User talk:Rhododendrites/2017e

Grams phish
Hi Rhododentrites, thanks for the barnstar. :D

I wanted to ask your opinion on Grams (search) article. I just added a sentence about a newsworthy phish scam. Should we include the correct onion address? I listed reasons+references on the talk page. I just want to be totally sure about it and you seem to have longer experience with the Tor articles. --Nanite (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * looks fine to me (it seems within the bounds of current practice to include given the sources available). The big issue with that page was the repeated addition of sketchy clearnet urls -- if there's one that has the backing of decent sources, I don't see that there would be any more problem adding it to this one than any other article?
 * BTW I saw that article about the phishing site. Ran a linksearch to find that it was linked from one article (Agora), added by a single edit account more than 2 years ago :/ &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, it looks like the site didn't start as a scam, but got taken over: compare this archive from 2 years ago to what you see on the page now. --Nanite (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

September 27: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
 * P.S. On the weekend before the annual meeting, you can join: Action=History @ Ace Hotel (Sunday, September 24, 2017)

This Month in GLAM: August 2017
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 08:14, 13 September 2017 (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) 00:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input
Thanks for your input into the 'task force' discussion; you're right-on, and I think we're seeing the same things. The utter GAME-craftiness of some is just amazing, sometimes, and I had one 'low numbers' case that took ten years to overcome. I'll give you an answer in the RfC when I have more time, but in the meantime, you can look at the case I have in mind if you're interested : if I hadn't done some sleuthing and caught them red-handed, it would still be ongoing, no doubt. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 20:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Rhododendrites, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! And I've definitely started using edit summaries, feel free to call me out if you see me forget. ansh 666 22:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2017 (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) 23:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Have a thought at your split-second reverts
After careful scrutiny of rubbish and poorly sourced content added on B. Dolan, I reverted it and marked the edit minor in compliance with the use of minor edits by Sysops and Rollbackers: (Minor edits#Exceptions). In a jiffy, without any study of the content I removed you reverted me and restored the rubbish. Then you left a chilly accusation that I don't leave ES, which is false; I did marked it minor, and definition of minor edit is known to every autoconfirmed user at least. You also claimed I didn't leave YOU a talk page message, that I made a revert at certain page!! I don't know how to comment on this. Later, you understand your mistake. Then you silently reverted back to my revision. Hence you made a useless revert and re-revert which wouldn't have happened if you studied the text for 30 seconds. You kept mute because you can't eat the humble pie and apologize for wrongly reverting me. Anyway I don't need that, for there is more important that that. What is important, is for you to review how you use revert and rollback privileges, because you are reverting people blindly without given recourse to due process of examining what was removed or contacting the revertee. I said this because this is not the first time you hurriedly reverted editor without knowing what you're reverting; In this exchange: User talk:Rhododendrites, you equally hurriedly reverted editor who removed unsourced content, later you apologized claiming you misunderstood his revert, after someone reverted your re-introduction of  unsourced content. I don't used to engage for long chats here (because that is not what I am here for) but your penchant for split-second reverts without reading and temerity of realizing you grave mistake and keeping mute is particularly worth noting –Ammarpad (talk) 08:32, 8 October 20
 * The point of my initial revert wasn't so much about the content. I looked to see it wasn't vandalism, blatant spam, etc., saw a couple not-the-worst sources in the wikitext, and felt it was a problematic revert. Looking a bit closer, though I think some of it could be salvaged, the sources are problematic enough that reverting isn't unreasonable. So, to be clear, you were right that it should probably be removed. To anyone with experience on Wikipedia, that will become apparent, so yes, you were right about that, and I should've looked closer before my initial revert. Complication mea culpa.
 * Instead, I should've left the edit alone and left a message on your talk page to raise the issues I mentioned in the edit summary. You reverted someone who is not an experienced editor, but a new user, who added 2,722 bytes of easy-to-AGF content. You used the edit summary "Reverted edits by JoanOfArcadia (talk) to last version by Deoli1" (i.e. a semi-automated description of your action with no information by way of explanation/reasoning/intention/motivation). Even if it's vandalism, it's helpful to others to say even something as short as "rvv" or to otherwise add a word or two more than "reverted". If it's only a vague description of actions, it's typically taken as equivalent to an empty edit summary because it provides no information about intentions/reasons.
 * When I said in my edit summary "revert with no meaningful edit summary, no reasoning, no user talk page message, and no article talk page message" I was not talking about my talk page (?), but the user whom you reverted. (I was complicit in this too last night, as it looks like I forgot to save before going to bed).
 * If you don't use an edit summary that gives an actual reason, if you don't leave a talk page message, if you don't leave a user talk message, etc. then how is the new user going to have any idea why the content was removed or, more importantly, what was wrong with it or how to do better next time? That's the whole point.
 * So TL;DR I'll accept the criticism of my hasty revert, and add a request to use more descriptive edit summaries when not leaving a talk page message. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2017
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 03:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sunday October 15: Wikipedia @ Open House New York / Weekend Photo Competition
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

October 18: 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.)

AWB adding orpan tag in error
Thank you for noting and correcting the mistake in my edit of Climate Hustle. The orphan tag was indeed incorrect. Any idea why AWB is placing orphan tag in error? I noticed it was seeming to come up quite frequently on my most recent use. Thank you for your contributions. MrBill3 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm afraid I don't know why it would place that tag. Perhaps it considers an article to be an orphan if it has two or fewer incoming links? Not sure. IMO the orphan tag is best skipped unless accompanied by other tags/edits to an article, since it's usually a really easy issue to fix rather than tag. It's been a while since I've done a lot of AWB use, but I do remember the orphan tag being occasionally a sensitive issue with some people. FWIW. That doesn't actually have anything to do with the error. :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I think restarting AWB cleared up the problem. I appreciate your opinion and to some extent agree that it would be better to do a little work and link the article. I do bits and pieces as well as in depth editing so in some cases I think the tag can call others to the task. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2017 (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) 11:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 24, August-September 2017

 Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
 * Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
 * Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
 * Bytes in brief

The Signpost: 23 October 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 10 years ago...

 * Happy Anniversary R. Cheers to the next ten as well!! Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And what an excellent first edit it was. :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 05:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish I could remember what I edited as an IP. I'm fairly sure there are some more test edits/breaching experiments sorts of nonsense when a professor introduced me to editing Wikipedia in class a yearish before registering... meh. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 05:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

Hello Rhododendrites: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  North America1000 03:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

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) 11:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on Comparison of wiki hosting services
It’s fine, but, I feel like if you remove that one than you should remove some of the others because Miraheze has a better Alexa ranking than some of the ones listed. It s a very popular wiki host. Thanks. MacFan4000 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Just to be clear, "notable" on Wikipedia is wikijargon. See WP:N. It's about being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. For the purpose of most lists, since Wikipedia is not a web directory, etc., it usually means that an entry should have its own stand-alone article citing sufficient sources to show notability. Alexa rating alone doesn't count for much in terms of notability -- it's sort of how we defer judgment of what's important to other publications rather than make the determination ourselves. If there's a good amount of coverage, you may want to consider starting an article or a draft (e.g. Draft:Miraheze). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't even realize Draft:Miraheze already existed. Looks like it ran into some trouble with notability. If you know of more publications about it, you may want to contribute them there. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion of Miraheze
I seen you recently deleted the Miraheze entry on the Comparison of wiki hosting services page. This deletion, I believe was totally unneeded and another example of the rancid deletionist policy which has infected Wikipedia seriously. Miraheze is notable. It has a better Alexa rank than 6 of the listed sites and there is full citations provided. I have reverted your edits. CnocBride (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on your talk page - create the article first before adding it to that page. See Draft:Miraheze. On another note, you have a conflict of interest from your volunteering with Miraheze -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see two sections up on this page someone else made nearly the same comment. Notability and Alexa rank are not related to each other (except that, I suppose, something with a particularly high Alexa rank is likely to be notable, but the fact doesn't make it notable). I have no idea if it's notable; what matters is that notability be demonstrated before being added to the list (typically by citing a bunch of good sources in an article about the subject). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)