it".
 * You were involved in the Twitter conversation I mentioned, which was in DMs with me.
 * A criticism of the list is not [intended as] a criticism of the event or of you and/or anyone else involved in creating the list. It's a criticism of the list. I did/do apologize for the way I worded/presented it, however, which was inconsiderate.
 * At this point I think you're taking this into other far more personal places than this need go and I'd like to move on if that's alright. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined
A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The request has been declined as alternate methods of dispute resolution specifically a RFC have not yet been undertaken.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (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 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2016
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 21:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WIR A+F
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

March 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

RfC comments
First off, thank you for starting this. Based on recent experience, I think it would be very very helpful to include some explanation in the RfC itself about how embedding works. At the very least, you should make clear: I see that the first two commenters have not understood this and are commenting based on something which is not correct. I reply to those comments, but I know that people will not bother to read through the comments before adding their own opinion. Can you change the RfC statement so that the results are meaningful? Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the file is stored on Commons (regardless of whether it is embedded or linked)
 * embedded files do not significantly increase the size of the page (basically, just an image)
 * the media does not play automatically
 * A good idea. It wasn't something I anticipated for some reason. That said, I feel like it's possible I don't have all of the information concerning the way different interfaces load/display pages to put together that text myself. Can you point to any documentation? Do you feel equipped to put together a really brief summary?


 * Adding to an RfC after people have weighed in is also tricky business. I'd want to get the consent of and  (the only two who have commented so far) before altering the text above their comments. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 22:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I think it's too late to update the RfC text. I think that the best route might be for you to open a new thread below the RfC to go over that process. It may be a useful exercise beyond this RfC, even. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really have documentation to point to, I was just going by what has been said in the other discussions. I'll take a look and see if I can find anything. Nigel Pap (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Rhododendrites would you be willing to withdraw your Video RFC? Requests_for_comment There are several ways that RfCs end: (1) The question may be withdrawn by the poster.
 * I believe the language desperately needs improvement, and I believe it needs a more proper venue. That video page has zero status as policy or guideline, and a proposal to remove videos from a massive number of articles really needs to be addressed at Village Pump. I'd also like to compile a significant list of affected articles. Alsee (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've responded at the RfC. You raise some very valid concerns, and I'm sorry for what I'm sure are several shortcomings in the way I've presented it. I don't think withdrawing is necessary here (more details in my other response), but I also think that it would be inappropriate for me to withdraw even if I wanted to. Many people have weighed in, and most of them for option B, which was not my own preference. Even if we were to assume it's ok to withdraw after several people have contributed to the discussion, it would seem like I was withdrawing because I didn't like the response I was getting. But, to be clear, that's not actually an issue because I don't think withdrawing is necessary/desirable. I think it's too late to change the wording of the RfC but I'd be happy to help you remedy the situation in other ways you can think of, or to post about the RfC in other venues, or help to develop that list... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I first raised the issue, it is now 4 out of 7 people objecting to the validity of the RFC. It's not heading to any usable consensus. You really should shut it down before an admin does. Then we can build a solid RFC plan. Alsee (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We roughly agree on the matter at hand. I concede that I should've had the foresight to get some feedback about the wording of the RfC before posting it. I kept seeing separate discussions of specific examples while nobody was acting to try to solve any of the underlying problems. So I just went ahead and did it. Tried to, anyway. Ultimately, if the venue doesn't turn out to be a deal-breaker, I still think it'll be productive despite its flaws. My post at VPP was to try to clarify that deal-breaker, though. I've said that I will consent to withdraw if you're right about that, so I don't appreciate being repeatedly pressured to do so using tactics like "# out of # agree with me." The objections others brought up are almost entirely based on venue (other than Nigel Pap's concern about technical explanations), so if it turns out venue is not an issue, that's that. So I'm looking into it. I mean, if it were truly an overwhelming consensus, that's one thing, but 4 out of 7 and 5 out of 8 don't even look to be accurate (see VPP). I hate to get into that sort of thing, but your comment there seems to serve only to poison the well rather than add to the discussion of when/whether it's the right venue, so I felt I had to explain my objection (to, uh, treat the poison or something). I'm aware that likely wasn't your intent, and want to be clear that I do think that you participation in these discussions in general and this discussion in particular is beneficial to the project and to me. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You should take a peek here. There's no response yet, and it's late for the current RFC, but that's prep for the next one. Alsee (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedism
I have expanded the AfD explaining my reasons for suggesting it be deleted.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think you may have the deletion processes confused, though. You may already know this, in which case feel free to ignore this message, but it doesn't look to me like either the category or the article qualify for speedy deletion, which is separate from CfD and WP:AfD (you've tagged them both for speedy deletion). Speedy deletion is for very specific, clear-cut scenarios. I think you want AfD (for Encyclopedism) and CfD (for Category:Encyclopedism). The respective pages (WP:AFD and WP:CFD) have more information about how to go about that. I'm happy to help, but I'll be opposing deletion on at least one of the two counts.
 * With regard to the article, encyclopedism is most definitely a notable topic in its own right. You're certainly correct that the state of the article is quite poor, but I don't think there's anything that requires deletion.
 * The case for deleting the category may be stronger, however. I remember thinking that there were a number of topics that seemed like they could be added (either new or existing articles), but I'd have to look into that. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI
I made these edits to a comment you made, on the basis that the issue you raise is a general one and worth discussing, but there's no need to identify the specific person involved. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Included [his/her] name because of the ongoing discussion at AN, figuring [he/she] might want to weigh in. But moving forward given the concerns omitting specifics is probably for the best. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (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 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dona Nelson
Materialscientist (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cambodian Rocks
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cambodian Rocks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cambodian Rocks
The article Cambodian Rocks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cambodian Rocks for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How add a summer camp to Wikipedia
Hi dear editor.

I would like to write a new article about our own summer camp (the only one in emotional education summer camp), in order to add to the list of simmer camp.

How could make it, in order to not get erased from here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_summer_camps Thx a lot Thevictorv (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I have a couple different responses for you. A good place to start is Your first article, a basic introduction to the basics of editing before creating an article. I'd recommend starting in your Sandbox or a draft. Those are pages outside of the main article space (kind of like this user page is) that exist to experiment and develop articles before moving them to become articles.
 * The most important thing to do first is to compile sources. Wikipedia covers articles that are "notable", which means only subjects that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, find all the books, newspapers, magazines, high-quality website, etc. that talk about the camp (not just mention it and not just listing basic details). Articles about subjects that do not have that kind of coverage are typically deleted, but if you start in a sandbox or draft you can go at your own pace without worry about deletion.
 * As I see the camp is in Spain, you might consider writing it on the Spanish Wikipedia instead (or in addition!). If an article exists on another Wikipedia, it can be linked to here. For example, the Spanish version of "My first article" is es:Ayuda:Tu primer artículo. So you could have an article there and link to it from the English list of summer camps. Some editors don't like including "inter-language links" because different Wikipedias have somewhat different rules for content, but there's no hard rule and, personally, I don't have a problem with it for this sort of purpose.
 * Finally, I notice you said "our" summer camp. Please please read Wikipedia's policy about conflict of interest. Because a core principle of Wikipedia is that it should be written from a neutral point of view, and because someone can't be neutral when writing about themselves or a subject close to them, it's important to take care when editing with a conflict of interest. This essay turned that policy into best practices.
 * That may be more of an answer you were looking for :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thx do much for the answer.

The problem of the question is, i want to be completely honest with Wikipedia, but Wikipedia should be honest also with me.... I will explain better.

If you realize... That place of "summer camp list" it's a place to add almost all camp in the world If you review just 5 camp.... You will see that almost all are "auto written" by owner of the camp.

Our project of camp it's very special because it's the first one in the world where children are being educated with the "emotional education" For this reason I don't know how we can write without "break" the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevictorv (talk • contribs) 08:29, 3 April 2016


 * I'm not sure I understand. The list of summer camps article, like most lists on Wikipedia, is not supposed to be exhaustive (it's not intended to list all -- or almost all -- camps). It's intended to include just "notable" camps that have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". With a list like this, that means it includes all summer camps that have articles about them on Wikipedia.
 * Some articles were probably written by owners/employees who did not disclose their identities. Unfortunately there's no way to be sure. What we can do is make sure the text is not to promotional (advertisement-like) and to make sure the camps we do have articles for have received coverage in newspapers, magazines, etc. Those that have not can be nominated for deletion (and many many have been deleted).
 * Just now, I selected a few random camps from the list to look at their articles.
 * Camp Agawam looks to cite several sources and have some historical significance
 * Camp Pathfinder only includes one source but the language isn't too promotional. Deletion was discussed back in 2006, but people believe it has received significant coverage because it's more than 100 years old, so it was not deleted.
 * Especially for Youth is very large, with international participation, so it's likely sources exist but the article right now isn't very good because it includes only sources that are connected to the church/school that run the camp. Borderline, but probably ok.
 * Camp Interlaken JCC is currently proposed for deletion because of lack of coverage
 * Camp Ockanickon redirects to an article about a boy scouts organization. The organization is probably notable, but the camp itself probably was not, which is why it was moved into this other article (this is not ideal).
 * Buck's Rock has source problems, too. There's a New York Times article that helps but further research would be needed to see if it's notable.
 * Barton Center for Diabetes Education has some issues, but it looks like it has a long history and has received sufficient coverage


 * Anyway -- I don't know if that's helpful or not :) The point is, anybody can create an article on Wikipedia. Those that don't satisfy the policies and guidelines like notability wind up getting deleted. Do with that what you will :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thx so much (again)

Ok I get your point. What I'm going to do its write a article about a camp of emotional education... And his effects on children... I will add references and of course i will name the only and pioneer camp about this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevictorv (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 April 2016

AfD
Hi : A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America1000 04:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Got me... :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

controversial reddits
thank you for the explanation of what the post was removed, the other guy just deleted the article before I could put all the references in it. At least now I can come back to this and work on it later. there are media articles about members of the sub, not about the sub itself, but deaths, arrest, etc, I guess until the media starts taking an interest and is ready to sensationalize deaths connected to research vendors on that subreddit it will remain obscure knowledge that it is in fact a controversial sub, not only for allowing the breaking of the law and discussion or human consumption of research chemicals which is bad enough, but for everything else the sub does to give easy access to research chemical vendors to minors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brohemath (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 April 2016‎h
 * Sorry for taking a few days to respond. Wikipedia does take its role as a tertiary source pretty seriously. The core ideas are the neutral point of view policy, "verifiability", and "no original research". Basically, if something hasn't been well covered in reliable sources, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.
 * In other words, you have it exactly right. We just have to wait until the rest of the media pick up on something before including it. From what you're saying, it may just be a matter of time before one publication creates a chain reaction of other sources picking up on it... &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:04, 9 April 2016 (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 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

April 13: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Call me a little hasty
Sorry but I get too overzealous when cleaning stuff up. Im sorry but some of the convos looked a little dusty though. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Getting overzealous and making hasty mistakes are totally fine. ....As long as you address those mistakes and clean up any messes you create. Archiving is a thing bots do very well, in most cases, so creating work for humans to do not only defeats the point, it's a net negative. I see that you requested a self-block. Will it really be necessary for others to go through your edits to fix them? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Biomass
Sorry, but I've declined your speedy request. Repeated re-creation is not of itself a valid criterion at CSD, with the exception of G4 where the article is substantially the same as a version deleted at AfD. Note that CSD or prod deletion do not qualify for G4. I've left the prod on, and if it is removed, the article should go to AfD instead. If you know of a published source of the text, you could try G12. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The custom CSD rationale seems like a more flexible way to explain while implicating other specific criteria. Maybe that's not a great idea, though... The reason for my custom rationale being "This content has been repeatedly recreated as this article and Preprocessing of biomass, apparently copying [parts of] an author's essays, replete with copyright violations (see previous CSD rationales). Please salt." was to add the repeated recreation to the G12 rationale to add context and add that it should be salted (i.e. the intention is to include G12, and the "previous CSD rationales" included links). Maybe I should've used the term "G12" or, again, not used a custom rationale. Regardless, the article started as a total copy/paste job of this two part article: 1 2. The author then made some minor wording changes so that it's now a mix of copied wording and close paraphrasing (of the same two documents). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're best using G12 with the source linked. The db-reason thing is best avoided - there is some reason for its existence, I would think, but if I knew it, I've forgotten it. It could be used for Neelix redirects, I suppose, as they are officially condemned and very few are worth keeping. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice
The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2016
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 12:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 16, February-March 2016 by ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
 * Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
 * A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
 * Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

inre Articles for deletion/Code 8 (2017 film)
While all are in agreement that an article on the projected 2017 film is premature, there is the general consensus that an article on the current short could be notable enough... that understood, the article has been edited and re-titled to be ABOUT the 2016 film. And since the corrected article is no longer about an unmade film, my own stance is that with these changes the article can now be kept as Code 8 and the projected 2017 film as a topic can be dealt with if and or when it happens. Pretty much for now we need only deal with a film which exists and is sourcable... and even the original nominator supports this view. Care to revisit the discussion? Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've revisited and updated. I'm not sold that it should be kept, as it was never intended as a stand-alone short film but as a trailer/teaser for a larger production. If that larger production is never made, we'll have weighed that the trailer for that film was notable in its own right, and I'm not so sure about that. Still, it's not clear to me what the best way forward is, so I've struck my delete !vote and have not replaced it with something else. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 16:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I should've just linked to a diff of my comments there -- not actually looking to start a parallel discussion :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 16:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8
Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: Wikipedia Requests. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying,  , or  , and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia Requests and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon


 * The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
 * The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (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 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yensid page deletion, please proceed.
Actually, Yensid is not a promotion page, but a page that asks a question. Why did Disney apply for a trademark on the word Yensid when the sorcerer's name in Sorcerer's Apprentice is "Yen Sid". Right after they announced the movie, they "borrowed" yensid.com from me and proceeded to use it for 3 years while the film was being made. I discovered the trademark application after leaving Disney in early 2010, so I am curious as to what was going on. It is a mystery to me.

To be honest, I only trademarked the word because they applied for one and failed to complete it. I figured it was the least I could do :)

I can see now that trying to document the mystery on Wikipedia was a bad idea. I would delete the page if I knew how, but it should not be a redirect to Yen Sid. Merging to Walt's page might be best? Pirkster (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. Yes, upon looking through the page again, it doesn't seem to be trying to promote anything in particular, so "advertisement" wasn't a fair characterization. Still, the content isn't quite right for Wikipedia, which only covers subjects based on existing coverage of those subjects in reliable sources (i.e. if it hasn't been covered in newspapers, magazines, journals, books, etc. then it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia). If there are sources which talk about "Yensid" (vs. "Yen Sid"), it might be appropriate to include at the Fantasia or Walt Disney articles, depending? If you want to shortcut the deletion process, since you're the only major contributor to the page, you can add this text to the top: . It's for deletion requested by the author. As it seems unlikely anyone else would challenge the proposed deletion, the way that process works is that the article is deleted 7 days after the tag is added, if it goes unchallenged. Best of luck in solving the mystery, though :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the db-g7 tag. that will work nicely! The information regarding the origins of the word really belong on Walt's page, so once this mess is cleaned up, it can be added there. Thanks again. Pirkster (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge !votes at AFD
Hi Rhodendrites.

I am working through the backlog at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion (it was 240 when I started with some over two years old) and have found that the ease and validity of the merges varies greatly. I don't want to pick on you as I have seen you around and think you are an excellent editor, but the Articles for deletion/Child Work is IMO an example of a deletion discussion that should not have resulted in merge. Other examples are Articles for deletion/Attacks affecting Lebanese industry in the 2006 Lebanon war and Articles for deletion/Anti-Blackness in the U.S.. One I merged but put a NPOV template on it afterwards and the other I just could not work out a feasible way to merge. The problem with all these articles is that we have an article with major problems being merged into a well developed article in reasonable shape. These are very time consuming to merge as it involves a lot of additional editing and reading, and the result is still invariably that we reduce the quality of the target article.

I am currently on a mission to raise awareness of the problems with voting merge without specifying what needs to be merged. I am not the first to notice this problem (see WP:Merge what?) and have left some ideas on expanding that essay on the talk page. My aim is not to stop merge votes (although that did cross my mind at one point), but to encourage voters to think more carefully before making a merge vote. Part of the reason I am leaving a personal reply here is that I have seen you contributing positively at deletion discussions before and the response at child labor suggested that maybe you had voted merge without actually thinking about what needs to be merged. For contrast see Articles for deletion/Chapel Hill State School where it was made very clear what should be merged and where. AIR corn (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, first, thanks for working through that backlog. If it was at 240 when you started, and down to two now, that's quite an impact.
 * I think that you raise fair points, and agree that it would be ideal for people to specify particular content, but I don't think it's always practical or necessary. The rationale and intended implementation of merge !votes varies a great deal. In the case of child work, my own merge !vote was based on -- and I should say that as it was a year ago I don't remember my exact mindset -- (a) a determination that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article, (b) finding an article that could easily include the topic "child work" (child labour), and (c) noting there being reliable sources cited in the child work article and at least some content that wasn't horrible.
 * Yes, I agree it would've been ideal if I had identified particular sources to use in particular places or specific blocks of text/sub-topics to merge into specific parts of the merge target. But I think that falls into the same category of XfD ideals as "if you argue that an article should be kept by pointing to sources which establish notability, you should actually use those to improve the article". Absolutely right, but it's not a requirement because articles can always be improved -- there is no deadline for article improvement, but there is a deadline for deletion discussions. A merge !vote like mine in this case expresses that the article shouldn't exist, but that there's the possibility of usable content so it's worth preserving if possible. There's time afterwards to determine how to do so -- and whether there's really anything to merge. I don't view a merge outcome as an absolute requirement that some content be used in the other article. In other words, if someone determines in good faith that there's nothing to merge, I have no objection to simply redirecting (and I've done so many times myself). In such a scenario, the stakes are lower as the history is still there and someone can still use the content down the road if they so choose.
 * You may ask "well then why not just !vote redirect then?" The reason, to me, is because a merge !vote leaves open the possibility of using content if there is usable content. I view a close as redirect (without merge) as the conclusion that content should not be used elsewhere.
 * So, again, I agree with what you're saying in terms of what would be ideal, and I hate to argue for what is effectively the lazy position, but I think it's a necessary position given the manner in which the deletion process operates. Does that make sense? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to make a change to the template so it was easier to see the oldest nominations and ended up buggering everything up. The real number left is much higher, so still a lot more effort required yet. Two must have been the number added since my stupid edit and your viewing of the category.
 * I understand what you are saying and believe that something similar is the position taken by many other editors. Merges can be the default vote if an editor thinks an article has traces of notability, but not enough for a stand alone article. In many cases this is the right decision, but there are occasions when it creates more work than the gain justifies.
 * One of the big problem I have is that a merge close not only effects the nominated article but also the targeted article. No other result at AFD does this. If the articles are of similar quality or the amount to be merged is relatively minimal the result can work, otherwise it potentially just worsens a good article. Something which editors of the target article can justifiably take exception to
 * This is also why I don't think this is completely comparable to the "if you argue that an article should be kept by pointing to sources which establish notability, you should actually use those to improve the article" ideal. If that is not followed then a poor article stays poor, but in this case a good article can become poorer.
 * Maybe we need an option in between merge and redirect for cases similar to Child Work. The article could be redirected and a message left at the targets talk page saying that this information is out there and if they think it is useful they should include it. Ideally it is the regular editors of the target article who should decide if and where the merged content fits.
 * Anyway I won't bother you anymore. Thanks for listening. It is good to know that you are not opposed to some merge closes being redirected as it is a conclusion I have also come to. AIR corn (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Pianolisko
what do you mean "Not notable"?

Pianolisko is loved all over the world! If you'd seen the downloads and cravings on eMule and whatever you'd be astouned.

Just because someone gives away the real cool stuff for free and fights for the freedom and also does not want to enter the "charts" which are anyway just by buying up the songs and not realistic, does not make him "Not notable"

that is quite an insult there you know that, right?

If you act up like an admin then you have to show respect in first place to the artist and google things first place instead of simply using a bot and making your pink painted world look clean.

Grrrrr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassulisko (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Notable=Notability.
 * In short, it means they don't have a Wikipedia article. It doesn't mean they aren't wonderful, and doesn't even mean they aren't important. Like I said on your talk page, if they have received coverage in reliable sources such that they could have their own article on Wikipedia, you should create the page and then link to it from those other pages (Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, only includes things that have already been covered in depth by other media sources). It's nothing personal, and I have no idea what you're talking about regarding admins, bots, and pink paint -- it would be the same for any band that didn't have a Wikipedia article. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Meeeh and how do I add pictures to that page now? I only get the source code page =/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassulisko (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

GEEEZ and now this guy wants the article to be deleted. Hey what now?! -_- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tassulisko#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Pianolisko Tassulisko (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bummer. I didn't see the article before it was deleted but from the deletion explanation it looks like it was because the content of the article didn't establish the band as a "notable" subject (which is what I was explaining is defined by significant coverage in reliable sources). You might want to recreate it in your sandbox (click here), so you can take your time to work on it and find sources without it being deleted for notability reasons. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Saturday April 30: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa @ Guggenheim
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)