User talk:Rhododendrites/2016f

Your GA nomination of Destruction of ivory
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destruction of ivory 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 Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, to see the review in motion. :) I'll hover at the page and see if I can pitch in as well. Cheers, cart -Talk  07:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 19, September–October 2016 by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti  Read the full newsletter 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
 * New Library Card Platform and Conference news
 * Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Draft article about Clive Barda
Dear Ryan, I hope you are keeping well, and that you enjoyed your (partial) wiki-break. Whenever you might have a few spare minutes, I would be most grateful if you would be so kind as to review the subject draft and to point out areas needing improvements. I am particularly interested in your views concerning my use of flat lists and collapsible tables, which I thought proved appropriately useful in this case, but might be too outlandish for a GA-level quality article, which is the standard I aim to achieve. Thank you very much for your considered comments, Ryan, which are always helpful and wise. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 11:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I had a good couple months of wikibreak, but yeah, it pretty quickly turned "partial." :) I've only given it a very quick look, so I'll just give a few first impressions from its appearance now, and then take a closer look this weekend. Apologies if any of this is wrongheaded due to not having looked closely enough yet.
 * Ideally, content in the lead is also in the body somewhere, so the citations could be migrated down. Pretty minor thing, though.
 * Will do. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly familiar with quote styles, but to me right-justified with small text (and no other differences) looks a little odd. My preference would be either just use quote or to use a border with the box (and reduce the width, putting it to the side of the text).
 * I've now added a border to the two quote boxes; does it look less odd to you now? Personally, I quite like the quotes as they were, but if they looked odd to you, then that's an important element of feedback which I'd want to take into account. Please let me know if it's better now and, if not, I'll change it again. Thanks very much, Ryan. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 14:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since he's a photographer I did a quick look for photos. There are a few on Commons. Sadly, a few look to be copyright violations so I nominated them for deletion. There are two with proper OTRS tags, though: File:Scott Ellaway filming OpusYou in 2016 (Photo by Clive Barda).jpg and File:Sarah Beth Briggs playing the piano Ref no 100929 0069 briggs lradj.jpg. Might be worth including one or both somehow?
 * Thank you so much for identifying those photos! I have now added one in the Method section, and re-adjusted the quote box to occupy the page better. What do you think? Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "notable portraits" - seems like this means the portraits themselves would have received coverage? Or does this mean the collections/books are notable? Or the people? what criteria went into these lists of selected works?
 * The collapsible tables summarize the photographs of notable people that were selected for publication in both books. In turn, the names in the flat lists are of the most notable people and are a subset of names from those tables (and are therefore wikilinked in the flat lists but not further down in the tables). The reason for calling the section "notable portraits" is because all of the people in the books are notable artists. I could certainly rename the section title to "Selected works", because every photo published in the two books was selected by the author from his immense collection. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)  ✅
 * I could be wrong, but I think the typical way to mix a bibliography with footnotes would be to use sfn instead of citing the book in the bibliography and in the references. So for example, removing the Performance! book in the references, and replacing each instance (along with the page number) with e.g. If you'd prefer to keep the citations as they are, it might make sense to rename "Bibliography" to "further reading".
 * That's all for now. More later :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Ryan,
 * Very many thanks for your initial review, which seems to have been more than cursory.
 * I have made a mental note of your most helpful suggestions and will think about each of them carefully. I am going away tomorrow and will be back on Monday. I will wait for you to complete your review this weekend, as you indicated; then will reply to you in greater detail. For now, though, please know that I definitely intend to follow your advice, as well as the pointers you've already provided so helpfully. Thank you so much for your willingness to assist me in getting this right; as you gathered, I am a bit of a perfectionist, so all your input is of immense value to me, and I remain very grateful; thanks once again, Ryan.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. For now, I have replied to a couple of points, in your bulleted list above. Thank you.


 * Thanks. I had a few things I wanted to finish today, and will follow up about this tomorrow. I'll leave a message with responses/feedback on the draft's talk page, in case it's useful for this discussion to stay with the article. :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Ryan,
 * Thank you for your latest message, and for finding the time, whenever convenient. As for copying the above exchanges, I had been thinking along the same lines, and have now done so here. ✅
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wound up having more on my plate today than I thought. Will have to return to it tomorrow :/ &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Ryan,
 * Please don't worry: I remain most thankful, as ever, to have the benefit of your advice in the first place, and am happy to wait until you have the time to complete your review; no rush.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 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) 12:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2016
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 03:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice
You signed up for a state project that has currently been moved to WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge/New England. If you want to continue to contribute, please look into that challenge. Thank You for your help!&mdash; JJ  Be  rs  &#124;  ta  lk  17:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Saturday November 12: Women in Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences (plus Sunday Indigenous People's Justice event)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Archive.is Browser Integration
With respect, while some trimming of Archive.is may have been warranted, your major revision to this section has made it into a jumbled incoherent mess. I'm going to try to find a happy middle ground. John Navas (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My major objections were about the how-to type of content and linking a non-notable piece of software with no independent sourcing. That said, it seemed harmless to include something brief in the context of "basic facts about the subject" (the sort of information that isn't promotional or controversial and can come directly from the subject itself). You're right that I didn't do a very good job of it, though. :) So thanks for working to fix it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thank you. John Navas (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Destruction of ivory
The article Destruction of ivory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Destruction of ivory 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 Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

List of fake news websites
Rhodo, thank you for your helpful feedback about List of fake news websites and Fake news website.

I replied to you over at Talk:List of fake news websites. Let us know what you think over there. Sagecandor (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.


 * Use   to invite others using this template.
 * Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

DYK for Quanta Live
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What convinced you to stay here for such a long time?
Talk to me about your motivations--NetworkOP (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Context for this message please? :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you enjoy most about editing Wikipedia?--NetworkOP (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that part. :P I was asking for more context, though. (e.g. why are you asking me and what is this for). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Saturday December 3: Contemporary Chinese Art Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

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) 12:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake News Website reverted edit
Hi, I removed the mention of Russia from this article and you reverted my change. However I cannot find where this claim originates. You said that it was mentioned in the Business Insider article however clicking on that link takes you to the original source of the claim, Buzzfeed. I cannot find any mention of 'Russia' in the Buzzfeed article. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. I misunderstood your original objection. Regardless, it looks like someone else has remedied the situation. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 16:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 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) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive.is
You've removed all host information. I suggest you at least add back that it's served by Cloudflare. John Navas (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed "It is hosted at Mir Telematiki Ltd which is in Eastern Europe. The archive runs Apache Hadoop and Apache Accumulo software."
 * That source does not verify the statement, as far as I can see, nor the one that existed this morning (before being changed to Mir Telematiki). I didn't look for a replacement because I don't know what the best source for that information would be. You likely know better, so I'd welcome an addition of the correct information with a reliable source.
 * As an aside, what is your opinion of how to improve this article? You seem to be more knowledgeable than I am. My concerns are that it doesn't seem like it's written for a general encyclopedia audience, tends towards the technical, and relies too often on primary sources (sources connected to archive.is, data/databases, etc. as opposed to, say, books and articles in journals/magazines/newspapers... or even decent quality blogs). There are some non-primary, sure, but I'm curious if you have thoughts about a big picture for the article? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 00:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See https://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=archive.is&x=0&y=0 Hostkey is the primary host, distributed by Cloudflare. I don't think it makes sense to duplicate information in Archive site and Web archiving. I think this page should be reserved for information unique to this service. Would you not agree? John Navas (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

In the future, please discuss with me before removing my contributions. Thank you. John Navas (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While I can appreciate the frustration of having edits reverted, that's not how this works. The burden is on those looking to add content to justify its inclusion via reliable sources such that it does not conflict with e.g. NPOV, WP:NOT, etc. With unsourced statements in particular, there's WP:BURDEN. Sites going up/down is a very common thing that people add to articles about websites/services, and there's broad consensus per a basic interpretation of editing policies that it's not something to include except when particularly noteworthy (as determined by coverage in reliable sources). That an editor finds something useful or even important is not itself reason to include it. That seems to be a thread throughout these additions we seem to disagree on. Wikipedia isn't here to have all useful information and doesn't base what's important on what editors say is important; it's here to summarize what other reliable sources have already designated as important. There's an exception for basic facts about a subject, so maybe where it's hosted could be viewed along those lines, but status updates most certainly are not. There are many resources out there that are not encyclopedias for that. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. While I do respect your point of view, I don't like your tone, and I do think the issue of reliability is both relevant and appropriate to the article. In the future, when you disagree and don't care to discuss it with me first directly, then you should open the topic on the article Talk page. Just starting an edit war is the sort of thing that has driven away so many contributors like me. Wikipedia claims to have turned over a new leaf. I'm hoping that's true. John Navas (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my frustration is coming through in the language I'm using. The frustration is not all in response to you, to be clear. As you may imagine, people add things they think are important with no sources all the time. It's not something we can "agree to disagree" about, because it's a basic policy of Wikipedia: the content is based on what reliable sources say are important, not editors. "Starting an edit war" -- please do familiarize yourself with basic editing norms like those linked above and WP:BRD (summary: one editor adds content; another editor disagrees with the content and reverts; it's then a matter for discussion before restoring it again... not time to restore it and demand discussion prior to removal). I'm happy to continue talking with you if you're indeed interested to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia, but welcoming new editors doesn't mean throwing the policies and guidelines out the window in order to be nice. There is value in those policies like the ones we're talking about. It's why Wikipedia doesn't just devolve into the web in general, with anybody adding whatever they think is important. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to add, however, I'm not claiming that the buck stops with me. The buck stops with anyone who has basic editing principles on their side. If you think I'm wrong, you could, for example, start an WP:RFC to get opinions from people who aren't me. Or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet. Or if you're think I'm being a jerk, you could take me to an administrator's noticeboard (I am not an admin, to be clear -- that's just where behavioral issues go). There are options. Repeatedly adding what you think is important is not a good way to go, though. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't presume to lecture me. As I wrote, I don't like your tone. John Navas (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Ok. If you're going to dismiss my attempt to discuss the problem and explain how things work as a "lecture" and don't like my tone, I won't ping you after this. But then likewise do not tell me to discuss if you're unwilling to discuss and disinterested in basic editing policies. If you wish to take "please do not add content without reliable sources independent of the subject justifying its inclusion" as some sort of negative tone, I don't know what to tell you. Know that if you restore content to an article three times, there is a bright line rule called WP:3RR which results in a block (I will not be the one to block, fyi, so don't take that as a threat -- it's just, again, basic editing). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not "discussing". You're lecturing from presumed superiority. I invited you to discuss in the appropriate place, the Article Talk page, but you ignored that, so I've now created such a section. Please use it to explain your rationale (without gratuitous lectures on Wikipedia), and resist the urge to delete my contribution before such discussion. Thank you. John Navas (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello John Navas. The opinions expressed by User:Rhododendrites are widely shared. See WP:NOT for a better explanation of which facts are encyclopedic and which are not. If you do open a WP:Request for comment or take it to a noticeboard, you may discover that others don't agree with you. --EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of engaging in civil substantive discussion on the Talk page, User:Rhododendrites has chosen escalation and accusation. I think that makes my point. But since I see that Wikipedia hasn't really changed for the better, I'll probably not bother with further contributions in any event. --John Navas (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * .. sigh .. Ok. I'm going to close this. I don't think anything positive can come out of it at this point and discussion is ongoing elsewhere. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:38, 3 December 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) 12:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 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 21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

December 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (plus Wikipedia Day on Jan 15!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Season's Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Rhododendrites: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message


 * Thanks. Your effort to foster community with little mass messages like this one is recognized. :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 16:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the holiday season. North America1000 16:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

 * Thanks! Happy days to you! &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:01, 24 December 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) 12:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

 * Thank you! And likewise to you. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thanks. :) Merry days to you, too. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 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) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:70news fake news headline.png
 Thanks for uploading File:70news fake news headline.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

your post at the RfC at VPP
Thank you for your post at WP:VPP. At this time, it is the only reply I have received to my request for comment, and the RfC has been closed. The answer to your first question is still visible in the rationale at WP:VPP, i.e., "Associated state-level pageants are notable: All of these entrants are winners of notable state-level pageants, see Category:Miss USA state pageants and Category:Miss America state pageants." As for your second question, I have been trained for both personal and business communication to limit the use of questions, nor is there any requirement for an RfC to be presented as a question, nor do I see that a question improves the RfC. Reading your response as meaning that you "don't support" the statement as a "ground for action" can you further explain your viewpoint? What is it that you don't support? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow up. My intention with my second question wasn't to give you a hard time for no reason. Indeed, a question is not required. Sometimes it's helpful, though, for clarity's sake. I don't think it was clear what you were asking for comment on. Or, more in line with how I read it, it seemed like you went way out of your way to omit the conclusion, instead asking for comment on less controversial statements from which a consensus claim could be extracted later -- so I opposed because I wasn't sure what my support would be used for. To be clear, I don't think you were trying to pull something sneaky; it's just a style of presentation that I would have a hard time supporting. There's too much room for messiness when the point of the RfC isn't explicit, is all. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 01:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A comment of yours at VPP was, "The second is just quoting common practice.", but I don't assume that ATD will survive this RfC. I want to know, because I don't like supporting WP:Deletion policy if it lacks community support.  If we can agree that our readers want reliably sourced information, as available, about these specific pageant entrants, and that merger of non-notable pageant entrants to suitable targets is accepted policy; what more do you want to know about what this means?  Is this not then a normal content issue? I've created a draft for a new RfC at my sandbox, .  Your comments would be appreciated.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I may not have properly articulated my concern. It may be that, per part one of the hypothesis, contestants in these larger pageants have all won state-level pageants which were also notable (whether readers want it is a fine point to make, but rarely justification in itself). It may also be that, as a matter of general principle, non-notable subjects can be merged into suitable targets. The problem is that the crucial intersection is omitted. We have some context and something that is allowed according to existing rules. That something is allowed, however, doesn't mean it applies to all cases, of course. Non-notable pageant winners can be merged into a suitable target... if there's consensus to do so. :) So the real ask isn't whether such a thing could possibly occur but whether it should happen that non-notable pageant winners of notable pageants be merged [rather than deleted?]. I'm starting work at the moment, so haven't looked at the draft RfC, but will likely do so later. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You've used the word "deleted" as if it is something apart from WP:Deletion policy. The hypothesis specifically references two sections from WP:Deletion policy.  If those two sections don't have community support, I hope you'd agree that it is not acceptable that the policy says that it is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Another point that occurs to me in response to your post is that there are no examples of a merged bio in the RfC.  The only one that comes quickly to mind is Thomas Mantell.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved the draft RfC to User:Unscintillating/Draft RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants, which provides a talk page for this issue if you want. Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The J's with Jamie
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

J's with Jamie
I was interested to see that the group released a record Hey, Look us Over!, and together with its 1963 date and the fact that they did political ads sometimes, I'm now really curious. Do we know if they ever did work with the Chicago firm of Bob Long Associates? See ; Indiana legislator Birch Bayh reached the U.S. Senate in 1963 with a Long-created campaign advertisement featuring a modified version of "Hey, Look Me Over". Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have good answers for you. I came across them when I was looking at one of the Grammy Award lists and noticed a redlinked award winner. Curious, I looked into them and found their story interesting enough to start the article. Online sources are scarce, though. I did a pretty extensive search of what's freely available on the web (i.e. not behind paywalls or tucked away in a library), and what's in the article is about all I came up with. Someone on the WFMU blog took enough interest to reach out to ask questions directly, but still didn't seem to get a great deal of backstory/information (or at least didn't publish it). Very strange. Actually, not that strange. They may have had a good reputation in the industry at the time and their output may have been ubiquitous in American culture, but like ghostwriters and anyone else who produces content for someone else (i.e. advertising firms, companies' marketing departments), they wouldn't get the kind of recognition one would expect for that level of visibility... &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 01:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was guessing that you'd have included this information if you had it, but I figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks for the detailed explanation!  Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, what are the numbers following the names of the albums, e.g. "CS-8805" following Hey, Look us Over! Am I correct in guessing it to be some sort of identification number (it appears other places, e.g. )? Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Catalog numbers. Labels give a [more or less] unique one to each release. Not necessarily something I'd think to include in most Wikipedia articles, but they can come in handy when, say, there are are multiple ways an album's title has been written, multiple releases, international variations, different album art, weird sales figures, etc. In this case I can't remember precisely what I got from it but it was useful for searching/finding information on the more obscure releases. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I was guessing, but someone tagged them as uncited, so I wanted to be sure before removing the facttag and saying "that is the citation". Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)