User talk:Rhododendrites/2018d

External Link Removal
Your Message- Hello, I'm Rhododendrites. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Tor (anonymity network) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply- Sir I had provided a relevant link, I took that material from the provided source. Please reconsider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmohan23 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia. There is a page which outlines what's considered a reliable source on Wikipedia here: WP:RS. It looks like that's a blog with only a couple posts, which falls short of that guideline in a couple different ways. Most obviously it does not have a demonstrable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That doesn't mean it's not accurate or good -- just that that's not enough. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: June 2018
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 11:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thursday July 12: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ Jefferson Market Library
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

thanks!
Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for this. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Meetups #87, #88, #89, #90
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

File:Meas Samon.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sunday July 29: Annual Wiki-Picnic @ Prospect Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

File:Liev Tuk.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Licem u lice.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new list
I saw you're a member of WP:WPLISTS, and I was wondering if you had any time or interest in helping me create a list of Honeywell products and services. In the interest of transparency, I have a paid COI, but it was recommended to me by another user that a list article would be a better space for this content than the Honeywell article itself. I created a draft from the content I initially proposed for the article here. Do you have and advice or suggestions on how I could further improve it?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Can't say I know much (anything) about Honeywell, aside from it being a very large company, but you're right that I do look at a lot of lists. One type of list that I don't come across often -- but which is a type we have in some cases -- is the list of products by a given company. There are different kinds of list categories. When it's a list of notable products (specifically, products that each have their own stand-alone Wikipedia article), then it makes sense (as long as there's more than a handful of them) to justify a navigational aid. Another category of list are those that act as an extension of a parent article. If a list of products would make sense in the company article (and I would argue that it does not make sense in most company articles), but would be too long there, it can be spun out to a separate list page. Most of the time, however, a list article is notable topic in its own right. So most of the time, I think a list of all or most products is going to be a problem for WP:NOT (the idea that Wikipedia is not a product catalog or an extension of a company website) except when those products are highly notable, historically significant, or culturally important in some unusual way. Companies like Xerox, Ford, IBM, or Kodak come to mind because their historical product line is closely tied to the histories of different media/technology, for example (and in Ford's case, basically every product they've made is independently notable). If everything that isn't an article about a Honeywell product (not a product category) is removed, it might make for a fine navigational aid, if the editors at the Honeywell article think it would make sense to consider a "spin-out" from that article, then that would be fine, too. If it's a notable list in its own right, I'd want to see reliable third party coverage that treats Honeywell products as a group. Including product categories in that case doesn't make sense to me, because you're not talking about specific products anymore, but product categories that really only belong on the company page (or on this page if treated as a spin-out).
 * I feel like I may be overcomplicating things and don't know if this is helpful at all. :) I brought up this question elsewhere and will ping those editors here in case they have better advice. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not overcomplicating things at all! On the contrary, I really appreciate such a thorough response. Part of what I've found challenging about creating this list is that Honeywell makes hundreds, if not thousands of different products across its different business groups. I can see that using notability would be a great tool to help determine what's worthy of inclusion. I think it took me a little while to realize that it should be the guiding principle, as I was initially spurred on by the 3 year old flag for expansion, and an potential misinterpretation of another editor's request for references as meaning sources to demonstrate that Honeywell does in fact sell those products. I think I've got a lot to work with here, so I'll get to it. Would you mind if I reach back out to you to review a more refined version?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll be here. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Based on some feedback I got from another editor, I pared down the proposed list article to some introductory prose alongside a list based on the existing section and supplemented with links to other existing articles. The thought is that by migrating all of the content to the separate list article it will reduce bloat on the existing Honeywell article, as well as consolidate all of the information in one place, helping to avoid discrepancies and redundancies when one article gets updated but not the other. Do you have any additional feedback on this iteration, or do you think this is ready to be published? Thanks again for all the help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming
that the redirect-target at your !vote at Articles for deletion/Possession of Power was an error and that it conformed to the one mentioned at my closure:) &#x222F; WBG converse 10:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. This made me curious what sort of error would be created if a page redirected to itself. After testing it, I can say with relief that it does not create an infinite loop that consumes and deletes all of Wikipedia. So there's that. Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Baksey Cham Krong / Pou Vannary
Sorry for screwing up the references at Baksey Cham Krong. Something went wrong with the "/ref" function when I re-used some of the existing sources, so I sorta fixed it by repeating the necessary info. I tried to fix it with the exact same method you used, but to no avail for some reason. Oh well. (In happier news, I will have an article up for Pou Vannary pretty soon.) ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem. Thanks for adding to those articles. Out of curiosity, do you use the Visual Editor or source editor? I almost always use the latter, and use a reference style that minimizes the amount of space references take up in the article body (i.e. putting all of them in the references section, with names). I find it challenging to edit articles that break up paragraph prose with a bunch of references that take up as much or more space as the text itself. Just a matter of preference though. That doesn't speak to why the NYTimes ref didn't work, but because you cited it in the same way (copy/pasting maybe), it didn't create an error that a duplicate ref name typically would. :)
 * FWIW the Baksey Cham Krong pic is another example of an image that probably does not meet WP:NFCC, as they are still alive and reunited as recently as a couple years ago (rule of thumb is that there's rarely a sufficient reason to use a non-free image of a person that's still alive). Copyright rules for media from that era are kind of confusing, but when I checked a couple years ago it was the case that copyright could be claimed if authorship could be proven (something we assume, typically). Do with that what you will. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I use the source editor and the drop-down templates for "cite web", "cite book", etc. That works very well for short articles in which I am adding a few new references, but it indeed gets confusing when re-using refs that were already there. Meanwhile, you are probably correct about the photo, but I've assumed (for better or worse) that the BCK photo falls under the Fair Use rules for album covers and images within album packages (DTIF soundtrack in this case). Per Fair Use there is no problem using a record cover since it is an official retail item, but I am admittedly stretching it in order to make our articles more attractive for the reader. As you've said, we'll see if anyone objects. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Your Thoughts...
We have discussed the possibility of expanding THIS... I am seriously considering the creation of a full genre article comparable to stuff like Swedish death metal or West Coast hip hop etc. It would essentially be the narrative of the Don't Think I've Forgotten film in expanded form with robust links and independent sources. I am confident that text and sources for such an article will come together rather easily from our existing artist articles plus Cambodian Rocks and related items on Cambodian history and the war. The problem is I cannot think of a GOOD TITLE! Cambodian rock might be pretty good but the era of interest will be 1959-1975 and current Cambodian music will be excluded. Cambodian psychedelic rock might also be good because it's a label that is often used by modern fans like Dengue Fever (band) but it implies that psychedelic was the only genre practiced in that scene. Something like 1960-70s rock in Cambodia might be too long and unwieldy for WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Any thoughts? ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've found myself thinking about this a few times now. The best I've come up with so far is "Music of/in/during pre-Khmer Rouge Cambodia", with honorable mentions for "Music of Sihanouk Era Cambodia and the Khmer Republic", "Music of Cambodia, 1960-1975", "Mid-20th century music in Cambodia" and the like. It seems hard to draw a clear line -- musically or politically. I haven't read anything that does much to contrast music under Sihanouk vs. the Khmer Republic. That is, I've read plenty about how Sihanouk fostered music/culture, but not much about what changed between 1970-75. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who wrote most of History of Cambodia, and , who has provided some useful insight about related topics in the past. @Wikirictor, since I don't know if you know the context here, we've been working on 1960s-70s Cambodian pop/rock music articles like Sinn Sisamouth, Yol Aularong, Pen Ran, Baksey Cham Krong, Meas Samon, Ros Serey Sothea, etc. (and my gateway to the music, Cambodian Rocks). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the near future I'm ready to write a first draft of such an article on the scene/genre, but I'll take any ideas on what to call the dang thing. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. As I've noted before, I don't have much time to dedicate to WP these days, so I won't say much. However, I will say that both by its title and in its content, such an article should make it clear that this was (to use Doomsdayer's terms) one specific scene in Cambodian popular music of the era. The "rock" music has been brought to the attention of the Western world in recent times and that may make it seem like it was something more than it really was. But rock music wasn't the only kind of pop music in Cambodia during that era, nor was it likely even the most popular. Among Khmer, Sisamouth and SereiSothea for example, are more well-known for slow ballads like this and this or their myriad rom vong and rom kbach songs. These types of songs were (and are) way more popular among all Cambodian demographic groups than any of the psychedelic or "garage band" type music, which although popular among college and international students at the time for its "western" sound, was/is viewed as not much more than a novelty by most Cambodians. On top of that, in addition to pop music, there were other genres including court music, traditional and folk music that also prospered during this era. And...I've rambled on more than I intended. Suffice to say that the title and the article should put the CambodiaRocks-type music in the proper Cambodian context (i.e. not at all representative of all Cambodian popular music of the time) in addition to noting its new-found, and rather incongruous, popularity among westerners.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful reminder, . Documentaries like Don't Think I've Forgotten and the selection of music that's been imported to the US have definitely shaped my understanding such that I may be of the impression that it was more popular than it was, but I've listened to enough e.g. Sinn Sisamouth and Ros Serey Sothea that I know it's not all western-influenced rock/pop/garage/psych. I don't know specifically what Doomsdayer's article plan is, but I would assume incorporate material about all sorts of pop music if doing an article on that era. Perhaps that just gets too much overlap with the existing article, and perhaps we would run into trouble with two people who don't read Khmer searching for sources on the elements of Khmer music that haven't become popular in the west (I say popular, but it's even more of a niche here :) ). So maybe the most succinct title/scope (which doesn't read as very succinct, but oh well) might be "Rock music of pre-Khmer Rouge Cambodia". &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * William's thoughts indicate why Music of Cambodia should remain the primary article in this area. Unfortunately that article has been in need of expansion for years, and international WP users do not have the expertise, and anyone who does have the expertise is probably not able to use international WP. In the history of the Sinn Sisamouth talk page you can see people popping up occasionally who really are Cambodian (as in an old dispute over how to spell his name), but otherwise we have a bunch of articles written by Americans with material that Americans know about. .......................... It's surely not perfect but the scene/genre has gained international notice that may very well transcend Cambodia itself. Or in other words, Klezmer is enjoyed and talked about worldwide by people who know little about its European Jewish originators and may not have to. "1960s-70s Cambodian Rock" (or whatever title) could survive WP's notability requirements thanks to its international recognition. Any article here must avoid implying that it represents ALL Cambodian popular music, which hopefully can be done with sensitive writing. I envision a tight genre-specific article; consider the article for Jazz fusion which does not imply that it's the only kind of jazz. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2018
<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 05:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Bluelink vs redlink
I was thinking maybe the rally could also be notable enough for an article or section somewhere, but I'm not really familiar with the notability requirements for events. (will have to read them again sometime) But that's why I used the redlink. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. It may be independently notable. I can't say I've been up on it. Probably the most sensible place to start with it is Timeline of protests against Donald Trump. There's also Reactions to Executive Order 13769, although I suppose that's outdated given the subsequent executive order. It looks like did a lot of the work on that page, so pinging him to see if he has a suggestion about the "No Muslim Ban Ever" protest.
 * The reason I swapped the redlink out for a bluelink at the Khizr and Ghazala Khan article is because I suspect it will make the most sense to incorporate that into another article rather than create a stand-alone article, and because the article is currently at WP:GAN. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I wasn't even aware of the GAN nomination. The link can be changed if the protest gets an article or section somewhere. Antony-22: media can be found in c:Category:No Muslim Ban Ever (April 2018 protest). Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENTCRIT is the relevant guideline. It looks like in order to have its own article, it should have coverage in reliable sources of a national or international scope, that lasts beyond a single news cycle.  So to have a solid case for a standalone article, you'd have to show that reliable sources are still talking about it months later, which is a high bar to clear.  I'd agree that Timeline of protests against Donald Trump is a good place to add a sentence or two.  There isn't currently an article or section for reactions to Presidential Proclamation 9645, the current version of the travel ban, but there probably should be.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the update!
 * Half-related rant: the notability guidelines sometimes just make no sense to me. I think events like that are considerably more notable Trap Adventure 2, a game that everybody would have forgotten about in half a week. But that qualifies for an article while protests don't. You know what, instead of putting up posters everywhere around the protest that give Commons tons of work in terms of cropping and blurring, they should have made a video game! They could have done it in a couple of hours. No matter how crappy, it would have easily gotten enough coverage to warrant an article! I think I might know who to talk to. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha. Yeah, it can be frustrating what receives a lot of coverage. Video games, like tv shows, movies, anything to do with sports, etc. get a lot of popular press attention -- especially something that sort of goes viral like Trap Adventure 2 (I say that not because I had heard of it, but based on what I see in terms of coverage). Much of the coverage of video games becomes usable, too, because it's typically relatively in-depth coverage about that subject. And it's hard to frame the subject as part of something else (multiple protests about similar topics lend themselves to coverage together, but what would Trap Adventure 2 be part of?). Reminds me of all of the discussions about Pokemon on Wikipedia years ago (see e.g. Pokémon test). A doctor working on cutting edge cancer treatments? Standard Congressional procedures? Editor-in-chief of a major South American magazine? Maybe not, but we've got Squirtle and Bulbasaur covered! It's a common frustration that notability corresponds more to where press coverage is strongest than to what is most important. Anyway... you may be onto something about protest organizers making a video game. There was a big trend of serious games some years back (and, to some extent, ongoing) for that sort of thing, for marketing, etc. A few even became notable. Look at all of these "advergames" for example.
 * As an aside, since it came up here, I've withdrawn the Khan article from GAN consideration. There are just too many academic sources that have popped up since I last heavily worked on the article, and I don't have time to really dive into them now. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Another Sealioning RfC
Talk:Sealioning

(Notifying everyone who participated in the previous RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Continuing work on List of Honeywell products and services
Hi! I just wanted to repost this for visibility in case it got lost in the shuffle. Based on some feedback I got from another editor, I pared down the proposed list article to some introductory prose alongside a list based on the existing section and supplemented with links to other existing articles. The thought is that by migrating all of the content to the separate list article it will reduce bloat on the existing Honeywell article, as well as consolidate all of the information in one place, helping to avoid discrepancies and redundancies when one article gets updated but not the other. Do you have any additional feedback on this iteration, or do you think this is ready to be published? Thanks again for all the help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't think I have much else to say about the article. As it stands, IMO its size probably puts it on the edge of what people would consider appropriate for a stand-alone article (as opposed to keeping it with the main Honeywell article). And then if it does have a separate article it's unclear what should happen with that section of the main article. My inclination would be to say it should link to the list and then have a prose summary rather than another list. The only other thing I'd say would be to tweak the wording. "Offers" and "offerings" sounds promotional. What does it manufacture/make/produce? The acronyms also aren't self-explanatory and the article should stand on its own, so best to spell out acronyms on first usage. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I revised this draft further per your suggestions, which I thought were all sound. I've incorporated everything from the existing section of the main article, and the intent is to replace that content with a main article link to this newly-created standalone list article. Does that help clarify things?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29
<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 29, June – July 2018 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * New partners
 * Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
 * Wikimania
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Bloodfox
Which is what he wants, to exhaust users way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think there's an issue with my edits, please have the courage to simply take your concerns to my talk page. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was responding to this users comments, not you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which I saw, and to which I responded. Again, if you have criticism regarding my edits, including conspiratorial ideas about wanting to "exhaust users away", please take them directly to me. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we please not discus him, me, you or that bloke in the loud shirt on article talk pages?Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?
Seriously? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if "seriously" is about the comment, the undo, or the edit summary while undoing (or all three, or, most likely, the first and third). I made a kneejerk undo when I saved and then saw Matthew's name at the top, then reworded my comment and re!voted a little more on point. But yes, seriously. I don't think I've kept it a secret that I've found your approach to the list of cryptids page to be sub-ideal. In that very merge thread you canvassed other users who you knew would agree with you (please don't extend the wikilawyering to this page) and you're continuing to argue that sources that say something is a cryptid must come from outside of cryptozoology when we were both in the threads that found no consensus for specifically that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, a little WP:AGF would have both saved you from your 'I-hate-that-guy-so-I'm-gonna-vote-against-him-oops-he-didn't-propose-this' approach above, which certainly doesn't improve articles, and false accusations of canvasing. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your pings at the merger request were perhaps the most transparent instance of canvassing I've seen from someone who isn't a new user in quite some time, and I'm not going to argue with you as though you don't know that.
 * Regardless, no, I don't hate you. I don't even really have a problem with you in general. To the contrary, I think you do a lot of good work here. What I do think is that you're on an anti-cryptozoology-on-Wikipedia mission and have adopted a WP:RGW/battleground approach to fight the stuff that shows up in certain articles. It is perhaps the also-frustrating "other side" that wants to include every bit of cryptozoology silliness from any source and/or OR that has made you feel that it is necessary to take such an approach, and that's somewhat understandable -- it's exhausting dealing with people who push a fringe POV and don't think it's a fringe POV (although my experience is more with things like creationism, climate change denial, political conspiracy theories, and other more "mainstream" fare).
 * But again, I feel like I've said most of this before, don't expect to change your mind, and don't have designs on escalation, so I'll just leave it there. I will still probably remove the pages from my watchlist because yes, it is exhausting. You're not the only one to blame, though. It's tiring to argue against one side without supporting the other side (i.e. I'm not a fan of cryptozoology and don't resent it, which I think makes for a useful opinion on talk pages, but makes it hard to persist with those who are fans and who do resent it). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know I fell I could have posted this (though I am a fan of cryptozooology, but I mean FAN).Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For the second time, enough with the false accusations of canvasing. Before pinging other users who regularly work on these topics, I reviewed WP:CANVAS. I suggest you do the same. Now either take your accusations to the appropriate channels, or this is little more than a personal attack.


 * Second, all that sounds dandy until one squares your comments with your edit record in these corners. Like the we-don't-need-no-references approach of Slatersteven, my experience has been that you relentlessly edit in favor of Wikipedia's cryptozoology bloc, echoing their talking points whenever they invoke you, complaining about cryptozoology sources receiving scrutiny, and eventually agreeing with whatever pretzel argument that comes out of those corners to avoid meeting WP:FRINGE.


 * Petty swipes and personal attacks disguised as votes like this only further cement my impression. Moving forward, find reliable sources that meet WP:FRIND or expect further commentary on their absence. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * sigh... Well as fun as this us vs. them, well-poisoning, "put up or shut up" business is, I don't have anything else to add. As I said, I don't have designs on escalation at this time. A single example of canvassing doesn't go anywhere, as we all know. Even if I were convinced that escalation were needed, which I'm not, I don't have the time or inclination to start compiling a heap of diffs. So I will just request to leave it there. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

August 29: 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.)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018
<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) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)