User talk:Sagecandor/Archive 1

Friendly advice on: Removing unreferenced content
Your recent edit to the aricle for Michael J. Doherty removed material with the edit summary "removed personal life info which somehow included family info and info on children and wife that had zero sources of any kind on a page about a living person". Similar material was removed from other articles. Per WP:BLP and the heading placed on all such articles, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." None of the material you removed was "contentious" and all could have been readily sourced by you, without removal. WP:BLP further states that "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." Similarly, WP:PRESERVE mandates that one should "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."Please try to build Wikipedia by improving content and sourcing, rather than by removing content. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It included personal life family info on children and spouses with no sources, that is unacceptable. Sagecandor (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the references that no one else had bothered to add before when they added unreferenced material to those pages. Sagecandor (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For your kind words at the Teahouse.

 — Gestrid  ( talk ) 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC) 
 * Thank you,, that's a cute kitten ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

 * Thank you,, for the Teahouse invitation ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news sites
Yeah, it's that editor's normal "Clinton is Evil" schtick. She -- I believe that's the correct gender, but I can't recall why I think so -- was topic-banned from Jill Stein for the obvious campaigning, so switched to trying to achieve the same results from the opposite direction, notably on Clinton Foundation. --Calton | Talk 09:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just leaving this here as a reminder, editors are expected to remain WP:CIVIL, even and especially when dealing with controversial topics and frustrating editors. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed,, and also agree with comments by  and  , thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Whitelash


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Whitelash requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. red dogsix (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the tag you placed. It says: "Disambiguation pages and redirects are not eligible for this criterion." Sagecandor (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Response from tagger . Sagecandor (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you for patrolling/editing Pizzagate. It looks like r/The_Donald and R/Conspiracy has bled out into Wiki. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  Talk   16:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for your contributions. I just want to mention that you don't have to thank me for every edit you agree with. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay no problem, and thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw it, but this article has a lot of useful content, including this tidbit that might help with the scope issue: "Narrowly defined, “fake news” means a made-up story with an intention to deceive, often geared toward getting clicks. But the issue has become a political battering ram, with the left accusing the right of trafficking in disinformation, and the right accusing the left of tarring conservatives as a way to try to censor websites. In the process, the definition of fake news has blurred." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Plastering a user's block all over Wikipedia might not be considered good form. Their pre-block comments hold just as much weight after the block. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I only put it in three locations where the user started a thread where they were likely to no longer respond in the thread. Sagecandor (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it's ok then, though I personally wouldn't do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare with  and you start to see it may not be an isolated event, unfortunately. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry, didn't mean to delete your comments. I tried to self-revert but you beat me to it. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

just a suggestion
I wouldn't keep deleting their comments. The absurdity speaks for itself and you may end up in an unnecessary edit war. APK whisper in my ear  02:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll heed your advice, thank you. But where are they all coming from? And what can be done about it? Sagecandor (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These kind of topics attract a lot of readers/editors that don't normally bother commenting. Unless it's a BLP violation or obvious trolling, I'd suggest leaving the comment until others chime in and decide it needs to be shut down. But that's just me. :-) APK whisper in my ear  03:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay that sounds like a good plan. Sagecandor (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The wrong way to close a discussion, or do anything on WP (as we just saw) is to do it unilaterally. The best way to do anything on WP is with community input and consensus. Timothy Joseph Wood  03:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually, agreed. Also agree with this edit and this one  by . Sagecandor (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And another one by . Sagecandor (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicating material in DNC cyber attacks → DNC emails/Podesta emails
Keep in mind that the DNC emails and Podesta emails pages try to focus on the leaks themselves. Repeating paragraphs and sections of information from DNC cyber attacks is WP:UNDUE. FallingGravity 18:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I was just "thanked" by for the additions. I think the info is directly relevant but definitely the analysis of who was responsible, and the fact they hacked both the RNC and the DNC and only released info on the DNC is definitely relevant. Sagecandor (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of these articles already included sections on who was thought responsible. Remember, statements by U.S. intelligence are still a WP:POV, much the same as statements by Russian intelligence. FallingGravity 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but now they have much much better more well-sourced sections. Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you that there will be some initial overlap. I created the umbrella article since – as of this week – the topic is much broader than the individual "incidents". I expect we will clean up each article to make sure the relevant information can be found in the most appropriate one.--DarTar (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating that article, that is excellent. I agree with you about clean-up, but also hope the structure and sections will remain, if perhaps more concise. Sagecandor (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard notification
You go after all my edits just to make edit wars and harass me, its clearly you dont want to debate by opening a Talk sections, you engage in edit wars on subject you arent even interested in the first place. And then you constantly try to smear my image by telling others that my behavior is that of a Kremlin mouth piece, probably for me being half Russian. But meanwhile its you who edits the entire day from 0:00 to 8:00 and then from 15:00 to 0:00 and so on. Its highly unlikely someone has that much freetime, and it should be considered and pointed out as you accuse (or suggest by the way you post) that anyone else who disagrees with you is by being paid by the Kremlin. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossswords (talk • contribs)
 * 1) -This and the other day when you mass flagged my pictures on Wikimedia is clear harassment. You were warned by @Ankry
 * 2) -More proof how other users feel harassed. As can be seen in the conversation between @LavaBaron @SashiRolls --Crossswords (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. Sagecandor (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Results closed followed by closed. Sometimes it seems it's tough to WP:Assume good faith. Trying. Sagecandor (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Badgering links:, and admin comment: . Sagecandor (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edits at Talk:Russian intervention in the 2016 United States presidential election
Hey, I saw that you reverted 70.214.78.91's edits at Talk:Russian intervention in the 2016 United States presidential election, and that you warned them for their behavior. I'm a bit concerned with how they've been acting. How best do you think this should be handled? --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, saw your reply on my page. Will do. He replied on his own talk page (and removed your warning). I'll continue to assume good faith; he may just be passionate and not be expressing it in the best way. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User blocked. Sagecandor (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 22:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page problems
Sagecandor (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Violations of WP:TALKO by editing another user's comments in a section, in the last edit removing all replies. and  and . This makes it impossible to have a constructive conversation.
 * Uses an entire section header on a talk page to refer to a quote "mean editor" . This is another violation of site policy.
 * Violates WP:No personal attacks, again, with edit summary "stupid".

hi
Sagecandor, saw you when I was working on fake news articles, and then saw you again today at NPOVN when I was commenting on the cross-article RfC, so I came to drop you a note about some of the things BlueSalix said... pinging them with some trepidition, at the risk of incurring their wrath, but better that way methinks so as not to be talking about them behind their virtual back, as it were, and not in any way as an attempt to re-start any interaction.

BlueSalix *is* well-meaning, and although they responded pretty roughly to your posting on their talkpage, it *is* their own user-talkpage, and it *was* definitely the case that what you posted had nothing to do with improving any specific article in any specific way. Some wikipedians don't like that. It was an "olive branch" in the form of an offer to talk politics. Some wikipedians REALLY do not like that. Now, as you probably have seen, there ARE wikipedians who talk politics, on their own user-talkpages. It is considered bad form on article-talkpages, however (and verboten in mainspace), so there are quite a few wikipedians such as BlueSalix and myself that believe talking politics... even on user-talkpages... is a Very Bad Idea.&trade; Distracts from the business of building the encyclopedia at best, causes formation of POV cabals at worst, tends to end up indirectly causing disruption because it inherently is a form of concentrating on contributors and their personal opinions, as opposed to concentrating on mainspace content and staying neutral. So although BlueSalix and yourself obviously ended on the wrong foot, I urge you to pay attention to the gist of what they said, stripped to the essentials: "...I'm not here for cyber-activism, I'm here to edit articles to a NPOV standard... I really don't care about current events in America at all, which probably makes me uniquely qualified to edit about them. ..." Point being, it is hard, but not impossible, to edit in any area where you care deeply about the topic. Which means, given that a large group of people editing the politics articles are editing it because they have a passion for the subject, it is doubly-extra-super important to maintain neutrality, and striking up user-talkpage conversations about controversial realworld political issues, no matter how innocently initiated, seems unlikely to help advance that.

Hope this was helpful, and not seen as an unwanted intrusion. I don't see you doing bad things, from a quick glance it looks to me like you are trying hard to do the right things in the proper way, but do be fully aware that political topics are a minefield. (This, however, should be more specific than merely saying 'Russians' however since it is unclear whether the paraphrase means government agents, identifiable citizens with government ties, residents with no known governmental ties, or IP addresses that appear to originate from the landmass. And don't use youtube, here is the proper URL from CNN.)  Politics is a difficult area that needs plenty of AGF and plenty of patience, because it is inherently a highly-charged topic-area, and tends to attract passionate editors.

And since I peeked in your talkpage history, to see if there was already a note like the one I was planning to leave, I will mention as an aside that this info-notification, about the severe sanctions-regime which is in place for 99% of political articles, does not require an admin send it. It is supposed to be a 'friendly' warning for people that are working in touchy subject-areas like yourself, that if some overworked admin *does* later appear they are not gonna be forgiving. The same notice is posted at the top of the article-talkpage at Talk:Donald_Trump and Talk:Hillary_Clinton for example... although surprisingly, there is NOT such a notice at the moment over at Talk:Fake_news_website, which I find a little shocking. Presumably nobody has gotten around to adding the 'friendly' warning template there, yet. As long as you always stay cool and stick to the wikipedia policies, you will be fine. Talk to you later perhaps, but not about politics please :-)   47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of content of discussion we should also always strive to keep to a friendly and polite tone in the discussion. To do the opposite does not encourage future polite discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No argument there! WP:5P4 for the win.  :-)  47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Response
I have responded to your latest post on my talk page. Joshbunk (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor thing
At AE, under "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any", item 9 "[03:45, 7 November 2016] Cautioned by..." didn´t turn into a link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Banter
First of all, clever redirecting WP:SODOFF to WP:NOTFORUM. I suppose you beat me to it.

Otherwise, I'm probably being too harsh. I admit to disliking AE as a venue generally. There is way too little WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY in those parts, and I think it's often used as a work around for reports that would just get laughed out of ANI for their comparative triviality.

I'll just say that, as an editor generally, and especially one who is prolific in contentious areas, I don't recommend getting in the habit of depending on AE. There is way too much that ends up there that could have been just as easily solved with a third or fourth opinion and a little discussion, and probably have been better off for the project if it were. Maybe this isn't one of those cases. But there are certain editors who shall remain nameless that somehow find a way to be on AE, it seems, weekly, and I'll admit to thinking somewhat less of them because of it. Timothy Joseph Wood 18:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The user's contentious behavior has driven me to file many many third and fourth opinions lately. This is not an isolated problem with one user. As per and recognized by AE responding admin at . Sagecandor (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I first met Sashi on Jill Stein, so I've seen this play from the very first act. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah alright understood. Sagecandor (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

GA
Hello. Thanks for your review of The Bridge on the Drina. In the future, please alert the nominator on their talk page when performing a review, informing them that the review has commenced and alerting them as to whether the article has passed or failed. Thanks. 23 editor (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I'm quite sorry, I thought a bot was supposed to come by and do that from my reading of Good article nominations/Instructions. Maybe it had something to do with writing up the review offline in a text file after reading the article several hours before, and skipping that first step where you initially say you're taking the review. I'll try adding that first step next time and see if that fixes it. Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Legobot does usually do this -- a notification when /GA1 is created and a notification upon the changing of the talk page template. I suspect the reason did not receive such a notice is the same reason I did not with Rhinogradentia:  added the icon manually, making Legobot skip its routine GA maintenance on those pages.  does this sound accurate? I've left a message for Raamaturott letting him/her know. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ping
Hey, just an FYI, you don't have to ping me on pages I'm active on, as I'm already watching. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I just saw that did the same thing for that particular post. Sagecandor (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comment although that will be a hard rule to remember. I don't ping on someone's talk page, but in most of the cases I do. If I've already pinged someone and it is a continuation of a discussion I won't, but in this case, I started a separate section and specifically quoted you, so while I thought it was very possible you would see it I decided to be safe.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Too many bing bong I get it, case study of too much bing bong at: Bing Bong - Remix Compilation. Sagecandor (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as a follow-up to Sagecandor, because it just sunk in that Dr. Fleischman was responding to you not to me. You are still relatively new, but you are learning that we not only have a boatload of written rules, we have a pile of unwritten rules that take some time to learn. (To make matters worse not everyone shares the same set of unwritten rules so go figure.)


 * It made some sense for me to ping Dr. Fleischman, I now know that editor is very active on the page, I've only added one post, separated in time and position from the quote I included, so it made sense for me to err on the side of caution and add a ping. In contrast, you are extremely active on the page, So should not need to ping except in rare circumstances; if for example, you were directly responding to someone who post really and hasn't posted recently it would be polite to ping but not generally in the continuation of the discussion. The whole ping functionality is still relatively new and these conventions are still being worked out.


 * On a more general note, I see that you've worked very hard on that article and I appreciate your diligence. I do see some people trying to give you advice, and unfortunately some of that advice hasn't been worded as well as I would like, so I urge you not to let anyone get your goat.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, it's exhausting sometimes. Sagecandor (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your GA review of West Coast Customs
Thanks for your GA review :) I can see now that I still have not struck the correct balance between ad and WP:NPOV, the fact that it had improved so much from its incarnation before I started editing made his hard for me to see. Your comments about style, mismatched references, overlinking, etc. were also very helpful. When I fix these issues and try again for GA certification, I'll let you know :D --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extreme right on the Internet listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Extreme right on the Internet. Since you had some involvement with the Extreme right on the Internet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fixuture (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

draft-rewrite of fake news website
Hi Sagecandor, I have been working on the (whimsically-titled... not actually a serious title-suggestion!) page on the 'dark internet' which is at rewrite-of-fake-news-disambiguation and also at rewrite-of-fake-news-website. As you will no doubt notice, it has exactly zero sources at the moment. :-)

I am planning on integrating the current sources and contents of fake news and also fake news website into that proposed new article-structure, in the next few hours/days/years (the fake-news topic is fairly large and tricky to wrestle with), but if you have some time when you are back from your holiday-related vacation I would appreciate if you could comment on the broad-strokes proposal.

I have attempted to create sections which concentrate narrowly on a particular sub-topic, e.g.
 * relationship-of-fake-news-[websites]-to-facebook,
 * relationship-of-fake-news-[websites]-to-the-historical-parallel-of-thatword-journalism,
 * relationship-of-fake-news-[websites]-to-modern-instances-of-black-propaganda,
 * use-of-fake-news-[website]-as-a-metaphor-for-the-related-concept-of-media-bias,
 * and so on and so forth.

I'm not firmly tied to the specific structure, the specific subsection names, or the specific subsection ordering. But I do think it will help avoid accusations of listcruft and povfork and other such wikipedia jargon, if we very carefully work at splitting up all the sourced media commentary you have worked hard gathering, into subtopic-specific subsections. Let me know your thoughts please, when you have some time free. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

About the Jack of Fables article
Hey Sage. Sorry for this late reply. But I have already finished editing the Jack of Fables article page. Finished editing the page. I expanded upon the introduction to include more of the themes and styles as well as the collected editions, and I also added citations in the themes section as well. If there is anything else I need to edit just let me know :) Godzilladude123 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

yes, i think you made a mistake.
you noted a problem with my citation which was correctable. i don't see why you did not simply edit the correct information from the source into the article since did have time to type it into your removal notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:C001:3FBF:A9AA:9D82:2FB8:9310 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

And you are lynching Negroes
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article And you are lynching Negroes has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Second GA nomination of West Coast Customs
Hello, I'm writing to inform you that I believe I've implemented all of the improvements you requested and have renominated West Coast Customs. Especially helpful was your gentle nudge to find more negative content about the company, on a whim I searched for "West Coast Customs quality" and unearthed a truly shocking amount of never before included issues...--Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

MormonWikiLeaks GA review
I've reviewed the MormonWikiLeaks article under WP:GA criteria, unfortunately, it did not pass. I'm not sure if you're still active here, but if you are, then I'm more than willing to help update the article. FallingGravity 02:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MormonWikiLeaks
The article MormonWikiLeaks you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:MormonWikiLeaks for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FallingGravity -- FallingGravity (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review of Syntactic Structures
Hello, thank you very much for doing the GA review and for your decision to make it a GA. I will try to improve on the things you noted. Zaheen (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MormonLeaks
The article MormonLeaks you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:MormonLeaks for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

question
When you have a minute, I have a question for you about the split between fake news and fake news website, plus whether we have enough sources to put in a section-see-also for lying press. Please drop me a Template:talkback on my user-talkpage when you are back from your WP:WIKIBREAK, and I will pick your brain on the then-current state of the articles in question, 47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake news website copyedit request
Thanks for your request, but the article is too unstable for a copyedit at the moment. Please feel free to relist it when it settles down. All the best,  Mini  apolis  19:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of And you are lynching Negroes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article And you are lynching Negroes 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 R8R Gtrs -- R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

About Jack of Fables
Hey man. Thank you promoting the article Jack of Fables to Good Article Status. But you have forgotten to add the Good Article logo on top on the right side of the article. If you have the time please put the logo, thank you.112.198.64.34 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disinformation
The article Disinformation you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Disinformation for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DarjeelingTea -- DarjeelingTea (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

reminder
Hi just a reminder of the current GA review for Disinformation. If you need more time, let me know. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thank you,, I can read it but I don't know if I will have the time soon. Sagecandor (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, let me know if you need an extension or would like it returned to the queue for consideration at a future date. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I would appreciate an extension, please. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I'll check back in a week. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Sagecandor - do you need additional time? DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of And you are lynching Negroes
The article And you are lynching Negroes you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:And you are lynching Negroes for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of R8R Gtrs -- R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:
You are right that edit warring should be avoided going forward. I also hope you recognize that maintaining the article's longstanding title and character in this case, avoiding equating a three-day filler version with the 20+ year series, was not ultimately disruptive, especially as consensus overwhelmingly decided. Don't particularly want to have more back and forth on this, best for us to let it go. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sagecandor (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, !! Sagecandor (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Rich
I've not paid much attention to the development of the article. Maybe you can tell me if I'm stepping in something by editing the lead. It was weird the "link" to the leaks was omitted, except for a detached statement about US intelligence, but maybe that's due to some past threads I missed? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits look great so far. My main motivation has been to make sure it represents the facts and debunks the bullshit, as backed up by reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Aquillion made a good faith edit


Note that User:Aquillion made a good faith edit. my apologies about all that. I created a "Rewards" section to compile all the Rewards together. Hope that looks okay now. Sagecandor (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate work
Greetings ! Looks like we both started working on the split of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I just noticed your version 2016 Trump campaign links to Russian officials when saving mine: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. As I have started writing an introduction in addition to the copied material, I suggest to work together on this one. OK to redirect yours? — JFG talk 20:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Sagecandor (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Over maximum at GOCE
Sagecandor, the current maximum number of Requests at GOCE is two, but with the two you just added and the one that was previously submitted and is now in process, you're currently at three requests. Could you please withdraw one of the new ones, and resubmit (if you wish) once one of yours has been fully copy edited? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the request for United Express Flight 3411 incident. Sagecandor (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Book cover image
I don't see why the old version needs to be deleted ... you uploaded a corrected one, both without the whitespace and reduced in size to comply with NFCC. We usually leave the file history up. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh okay whatever you like, I just thought best to only have the lowest size file of the uploaded versions kept, for fair use reasons. Sagecandor (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the old version isn't being used on any page other than that section of the file page, I don't think NFCC really comes into play. However, I think it is an interesting question ... the file history section is sort of mandated to accommodate the GFDL, which requires that editors preserve the history of their changes to a file. Do we really need it for fair-use images where there is no such mandate? Maybe we should ask at MCQ. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll leave that to your capable judgment. Sagecandor (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for doing the research! Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh ... you mean someone else went and tagged it? I thought you had asked somewhere ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Defeating ISIS
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Defeating ISIS 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 Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Defeating ISIS
The article Defeating ISIS you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Defeating ISIS for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Defeating ISIS
The article Defeating ISIS you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Defeating ISIS for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Picnic at Hanging Rock (novel)/GA1
Agree completely with your assessment of this article. Sadly, a failed GA nom is what often happens with a drive-by nominator. The editor who nommed this article only ever did one edit to this article and that was to its talkpage.... Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear about that, no problems. Hopefully others will take on improving it in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dezinformatsia (book)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dezinformatsia (book) 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 K.e.coffman -- K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Defeating ISIS for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Defeating ISIS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DHeyward (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Sagecandor (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * . Sagecandor (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Case for Impeachment
The article The Case for Impeachment you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Case for Impeachment for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Srich32977 -- Srich32977 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The Case for Impeachment
Very impressive. Based on the length and quality of the article I assumed that it had been up for a while and had numerous contributors. Excellent work! Trivialist (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
I very much appreciate your addition of the videos to Nevertheless, she persisted. I added some sub-headings to break up the long background section, and moved all the images to the right of relevant text. The images display better on all platforms (i.e., laptop, desktop, mobile phone, etc.) if they are stacked right, in my opinion. I think the videos are terrific! Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The Plot to Hack America for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Plot to Hack America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The result was Keep, after discussion was closed. Sagecandor (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Next up for me
Next up for me:

Research on topics for the next new article writing venture.

Suggestions are welcome. Sagecandor (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Why We Want You to be Rich) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Why We Want You to be Rich, Sagecandor!

Wikipedia editor Nicnote just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Wow!"

To reply, leave a comment on Nicnote's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nicnote •  ask me a question  •  contributions  16:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Impeeeeeech article
How did that one get protected with "pending changes"? That level protection is usually for low traffic articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but maybe there was some vandalism. Sagecandor (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your work on more Trump books, and best of luck with the good article nominations! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I'm going to work on creating another book authored by Trump later, hopefully to post it up live sometime in the next day or so. So far I've created articles on Wikipedia about books both praising the individual, and others critical. So I guess that's a bit of balance added to this website overall. Sagecandor (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, "See also" section should not display links that appear in navigation templates, or earlier in the article's prose. Just something to keep in mind as you continue to expand articles and go into good article reviews. I'm no Trump fan, but I certainly want Wikipedia to have accurate and neutral coverage. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think if you compare Why We Want You to be Rich and The Case for Impeachment, you'll see I'm dedicated to high quality writing from whatever the reliable sources say. Sagecandor (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

 * You're welcome! Sagecandor (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Looking at your recent work and statistics, have you thought about applying for the WP:AUTOPAT right? This might be very useful for you and everyone who does WP:NPP. Clearly you know what you are doing! Nicnote •  ask me a question  •  contributions  16:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dezinformatsia (book)
The article Dezinformatsia (book) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dezinformatsia (book) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of K.e.coffman -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Midas Touch (Trump Kiyosaki book)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Midas Touch (Trump Kiyosaki book), Sagecandor!

Wikipedia editor Nicnote just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Yeah I honestly don't know what to say. I've been doing this for a while and I wouldn't even know how to write articles beyond stub-class let alone B-class. Bravo!"

To reply, leave a comment on Nicnote's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nicnote •  ask me a question  •  contributions  18:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dezinformatsia (book)
The article Dezinformatsia (book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dezinformatsia (book) 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 K.e.coffman -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Legion (season 1)
Hi Sage, thanks for the review for this article, I really appreciate it. Just wanted to let you know that another user has taken issue with the quality of the article and your review, and I am discussing that with them at this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're going through that, user appears to just make stuff up about WP:Good article criteria including inventing new requirements for "Stability". Sagecandor (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times you say that it does not make it more true. No one other then you who has reviewed that article, or my review, thinks that it was wrongly failed. Seraphim System  ( talk) 04:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Been explained to the user before by another editor: "Well; there's certainly no criteria that a GA has to be over X age since creation. Since this is four days old, and in that time, has been stable, I would agree that an inability to prove a negative is not a criterion" Done. Sagecandor (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been explained to you that this is not why the article was failed. I was asking more experienced reviewers for advice about a criteria that I did not know how to apply in a particular situation. That you continue to lie about this has done nothing to relieve my concerns, You seem to be unable to understand why your article was failed, and contiue to insist that it was failed wrongly. It does not help nominators to have their articles passed without thorough review by a reviewer who has shown clear signs of incompetence or behavioral problems. GA is a standard that the community should strive to uphold, without hostility. I suggested a second opinion during the review, because that is something you are entitled to. GA Review is not a dictatorship. Your continuing to lie about the review because I would not give an article that was not ready an easy pass that it did not deserve is not going to help you, and it undermines your own reputation here. I asked for input from other editors after the review, and I am reassured that I did not conduct myself wrongly. This behavior is abusive towards another editor. I am no longer watching this talk page. I will refrain from conducting reviews of your nominations as you have asked. Seraphim System  ( talk) 14:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You still refuse to acknowledge your inability to understand the "Stability" portion of WP:Good article criteria, and your failure to comprehend after reading that part of the criteria. Sagecandor (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with new editors learning from more experienced editors. There is no rule that editors can never make a mistake. You can't, however, abuse them for it. You really are not helping yourself or your reputation as a GA reviewer by acting this way. I am no longer watching this page. Seraphim System  ( talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seraphim, I appreciate your gesture. Thanks again for saying that, due to our prior history of a dispute, you'll agree it's best for us to avoid each other with regards to the good article process for a while. I really appreciate your willingness to do that. Sagecandor (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seraphim, I agree with you There is nothing wrong with new editors learning from more experienced editors. There is no rule that editors can never make a mistake. I hope you can acknowledge you did, with regards to your previous interpretation of the "Stability" part of the WP:Good article criteria. Sagecandor (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a mistake, I said I was not sure. That is not the same as making a mistake. That is acknowledging that I do not know the answer to something. I don't know why you keep talking about it, because it didn't effect your life at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. I asked other editors about it after the review closed, because I am thinking of nominating other articles. You would do better to spend more time reading the articles you are reviewing then posting dishonest messages about another editor everywhere. If I submitted an article for review, and a reviewer made a call I disagreed with, I would ask for a second opinion. I even offered to change the template for you. Instead you pulled the review as soon as I asked other editors for assistance, which only indicates to me that you know your behavior is abusive and you are embarassed about it. Now, I do have other things to do, I only saw this because I still had the window open from earlier. Seraphim System  ( talk) 23:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You got clarification about the Stability issue and you were informed about it, I hope you can now acknowledge your prior assumption was wrong. Sagecandor (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Norman Osborn
Thank You for writing down what needs to be fixed on the Norman Osborn page. When I fix the page and believe it's good article material I'll give you a heads up before I nominate it again. Thank you so much, take care buddy:) — Xtremeroller (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay cool, hopefully I left you some helpful pointers, good luck ! Sagecandor (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Time to Get Tough
Hello! Your submission of Time to Get Tough at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC) <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Chonicling the disparager in chief

 * Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Next on to do list
Research before writing next new article. Sagecandor (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dezinformatsia (book)
Hello! Your submission of Dezinformatsia (book) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Thank You
Hi. I think the article Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? has the potential to be upgraded to a GA status (and I can see, you have nominated it). But it is better to have peer reviewed it first. RRD দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I see you can only have one peer review at a time, and I think I'll do it on something else instead. Sagecandor (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Trump Tower: A Novel) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Trump Tower: A Novel, Sagecandor!

Wikipedia editor Oiyarbepsy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Very nice work"

To reply, leave a comment on Oiyarbepsy's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Sagecandor, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ASagecandor added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  11:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Sagecandor

 * I love writing and creating high-quality new articles. suggested I ask for this right, to ease the burden of reviewers. See list, (User:Sagecandor), for articles created so far. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I love writing and creating high-quality new articles. suggested I ask for this right, to ease the burden of reviewers. See list, (User:Sagecandor), for articles created so far. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the editor's work now.  Schwede 66  11:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work! ✅  Schwede 66  11:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Research on next new article in progress
Research on next new article in progress.

Going through about 200 sources during the course of my research efforts while writing the article.

Sagecandor (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, with Trump Revealed. At least, done with research, for now. Sagecandor (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Sagecandor. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ASagecandor granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of New York Journal of Books
Hello! Your submission of New York Journal of Books at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. BTW, when changing a hook, please give it a new number (ALT1, ALT2, etc.) and add it to the bottom of the thread, so other reviewers and promoters can follow the discussion. I restored the thread for you. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Couple of questions
(1) Are you just one person behind the account name? (2) Are you a paid editor? --  ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Answers:

Sagecandor (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes.
 * 2) No.
 * . Sagecandor (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request
Is it alright if I put them as subsection within that section to avoid confusion and WP:CLUTTER? If so, I still need to add a couple of diffs, once I do that, just check it. If necessary, I will then put them into one section.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, they all have to go in your subsection. You can use Template:Ping to help delineate which response is to whom. Hope that's helpful to you, Sagecandor (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me make a few fixes, then I'll copy and paste them over.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Defeating ISIS
Hello! Your submission of Defeating ISIS at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in book article
RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in a book article.

Please see Request for Comment, at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel. Sagecandor (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump
RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump:

Discussion at Talk:Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Osborn
I gave you my word and I have decided to renominate the Norman Osborn article once again. I have worked really hard finding the sources and helped out with the cultural impact section. Hope it works Xtremeroller (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll have another look. And good luck to you ! Sagecandor (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

March for Science Portland
Happy to revisit Talk:March for Science Portland/GA1 whenever you are ready. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Really busy with babysitting lately after family member had a new baby. Will try to have a look soon. Sagecandor (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Disclosures and my views on editing
I've added the following section to my userpage:

 Disclosures and my views on editing 

1. I, Sagecandor, am just one person behind the account name. I agree with the Wikipedia policy of WP:ROLE and the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOSHARING. I agree with the provisions for such policy exceptions as specified by the Wikimedia Foundation and explained at Role account.

2. I, Sagecandor, am not a paid editor. I am against the practice of paid editing on Wikipedia. I agree with the Wikipedia policy WP:PAID and the provisions laid out by that policy. I have donated of my own charitable giving to the Wikimedia Foundation that operates Wikipedia. I have given freely of my own time to research and write new articles on Wikipedia.

Sagecandor (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would not let Winkelvi's comments get to you too much. I was actually going to come by this talk page to thank you for the well-written articles you have crafted and listed on your userpage. I'm not particularly fond of the man on some of the covers -- no offense to Mr. Trump or any views you may have -- but you put effort into quality content, not quantity. I respect that more than any editor who has pushed thousands of less meaningful stubs into mainspace just to get a +1 in their article stats. Keep up the good work, and if you are repeatedly WP:HOUNDed by anyone remember ANI is always open to help out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I really appreciate you coming by my user talk page to say this. Still, regardless, I stand by what I've said, above. I hope I wrote it clearly and okay. Sagecandor (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that denying the two concerns is not necessary and might actually be counterproductive. If you're not, you're not. Just ignore it. That would be my advice. Otherwise you get into a "he doth protest too much" situation. My best to you, Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I already received a question about it. I responded to that question. I was ignored. I added it to my userpage. I'm not going to remove it now at this point. That would just be too much back and forth hassle. It's there. It's done. I wouldn't have added it if I hadn't been asked about it in the first place. But whatever, I was. And now it's there. I agree with you it's a statement of a non-issue. Yes, I've donated money to the Wikimedia Foundation as I agree with providing free knowledge to people and I agree with the Wikipedia policies including reliable sources. As far as The lady doth protest too much, methinks, fuck it, what the fuck am I supposed to do at this point, I was asked about it already and this is my answer. Sagecandor (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that's reasonable. I wasn't trying to say anything hostile, just mainly to express my sympathy and solidarity, as I think you're in the right. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, I know, thank you. After this, I'm just a little bit frustrated by the whole thing. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clint Watts
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clint Watts 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sylvia Plath
You could not have passed this article for GA; its nominator is not a major contributor to it. If you'll take a look at the edit history, the nominator's name is nowhere to be found. It was a drive-by nom by someone who had never contributed to the article, which is a shame tbh... Blue sphere  14:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it's currently a Featured Article Candidate at Featured article candidates/Sylvia Plath/archive1 as nominated by . I wish them the best of luck with the Featured Article attempt. Sagecandor (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wish someone luck who more or less enjoy the fruits of his labor. (The article is no longer at the FAC page, btw.) Ciao Blue  sphere  15:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry you feel that way. Sagecandor (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator has been involved with page since at least 2013 . Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This nomination is of complete seriousness. If it's not up to the FAC's code then it needs to be worked on so it may be one. It's ultimately deserving. I'm ultimately deserving because I've been an editor on it as Sage said since 2013. I'm also the one who got it to its GA status as of right now. You're shoving me and my nomination away based on nothing. --Matt723star (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a message about this at WT:FAC. Sagecandor (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, two revisions? Those weren't even made in the article, lol. I can only roll my eyes on this, unbelievable. Blue  sphere  03:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the nominator has had interest in the article improving in quality, going back four years, to the year 2013. At this point, I'll defer to whatever the people at WP:FAC want to do with it. Sagecandor (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously they were made in the article considering it was the deletion of the "Dreamers" poem which I deleted several years ago and that decision still stands. Are you a troll? Bluesphere needs to be blocked if this behavior continues. --Matt723star (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, both of you, take a break from my talk page, please, thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Insane Clown President
Hello! Your submission of Insane Clown President at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All addressed now. Sagecandor (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Plot to Hack America
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Defeating ISIS
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Terrorists of Iraq
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for New York Journal of Books
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of And you are lynching Negroes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article And you are lynching Negroes 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 R8R -- R8R (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Terrorist Recognition Handbook
Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Insane Clown President
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The GAN
See the GAN page: I still see no major obstacles but there are two minor ones. Once they've been dealt with, I'll happily promote the article.--R8R (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Think Big and Kick Ass
 So Why  12:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Charles T. Pepper
Yoninah and I have tweaked the original hook to make it a little more interesting for the quirky slot. Can you take a look at it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Why We Want You to Be Rich
IronGargoyle (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Dezinformatsia (book)
IronGargoyle (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Time to Get Tough
IronGargoyle (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of And you are lynching Negroes
The article And you are lynching Negroes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:And you are lynching Negroes 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 R8R -- R8R (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whataboutism
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Whataboutism 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 Binksternet -- Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Whataboutism
The article Whataboutism you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Whataboutism for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Binksternet -- Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Devil's Bargain
New Trump book for ya :)  czar  17:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would LOVE to go back to new article creation writing. Unfortunately, lately, as perhaps you can see, energies have been absorbed elsewhere. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating that article! Are you going to turn those references into in-line citations? Sagecandor (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's a volunteer project—you can go back to whatever you want whenever you want. I personally find writing more pleasurable than the contentious talk pages! I stub easily notable non-fiction work when I see it (five+ reliable reviews), as it only gets harder to find the reviews down the line, but my priorities are set such that I rarely return to some stubs, such as this one. For what it's worth, the single-sentence intro can be confirmed in any of the sources (general reference) so an inline ref isn't always necessary. In fact, I'd consider it more clutter in this case.  czar  19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your editing philosophy is right, I admire your style and I hope one day to be more like you. Perhaps you'd be willing to take me on as a mentor ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well! Very kind of you to say. It need not be so formal but if you ping me once in a while, I'd be happy to take a quick look at whatever you'd like (minding the canvassing guidelines, of course) czar  19:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at, I think it would be most helpful indeed for me to have a mentor, what do you think? Sagecandor (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed at diff. Sagecandor (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for being so reasonable at the ANI and discussing on the talk page. I really do hate opening things there, and I'm glad we were able to talk. I'm sorry you and I haven't been getting along the past few days. I have nothing against you, and am glad we were able to resolve the ANI quickly. Anyway, I hope you have a great weekend, and all the best. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Insane Clown President
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Insane Clown President 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 Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Midas Touch (book)
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about White House petition to make Party in the USA the national anthem
There is an ongoing Request for Comment about whether to include a petition started by Elijah Daniel in the article about him, which was a White House petition to make Party in the U.S.A. the national anthem.

You may comment, if you wish, at: Talk:Elijah_Daniel.

Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clint Watts
The article Clint Watts you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Clint Watts for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clint Watts
The article Clint Watts you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Clint Watts for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Review of Charmayne James DYK
Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing my DYK on Charmayne James. It is only my second DYK, so obviously I am still learning the process. Not long after you reviewed it, another editor moved it to prep. Anyway, when I have become knowledge on the process and have many more DYKs under my belt, I hope I can return the favor. Also, I thought your review was fair and well thought out. dawnleelynn (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Stepping back from article
I'm going to follow Czar's wiser example and step back from the article, Elijah Daniel.

I wish other editors the best of luck to improve the page.

Thank you,

Sagecandor (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Trump Tower (novel)
Alex ShihTalk 00:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, this was a fun article to research, write, and create ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a great read too, thank you! Alex ShihTalk 03:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the compliment !!! Sagecandor (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism
There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the introduction to the article Whataboutism.

You may comment if you wish, at Talk:Whataboutism. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Trump's handshakes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump's handshakes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's handshakes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Trump 101
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Insane Clown President
The article Insane Clown President you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Insane Clown President 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 Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, very much, for your GA Review. Thank you also for saying about my WP:NPOV article writing work on Wikipedia: "Despite the controversy surrounding the subject of the article, the article is surprisingly neutral. The "Reception" section covers both positive and negative reactions to the book.". Sagecandor (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate your gratitude. This only my third GA review and the first two, as I mentioned before, went catastrophically awry. I ended up making a complete and utter fool out of myself by immediately failing the first article for instability due to a bout of vandalism nearly three weeks before and passing the second one after only thirty minutes. All that was nearly six months ago, though, and I hope I have finally done it right this time. Nonetheless, I was very anxious about trying to do this again. Once again, I congratulate you on your work; your ability to compose NPOV articles about controversial topics is admirable and, even now, I still could not even guess at your political affiliations. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dragon Ball (manga)/GA1
Hello. It appears you started this GA review last month, but there have been no comments since then. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, will get to it soon ! Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is next on my list of a few outstanding things I'm finishing up here. Sagecandor (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This review is done. Good job on the good article ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Disinformation (book)
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Trump Revealed
IronGargoyle (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New York Journal of Books
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New York Journal of Books 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 Assayer -- Assayer (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New York Journal of Books
The article New York Journal of Books you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:New York Journal of Books for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Assayer -- Assayer (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Health not well
Sagecandor is experiencing health issues that may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, this user may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated. Sagecandor (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Health is much more important than anything here, - best wishes for yours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope your health improves soon Sagecandor. - MrX 12:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope you get well soon bud, take as much time as you need!  Adog 104  Talk to me 23:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the well wishes
Thank you to Gerda Arendt,, and for the well wishes. I'm finishing up some old items, including old GA Reviews, that I hadn't gotten around to yet. And then, per User health inactive, above, I'll be much less active and cutting back on some prior pages of interest. Sagecandor (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes
Best wishes from me too. Are you planning to continue work on Whataboutism? I was about to refactor the Analysis section, but was hoping to hear your opinion first. Eperoton (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your judgment is best on what to do about that. Sagecandor (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * DN, thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? 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 Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?
The article Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of New York Journal of Books for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New York Journal of Books is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/New York Journal of Books until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Assayer (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Elijah Daniel
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Elijah Daniel has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Devil's Bargain
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Donald Trump's handshakes
Hello! Your submission of Donald Trump's handshakes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?
The article Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christine Sydelko


A tag has been placed on Christine Sydelko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. PRehse (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Donald Trump and handshakes
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Alt-right footer
Hi, I noticed you had done previous work on the Template:Alt-right footer. There are numerous discussion going on over which people to include there, as well as what the standard should be for inclusion; perhaps you can help. Thank you! Rockypedia (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Plath
Hi Sage, thanks for your review of Sylvia Plath for GA. I have been out of the WP loop for quite a few years now and just pop back to see how some articles are faring. Which is a very heartening experience on the whole. It seems (from a cursory look) that not that much work was needed on Plath to bring it up to GA. In looking at the history of the article it seems that I either wrote or gave citations for most of it. I'm not sure on GA protocols (I might have forgotten - I can't remember) but could that mean I could add the article to my GA list - as a main contributor? It's a petty thing, but would feel rewarding on some level, after the years of twiddling and safeguarding. Thanks <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">Anna (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump 101
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trump 101 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 Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump 101
The article Trump 101 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trump 101 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump 101
The article Trump 101 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Trump 101 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disinformation (book)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disinformation (book) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Some items need your attention. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disinformation (book)
The article Disinformation (book) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Disinformation (book) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ms Sarah Welch -- Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Disinformation (book)
The article Disinformation (book) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Disinformation (book) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ms Sarah Welch -- Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The KGB and Soviet Disinformation
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The KGB and Soviet Disinformation 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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The KGB and Soviet Disinformation
The article The KGB and Soviet Disinformation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The KGB and Soviet Disinformation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Books critical of Donald Trump has been nominated for discussion
Category:Books critical of Donald Trump, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Music critical of Donald Trump and Category:Films critical of Donald Trump which you created, have also been nominated. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Plot to Hack America
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Plot to Hack America 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Terrorists of Iraq
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Terrorists of Iraq 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of An End to al-Qaeda
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article An End to al-Qaeda 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terrorist Recognition Handbook
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Terrorist Recognition Handbook 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Think Big and Kick Ass
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Think Big and Kick Ass 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Why We Want You to Be Rich
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Why We Want You to Be Rich 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Midas Touch (book)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Midas Touch (book) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Time to Get Tough
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Time to Get Tough 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Plot to Hack America
The article The Plot to Hack America you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Plot to Hack America 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Terrorist Recognition Handbook
The article Terrorist Recognition Handbook you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Terrorist Recognition Handbook 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Terrorists of Iraq
The article The Terrorists of Iraq you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Terrorists of Iraq 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of An End to al-Qaeda
The article An End to al-Qaeda you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:An End to al-Qaeda 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Think Big and Kick Ass
The article Think Big and Kick Ass you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Think Big and Kick Ass 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump Revealed
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trump Revealed 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trump Revealed
The article Trump Revealed you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trump Revealed 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Time to Get Tough
The article Time to Get Tough you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Time to Get Tough 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Why We Want You to Be Rich
The article Why We Want You to Be Rich you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Why We Want You to Be Rich for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Midas Touch (book)
The article Midas Touch (book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Midas Touch (book) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for doing the GA Review ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Joseph L. Bishop
I noticed you did a lot of editing on the Mormon Leaks page on Wikipedia. Just wondering if you'd be able to assist in getting Joseph L. Bishop's page properly edited so that it get published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joseph_L._Bishop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithcrisis (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you succeeded,, so great job with the article improvements ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 21:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sagecandor (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't
You're bludgeoning at the Mark Judge AfD. Please don't. I realize you're emotionally invested at the article itself, but responding to every !vote or comment is really not necessary, nor is it appropriate. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 13:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming here and taking the initiative to give me some advice at my talk page, I really appreciate it. I hope that we get additional input at that discussion from previously uninvolved editors, and bring fresh perspective to the Articles for deletion/Mark Judge (writer) discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Judge (writer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Judge (writer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mark Judge (writer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Why We Want You to Be Rich
Hello! Just an FYI, Why We Want You to Be Rich received a good article nomination review. You might take a look at Talk:Why We Want You to Be Rich and consider renominating for good status, if you're still interested. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, will take a look ! Also, in the midst of some research for other new articles ! Hopefully coming soon ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, just an FYI, a notability tag was added to The Way to the Top: The Best Business Advice I Ever Received. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Notable book, per WP:NBOOK criteria (1) and (5). Exciting news day/week so far. Sagecandor (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

GenX
I see no reason why GenX will be deleted. It is well-written and well referenced, and is a good candidate for GA. At least no one has put the AfD tag on it, unlike some of my articles lately! Best, ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 01:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful compliments about the writing quality of the new article I just recently created ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Consider this a barnstar, or a certificate suitable for framing, or a kitten, or a warm cuppa tea. Your choice. You saw an historical event in the making and immediately started creating articles about important and notable secondary topics. I am speaking, of course, of Mark Judge and the very impressive Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, which is developing nicely. Well done. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for coming here and saying those nice things. If you like that, you might also like another new article I just created, God and Man at Georgetown Prep. I hope it will be appreciated by the Wikipedia community. Sagecandor (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you all for the advice. I will think it over while taking a break from Wikipedia. And only return if and when I am able to do so, and if I can regain the trust of the Wikipedia community, as per 2nd chance and WP:Standard offer. Good night, and good luck. Sagecandor (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again to Bbb23, I am truly sorry. Sagecandor (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vandalism help. Can you please indef full-protect this talk page? Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I applied indefinite semi protection for you. If we find that we need to increase the protection level due to continued disruption, let me know and I'll be happy to do so.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no basis for applying semi-protection. There's been one disruptive edit by an IP on October 3. The rest of the edits to this page have been by experienced users. I can't imagine a policy basis for full protection ever. Cirt wants it protected because he doesn't want anyone to comment here, and the only way that could be accomplished is full protection. With your permission, I'd like to remove semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 - Granted.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Whitelash listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Whitelash. Since you had some involvement with the Whitelash redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing-burger listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nothing-burger. Since you had some involvement with the Nothing-burger redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. feminist (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing burger listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nothing burger. Since you had some involvement with the Nothing burger redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. feminist (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Mark Judge (writer)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Matzav for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matzav is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Matzav until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 12:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

BLOCKED
14:37, 1 October 2018 User:Bbb23 blocked User:Sagecandor with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt


 * Above copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sagecandor

X1\ (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)