User talk:Samsara/Archive14

Camera lens lists
Hi, noticed your work on Fisheye lens and wondered if you have any input on the list at Superzoom. It looks to me to be mostly a WP:LINKFARM that needs to be trimmed back (90%) to WP:LIST, but other suggestions would be welcome. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
I don't know if it's only from you or it was decided by someone else, but I wanna take the time to say thank you for the page protection on the Drag Race season 5 page! I requested it earlier in January and it was declined. I am so happy it's finally protected because not only me but a lot of people had to revert the vandalism. Anyways, thank you! ─  F a  b  z  z  z   talk  05:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also for protecting the Normandy landings page. Frankly, I have been disgusted by some of the "edits". My own father was one of the very many killed in this campaign and some of the contributions are an insult to their memory. Many thanks & regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake
This page: The word "trumpeteer" should be "trumpeter". (First paragraph). 91.85.61.182 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

you did protect it, so i though i would irritate you...91.85.61.182 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Normandy landings
Hello Samsara, Could I please draw your attention to recent changes in the Normandy landings article. An unregistered editor is making alterations to the participants/flags in the conflict, which have already been agreed some time back. I wonder if it is time for full protection and maybe action against this unregistered editor? Your advice/action would be appreciated. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Harlem Shake
If vandalism continues in this article "Harlem Shake (song)" after its protection expires, request to semi-protect it "indefinitely in response to an ongoing risk of vandalism". VGPHD (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not how you request page protection. You do so WP:RFPP. Also, don't edit the page's protection template, it is not your job to do that. TheStickMan [✆Talk] 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tree of life.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tree of life.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Million Awards
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification


Hi Samsara,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 10, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-11-10. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Emmett Till Biliography
Hi, sorry! I'm trying to add an entry to the bibliography, "Charge Two with Lynch Death of 14-Year-Old" by Marty Richardson in the anthology, Reporting Civil Rights. pt. 1. American journalism, 1941-1963. p. 211-213 so that I can try and cite it properly above. But it appears protected? I'm new and a complete noob. ty! Danielle Geller (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured_picture_candidates/Red_Skelton
I suppose, if two people who know photography suggest something, you should at least try an alternative. I've uploaded one. I may be overreacting from one too many people seeing one of my restorations of sepia toned images, and immediately desaturating it and suggesting it as an alt, which makes you somewhat resistant. That may be an overreaction in this case, given photographic prints' contrast can be adjusted readily by changing development time from the negative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Leica X2. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''When removing maintenance tags, please ensure you have resolved the problems those tags refer to. In the case of this article, I tagged this article with a notability tag as you have not asserted anywhere in the article why this particular product is notable and why it merits an encyclopedic entry. This concern was not addressed before you removed the tag.''  Adam Black talk •  contribs  •  uploads  •  logs 05:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Samsara,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Bos grunniens at Yundrok Yumtso Lake.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 4, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-09-04. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nash Grier
Hello.

How do I add a protection level to Nash Griers page for a longer extended time? Please, tell me how, not that it's doesn't need to be done because I wouldlike to extend the protection on his page... Frenchman101 15:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's still semi-protected until 17th Sept. If vandalism continues, the protection will be renewed. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that protection is not to be used to advance a position in an edit war. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of reverting
If You had payed attention to this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10877137/D-Day-French-torn-over-criminal-British-and-American-D-Day-bombings-of-Caen.html You would have found support of the mentioned D-day civilian death toll (a bit down), a better source than a thesis. (However the idea of Wehrmacht being so kind "to move most the civilian population away from the potential battle zone" remains as a silly statement, in my opinion.) Boeing720 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be talking to the wrong person, since I did not revert any edits made by you. However, since you posted here, I'll give you my 2 cents.
 * I don't share your view that a peer-reviewed academic thesis is a worse source than a newspaper.
 * Whether you think something is a silly statement is irrelevant to Wikipedia.
 * What you've put in quote marks does not appear in the material you oppose.
 * It seems to me that you are trying to present material as irreconcilable when that is not the case. If you take a step back and a deep breath, you may realise that the material you are trying to contribute can form part of a consensus article on the subject. My experience is that "the truth", if sourceable, will eventually establish itself in an article. However, if you're not willing to wait that long, you may have to collaborate with the other editors towards an accepted revision. As part of that process, you may have to abandon your position that sources that do not agree with your POV are "silly".
 * Regards,
 * Samsara (FA • FP) 12:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It was just that You moved my two links to my talk-page. I think the Telegraph is a better source than a thesis, but I havn't used the negative word "worse". I still believe - also after taken Your suggested deep breath, that following statement "The Germans had ordered French civilians, other than those deemed essential to the war effort, to leave potential combat zones in Normandy." is of harm to the article in general, pure nonsens and silly in my humble opinion. I find the statement so strange that it ought to require more than one single thesis source. I've stated before, some civilians were moved from the entire coastline from Brittany to the Netherlands, but due to military installations. Which civilian Frenchmen were "essential" to the German war effort, by the way ? And why only in Normandy ? I'm only asking of You to reflect about it, does the statement really feel logical ? Wouldn't one more source be better ?. If You don't agree with me, fine. I don't think we need to argue this further. Reguards Boeing720 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus
No reason to protect Historicity of Jesus. I see no continuing disruption to the article -- certainly no vandalism. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that you immediately messaged me to complain I think tells the story. The edit war is quite plain to see, and I apparently just stopped you from reverting again. Please review the WP:3RR policy and work with your fellow editors to determine whether consensus on the content of the article has, or can be, changed. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 00:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:Assume bad faith. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a very appropriate link, thank you. I will keep it in mind. Samsara (FA • FP) 01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of Templateeditor right in protecting a page
Hi there, I noticed that you (quite rightly) protected Liam Jones today, but you used ‎‎[edit=templateeditor] and [move=sysop] (indefinite) to do so. Why? It isn't a template and no one had tried to move it. Was it a mis-selection, or are you using templateeditor to get around the "it's too easy to get autoconfirmed" loophole? As an established editor who has neither the template editor (should be, but haven't proved I need it) nor sysop (not going to run the gauntlet) rights, you have just prevented me from editing or moving the article for no good reason. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a misclick on the edit permission. Fixed now. Why do you need to move his article? Has he changed his name? Can you provide sources? Samsara (FA • FP) 18:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that up. I don't need to move it, but why do you think only sysops should be able to move it. Surely the default position is all autoconfirmed users can move articles and indefinite changes to that position should be justified. The-Pope (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you need to move it for? Is he about to change his name? Are you familiar with WP:BLP? Samsara (FA • FP) 03:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I don't need to move it. I also don't see the need to protect it from being moved.  You applied the protection.  What part of WP:MOVP are you using to justify the move protection, or are you using your admin tools incorrectly. The-Pope (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear on a few things here. You came here stating, you have just prevented me from editing or moving the article. I corrected my protection error and asked why you needed to move the article. You couldn't provide a reason. You also did not edit the article which you previously stated you were going to. You continued to lobby for move unprotection, and yet maintained that there was no actual need for a move. Now, can you see how your behaviour came across as disruptive? As a principle, we don't generally lower protection when someone asks for it without having a good reason that aims at building the encyclopedia. On review, I see that you did edit the article twenty months ago, and that the recent vandalism spree has no precedent. I'm therefore going to extend good faith and lower the move protection to autoconfirmed with 10 days' expiry. Let's hope it works out. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 12:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed and queried a strange application of protection, you admitted you made a mistake and fixed it, but didn't change the indefinite admin only move protection, so I queried that again. The most common reason for moving a BLP article isn't because he changes his name, but because someone else with the same name becomes notable and there is a need for disambiguation. You talk about not lowering protection without good reason. As an established editor who isn't an admin, I would argue that you should never apply indefinite admin only protection without VERY good reasons.  Until there is a global policy of preventing autoconfirmed editors from moving articles then applying admin only protection without good reason is much more disruptive than a polite request to return to the default position.  Thank you for now doing so. The-Pope (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Dragon Rescue Service
Most people only complain about them ... ( I think it is because the colored backround ... pictures without a text use to look like that)  Hafspajen (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Does this one have a favourite food, or is it just the usual fish and candlewax? Samsara (FA • FP) 11:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This one like pearls. Hafspajen (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruption
Please do not disrupt GANs. If you have a problem that you think is relevant to the process, point it out on the talk page of the same page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations As I have already pointed out, there is a consensus to use such restorations. Therefore, your disclaimer is irrelevant until you change that consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did it for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Disruption_of_nomination.3F FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hightail
Hi. I saw that you took some interest in the page and in particular the changing of the guard at the CEO level. I submitted a Request Edit here about a week ago asking for this information to be updated in the body of the article. (I have a COI so I am not suppose to edit the article myself) and I was wondering if you had a moment to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

BSI-CMOS sensor
As I know, BSI means shorter circuit, so the consume of the battery is more efficient than non-BSI. BSI-CMOS and CMOS of the same type will catch and process the light with no different. Thank you for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read Back-illuminated sensor, which provides sources supporting the statement you were changing. If changes need to be made, they should be made to the Back-illuminated sensor article first. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I have read Back-illuminated sensor and the article is true, but maybe need some exceptions. This http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/16184/what-are-the-advantages-or-disadvantages-of-a-back-illuminated-cmos-sensor maybe will enrich our knowledge.Gsarwa (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know which part of that I'm supposed to read, but you should be aware that the stackexchange network consists of content generated by pseudonymous users. It is essentially a forum where anyone can contribute, and therefore not a reliable source that should be used for Wikipedia. I haven't seen any source state that power consumption is a major concern in the choice of BSI over conventional CMOS. I think you should find a proper source first before you make further changes. FWIW, this press release from Samsung states that the lower power consumption in its NX1 comes from a 65nm copper based design rather than 180nm aluminium, and not from their choice of BSI over traditional CMOS. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional info from reliable source: http://www.cnet.com/news/why-the-iphone-4-takes-good-low-light-photos-bsi-cmos-sensors-explained/ Thank you for your concern.Gsarwa (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. We have some agreements and I think one misunderstanding:
 * There are CCD sensors, conventional CMOS sensors, and BSI-CMOS sensors - three different types, where BSI CMOS and conventional CMOS have a lot in common. Obviously, we could list more subtypes if we wanted to, but none of them, I think, are of interest to this discussion.
 * BSI CMOS sensors capture light more efficiently than conventional CMOS sensors, and this difference should be greatest for small pixel pitch - larger pixels should not experience significant light loss due to the wiring that covers them in a traditional CMOS design, but small pixels should. However, we still need a reliable source that says so.
 * CMOS sensors are more energy efficient than CCD sensors; no source brought forward so far has documented the existence of a difference in energy consumption between CMOS and BSI-CMOS - all have exclusively spoken to the difference between CMOS and CCD.
 * In contrast, the vast majority of sources state, first thing, that the difference between CMOS and BSI-CMOS is in light capturing ability. We should therefore reproduce that view in Wikipedia as well - anything else would be original research.
 * There are a number of other facts about BSI sensors, such as cost of production and difficulty of scaling, that one could write about, and that are well-documented and universally agreed on by reliable sources. I think we should follow the general emphasis found in reliable sources.
 * Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 18:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You know a lot and concern about the detail. Very few persons know exactly about cameras from film cameras to digital cameras, even sometimes, reflex in SLR/DSLR is mislead as reflection. Digital cameras are still growth, mainly the sensor and the processor, while lenses maybe have near 100 percent been explored. One possibility is to use bigger diameter lens to increase sensitivity, if the cost is not the constrain. Sensor and processor day by day become powerful and the price decline a lot. So, when we talk about sensor itself, maybe many views will appear depends on point of view and where will be applied. Still changing confuse us which one is right, if we are not follow the changing continously. Seems CCD is dormant, but old CCD is different with current CCD. Thank you so much for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't know a lot about recent innovation in CCDs, maybe there isn't much happening - it was a reasonably mature technology when it was starting to be abandoned in DSLRs. I would suggest to you though that lenses have not been explored 100% yet. There are new lens design patents every year. Samsara (FA • FP) 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. Sony has made prototype of curve-sensor, but certainly it should need new lenses. But I think the battle is not merely in hardware area anymore, but also in software. Some lens distortions have been reduced by in-camera sofware, but certainly need still improvement. Until now only a few cameras use open system as Android and almost all still use propietary systems and if we crack and improve it, the warranty become invalid.Gsarwa (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/State Arms of the Union (set)
Samsara- Thank you for your support of this FP nominated set. Based on some feedback received from a reviewer, yesterday I started another round of light cleaning of the images to remove thread-like white fibers that could be found in the brown and black ink areas of the images. I do not expect to edit each image but have already completed 33 of 46. If for any reason the touch ups are not completed by the end of the nomination (approximately 24 hours), I will suspend the nomination. Thanks again for your support. --Godot13 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is
Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. (FP high up) Hafspajen (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In case Haffy's meaning isn't clear, it meas that the Marinka account was already suspected to be a sock violating a block, from a user whom Haffy had repeatedly asked to stop interacting with him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, he didn't had the decency - to at least leave me alone, not even with this sock. Sockpuppet investigations/Coat of Many Colours. Hafspajen (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ''This is a discussion of this remark and my reply made on this nomination.
 * @, : There are several issues here.
 * Innocent until proven guilty. The fact that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened does not justify treating the contributor as a sock before a positive finding has been made. Several other principles intersect with the case at hand:
 * Making a disclaimer of the kind you made on that nomination only invites further debate - I hope this is not what you intended, as it is not productive for the project overall.
 * Individuals who feel they have in some way been victimised sometimes feel their subjective victimisation justifies demands that they place on other involved or uninvolved parties. This kind of behaviour, like the above, should be avoided, and we should all self-check to ensure that we do not engage in it.
 * Recently, I have heard complaints about declines in participation at FPC, AfD, and WikiProjects, as well as a reduction in nominations for adminship. A perennial complaint in these scenarios is our acerbic atmosphere. Principally, we should encourage participation by anyone so long as it is civil and on-topic. Diversity of viewpoints according to my reading is generally believed, on average, to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia. We should therefore encourage and respect participation from IP users as well, even or especially if they disagree with the motion. Non-promotion is a necessary part of a consultation process such as FPC, and nobody should feel they'll be gagged if they say the wrong thing. In fact, even though IP users' votes may not be counted, their participation may enrich the debate and cause others to consider aspects they would otherwise gloss over. I felt the comment you made was not helpful in encouraging the kind of collaborative working environment that we want to create. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way - but I think you were not the target of the harrasment that almost meade me leave Wiki. Actually. I feel that you see only the top of the iceberg and thus - don't really have an inside wiev. There are several other off wiki ramifications to this, that I don't want let you know here AND generally nobody would accuse me for being hars with Wiki-folk, on the contrary. I appreciate your consern, but this editor all in one was indeed the one not productive for the project at overall. I would hardly say that about Crisco - on the contrary. Regards. Hafspajen (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please understand I'm not criticising the sockpuppet investigation request, only the remark on the FPC page. I think it would have been better practice to wait for the investigation to conclude and then make a remark about it at FPC. As far as my assessment goes, no positive effect was achieved by the attempt to anticipate the other user's contribution (he/she contributed anyway), and a second comment had to be made in any case. And I'm sorry that you've been affected off-wiki, but I don't think your FPC remark would have had any impact on that, positive or negative. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 17:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you are probably right, I just find interacting with this person this so - well, no words can tell... I knew it was him - I always do - and here he goes trying to fool us again and again. Hafspajen (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And he did it ... again. Hafspajen (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones close
I read your close of the RfC as specifically finding a consensus for inclusion of the New York Magazine quote in the lead, but no consensus to include on the other bits. Gaba seems to read your close as saying that there was no consensus for removal of any cites in the lead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC close
First of all, thank you for your attention to the RFC and bringing it to a close with a summary and suggestions. But I am confused. The only objection I had to 's proposal was the wording. I already proposed the discussed change and it was denied by an administrator (because the template is fully protected.) So we are going to need to prove some kind of wider consensus to actually change the infobox. As for the status quo, nobody who edits bishop articles has read any of our discussions. It's essentially a meat puppet problem. New editors come in all the time to make updates as soon as the appointments hit the news. So there will be no implementation of any proposal without community and infobox support. Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC) " to cause a line break. Alternatively, if you study the template source, you'll understand how to do it manually for the sake of a trial. Thirdly, you could create a temporary copy of the template with the modifications made. If you choose the last option, I would suggest naming it sth like "Template:Infobox Christian leader temporary sandbox".
 * I understood that your objection was to the wording, but I see exactly that your wording did not have support, and his/hers had, within the low participation of the RfC, a majority among those who commented on it (including Iaritmioawp).
 * You don't need to change the template to try the new format within articles. It looks to me like it's something that can easily be done manually by changing the parameter value inserted using "
 * As for the awareness problem, the places to advertise an RfC such as this probably include Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity and probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and similar wikiprojects that may use this or a similar related template. Obviously, Template talk:Infobox Christian leader should also receive a notification. You could also notify these places now and give an opportunity to comment, but I think given the small number of articles likely to be affected at any given time, a BRD approach is appropriate.
 * Regards, Samsara 05:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC close for America: Imagine a World Without Her
I do not believe there was a consensus as the arguments from both sides have not been addressed or resolved to reach a conclusion. Consensus is not determined by majority vote but by a fair evaluation of the valid concerns in alignment with WP policies and then the creation of a resolution that addresses those concerns. The closer statement should read "unresolved" and not in favor of a position that blatantly ignores the legitimate arguments against it. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of your particular concerns were out of scope for the RfC. The RfC posed the question, "is it a reliable source for its own film review?" (emphasis mine) This question was answered in the affirmative, and hence, the RfC is closed correctly. It sounds like you want to be asking a different question, in which case, you should open a separate discussion. Samsara 08:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the RFC asked if it was reliable for its own film review in regards to adding it to the article as a minority perspective. I'll quote part of the RFC that you ignored "The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here." So my arguments directly address why it can not be included in the article and is not allowable, because the article "America: Imagine a world without Her" is not an article about the review itself, the author of the review, or Breitbart.com. WP:QS specifically says that questionable source should only be used in articles/topics about the source itself. So, it can be a reliable source if it was being used as a primary source on a WP article about Christian Toto or Breitbart.com. However, that does not make it a reliable source to be included on other articles. This was part of the RFC question and this is certainly not resolved.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The bottom line here is that it's my role as closer to assess community opinion. In this case, a clear majority of the community did not follow your interpretation of QS. Regards, Samsara 08:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, consensus is not determined by "majority" opinion and to make a conclusion or determination based on majority opinion is a violation of WP policies regarding establishing consensus. Furthermore, the community didn't address the clear concerns presented by WP:QS, they've completely ignored them. You claiming that it's my "interpretation" is also inherently dishonest since it's not an interpretation, it's explicitly what WP:QS says. And I quote, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves". So there is no interpretation being made here. So, not only have you abandoned your first unfounded defense for closing the board, you've now manifested a second unfounded defense that directly goes against WP's policies regarding consensus. The community opinion doesn't override or bypass WP policy. Your job as a closer is to assess the ARGUMENTS presented and determine if a consensus was reached. A consensus clearly was not reached and multiple contributors blatantly ignored WP policy concerning WP:QS. My concerns are valid, aligned with WP policy, and clearly have not been addressed. They've simply been disregarded, just like you've disregarded them twice now, which is not how consensus is met, especially when my concerns are backed by what WP policies explicitly state. Again, I urge that if you're intent on closing the RFC, that you change the verdict to "consensus not met" since majority opinion has nothing to do with reaching a consensus and the arguments opposed to the RFC have merit and haven't been resolved.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm contacting you again to seek a resolution to your closing this article. As per WP:ANRFC "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale." and "All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies." It seems that you've stopped discussing your closure rationale after your first two justifications were refuted and showed to be in violation of WP policies regarding consensus and showed a lack of understanding of the scope of the RFC. As per WP:RFC/U, if not all participants agree to a closing summary then the RFC is to be closed as if it was due to inactivity. It's very clear that the participants did not all agree on a summary and therefore "closing by agreement" was erroneous. I urge you again to change the closing status to that it is in alignment with Wikipedia policies regarding closing. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the closure is wrong, there is a review process for that. As a general principle though, clear policy violations do not require RfCs, they can be dealt with directly. A number of other experienced editors commented on the RfC and did not see reason for immediate action. Samsara 01:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq
Regarding you close, I question the consensus. You say the Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject but when asked how they would or could do that they failed to provide a solution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, since I'm not familiar with the subject, it's not my job to figure that out. My experience is that a way can be found - often this is by integrating more material into the main body of text, rather than letting it stand as a separate section. However, as per WP:NODEADLINE, the remark should be seen as an optional statement - it is not intended as imperative, but rather, as encouragement. Regards, Samsara 09:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your Job is to figure out what's going on in the conversation you closed and determine a consensus. The section being discussed is not about the Iranian led intervention in Iraq. It is about 2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq. The person that started the RFC failed to get a consensus to post it there. There is no deadline for article completion. There was a deadline for making a case for inclusion of that material in the article in that RFC. They did not accomplish that and I would ask you to review your close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not my job to produce a specific edit that satisfies all sides. If you wish to have this reviewed, there is a process for that. Samsara 20:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a process for that. One of the first things todo in that process is to contact the orginal closer and discuss it with them. I'm trying to figure out if your close was more than a vote count. You don't have a problem discussing your close do you?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olympus Stylus Tough TG-860, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International
I see that you modified the hatnote on San Diego Comic-Con International to remove the piping through Comic Con (disambiguation). This piping is so that those of us at WP:DPL who fix ambiguous links (and the bots that help us) know that the link is intentional. This is explained at WP:INTDABLINK. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 15:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Something should be done about the additional redirect notice this causes at the top of the page, which is unsightly. If you don't know what I mean, ask again. Ultimately we should still try to serve the reader. Samsara 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that you mean the line (Redirected from Comic Con (disambiguation)) that appears on Comic Con when clicking on the hatnote at San Diego Comic-Con International. I believe that's the way that MediaWiki shows redirects, and I don't think that anything can be done to suppress that line when a redirect is used. WP:INTDABLINK is policy (pinging User:BD2412 to confirm this), so the redirect in the hatnote must go through the (disambiguation) redirect. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 20:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a guideline. People often get these confused, but others hold that the difference is actually quite important. Samsara 20:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:INTDABLINK is the only item on the page that is policy, rather than a guideline. This is because disambiguation links are generally errors needing to be checked and fixed, and with hundreds of thousands remaining to be fixed, eliminating false positives makes it possible for disambiguators to find and fix actual errors. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The unaddressed issue is the "redirected from" bit. I think your "policy" is breaking how mediawiki was supposed to work, i.e. that redirect advisory should only show up if there's something that actually needs reader's or editor's attention. Soon, according to you, it will be popping up all over the place. Apparently, nobody has actually asked for a technical solution to be implemented. Samsara 21:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ken Rockwell and Steve Huff Blogs
Sometimes I wonder, is Ken Rockwell blog can be a source of Wikipedia. Ken Rockwell blog is popular among amateur and also proffessional photographers. Steve Huff maybe is not so popular as Ken Rockwell. Most of the other blogs maybe are not good, but who live from the blogs maybe serious and write as good as they can, because if they do not well, viewers and other proffessional bloggers can butcher them, and move to the other blogs.

When the first time, I mention about camera phones will dominant over point and shoot cameras (certainly based on expert written and statistic), my contribution is reverted and in the talk page, someone say it is impossible. But nowadays, I think my contribution is right. I have also mention that someday maybe m4/3 cameras will have more role in camera business and some of it have toppled APS-C cameras in DxO Labs article, but due to maybe it is original source, it has been reverted.

If the policy is not allowed any blog in Wikipedia, I'm appreciate it. Thank you for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not so much about being right as it is about reproducing factual content from reliable sources - we have a guideline about reliable sources at Identifying reliable sources. For photography, I would say we can trust Imaging Resource and as a very general rule of thumb, the websites of photography magazines that also appear in print. Some of these will be less reliable than others; for instance, I usually wouldn't trust any that cover just one brand, like Canon or Nikon, except when they're reporting news (but that's usually available on the web anyway). I would also trust tests conducted by Roger Cicala, but I wouldn't reproduce his opinions except in quote form when noteworthy. There are also a number of websites that just publish test data - photozone, lenstip, slrgear, dxomark. There are one or two more of that kind. Unfortunately, their test results are often based on single copies of a lens, so have to be taken with caution.
 * I find that the test results of PhotoReview.com.au are a bit more hit-and-miss. Imaging Resource does some of the same tests and they clearly get more consistent results. Techradar in my opinion is emerging as a fairly good source, although it's rare that they're the only ones reporting something. Petapixel and Fstoppers can be worth a look, they publish a lot of material that is not encyclopaedic, but they have the occasional genuine news item as well, which can be useful. Some of the tests at Cameralabs.com are also reasonable, but I would avoid reviews not written by Gordon himself. Btw, Cameralabs.com only covers current models for six brands, and these don't include Pentax/Ricoh, Samsung, Sigma or Leica. Cameralabs for me is where it starts to get a little grey, really. I probably put more faith in Luminous Landscape, which is generally well respected, but covers slightly different topics.
 * DPReview used to be a reliable source, but they have come under a lot of criticism over the last two years for their biased coverage of different brands and device categories, and their position as an amazon.com subsidiary is problematic. As a source for spec sheets and feature lists, they're generally still okay, but I wouldn't always trust the editors to understand what the features do or how they work.
 * As for Ken Rockwell, most of the "serious" crowd seem to ignore him. This also applies to some extent to Steve Huff and also Thom Hogan. These kinds of guys can usually be trusted as far as simple facts are concerned, like "the mount of this lens is attached by five screws" or "the lens weighs 20kg", but even when it comes to comparisons between brands, people quickly reach their limits. (This unfortunately often applies to printed magazines as well!) There are some other characters like the above group, especially on youtube, which should probably not be used as a source except in, well, exceptional cases.
 * It's unfortunate that tests of lenses and especially vibration reduction are often published based on small sample sizes and without proper statistical analysis. When that's obviously the case, I prefer to err on the side of not covering a particular issue rather than reproducing conclusions that won't hold up to significance tests.
 * Generally when reproducing reviews or other opinions, it's easiest to do so by direct quote using quote marks "" and attribution.
 * Hope this helps. Samsara 08:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your long explanation. Usually I open 4 or 5 different sources, sometimes more and I choose the best one/two. Nowadays some magazines/publishing/other media without phtography background also make coverage of photography/camera such as PCMag and CNET. They cover usually short, but I think reliable enough at least for the features. Certainly I always search any other sources, because newcomers are not always bad. In smartphone business, Xiaomi in China and Oppo in France make a great leap. In the camera business, using 16MP sensor to produce 64MPixel RAW (48MP JPEG) (I think) it is a good news, and the manufacturer is not Canikon.Gsarwa (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * It would be great to see that. I believe there are plenty left to give out! :) Samsara 13:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
I appreciate it! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photobro (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

???
Honest to God, re-reading and re-reading what I wrote, I cannot for the life of me see how you could interpret my comments the way you have. Could we at least keep this off the article talk page, as it has nothing to do with improving the article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thanks for the tea. I expected to find at least some basic info about the school on the web, but it wasn't to be so. I eventually followed your original request for speedy A7. Regards, Samsara 13:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rrring rrring
Hey, I was surprised to see that you've been active again. Are you sticking around? Cheers, Samsara 00:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Samsara,
 * Yes, I'm back. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  14:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bioinformatics rv
Hello Sam,

Can you send the section of the article you reverted to either my sandbox or my email? I will work on the integration of this piece of text into the article soon, as I find the user under IP did a pretty good job with the references and content in general, despite the context.

Thanks,

-- J.B.M.D. 00:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done You can find it at User:Jelly Bean MD/Sandbox. You should also be able to do this yourself via the history tab of an article. Feel free to ask if it's not straightforward or something doesn't seem to be working the next time you need it. As for the edit, I thought it might need to be condensed somewhat, with particularly the borderline product placement at the end being made more generic/npov/non-instructional. It also seemed that some of the content overlapped the "education platforms" section in scope. Otherwise, I agree that the addition had merit, and I'm glad you're volunteering to work on it.
 * PS: As a final and very general thought, there's no reason we couldn't have an entire article on this subject. Cheers! Samsara 00:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! (I'm still in the process of slowly discovering the functions of WP.) -- J.B.M.D. 02:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

EW
Please don't edit war on Blocking policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing.- MrX 13:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please continue the discussion rather than defending the reversal of revised proposals without further discussion. Generally, people know to follow WP:BRD, which entails a cycle of proposals and discussion. Without feedback, no progress can be made, and there is clearly consensus that the status quo of the document is not ideal. Regards, Samsara 13:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City 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/Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City 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. Jerodlycett (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for edit in Koinophilia
Thank you very much for the better wording in the caption of the photograph of the herd of springbok. I won't be able to provide the reference that you think would useful (I don't know where anyone has stated it exactly like that) but all research projects involving studying the biology of individuals can only be carried out if the individuals (be they birds or mammals, etc.) are artificially tagged with unique identification markings. I am involved in a raptor research project studying Black Sparrowhawks where recognition of individuality is crucial. The birds are uniquely color-banded on the legs, but a few we think we can recognize, after 14 years of close study, even though we have not been able to catch them to fit the rings. The referees of the journals to whom our research papers are submitted always express scepticism if we include these birds as if their individuality is known. And they are right. We can recognise them if they are faithful to their territories, but we would have severe doubts about who they are if found several kilometers away. Oggmus (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that individual markings are required by peer review really does not speak to our ability to recognise individual animals, it is simply a convention that has proved useful within the realm of peer-reviewed publication. As you know, some studies are conducted with small samples, and just a single misidentification could make the difference between a clearly insignificant and borderline significant result (high Cp-values are not expected with small n''). Even in species where individuals are easy to distinguish, most researchers will probably use a rigorous identification system simply to avoid having their paper rejected. What's needed to substantiate the notion that researchers cannot distinguish individual animals would be a properly blinded study where researchers are presented with stimuli representing animals of known identity and asked to identify them. I suspect that such studies have been done. Samsara 06:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You are very right about that. But in our case, with the Black Sparrowhawks, we have photographed all the birds (over 700 of them over the years) in the study area (~500 km2), but even with that information we cannot identify individual birds except in very few instances, where we take location, age, behavior and fairly characteristic breast color-patterning into account. In studies of primates (e.g. chimpanzees, baboons etc., but probably not monkeys) it is often possible to recognize individuals, probably because we see the same individuality in them as we do in our fellow human-beings, but antelopes such as the springbok even the game rangers cannot recognize individuality unless it involves a broken or misformed horn, or something similar. But your point is still valid, and it would be very nice to have a reference there acknowledging an authority's view on the subject. I'll scour the Wiki pages to see whether I can find a reference to the phenomenon, and discuss it with my colleagues to see whether they have information on it. One of them studied urban kestrels in Vienna and Finland. She had not been able to tag them, and had residents (in Vienna) claim that they knew the birds which nested near their apartments each year; but she severely doubted that they could actually do that, and chalked those lay-observations up to wishful thinking. On the other hand - she had no more evidence that the residents in central Vienna were wrong in supposing that the birds that were nesting near or on their balconies were not their regulars as they supposed, compared to her supposition that the early arrivals in spring took the best nesting sites, and that there was no correlation between who nested where each year. The point being that without artificial individual identification one member of a species cannot be distinguished from another in nature, using our eyes. Oggmus (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be great - the more the merrier (contributors, references, or both). :) Samsara 18:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added several citations in the appropriate place, which together make the appropriate point; but I have not had the sort of reference that states the point in one statement. I am awaiting the response I get from my colleagues, though I suspect that most sources consider this such an obvious and elementary point of fact, comparable to the "sun rising in the east, and setting in the west", that no one has bothered to voice a concern about its inarguable veracity. But I'll keep trying. And thanks for all your help and encouragement. If you discover anything appropriate, please let me know. Oggmus (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now had feed-back from a colleague who has supplied two references to support the final statement in the caption to the herd of springbok. The accompanying comment was: "There is plenty written on the importance of individually marked animals for all kinds of studies.", but I think just two are sufficient in an article such as this. I hope you agree. And...by the way, many thanks for the extra editing you have done to the koinophilia article. User:Chiswick Chap did a fantastic job tightening up the article to be more encyclopedic in nature. So, between the two of you, it has become really great. Oggmus (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad everyone's happy. I think we should take the article to GAN shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon, May 2015
Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more, or if you'd be interested in taking part remotely! Lirazelf (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ARGH. My apologies. Correct link is this one here. *headdesk* Lirazelf (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Abhiguru Pandey
Unfortunately, Abhiguru Pandey keeps creating inappropriate articles like this. I think this and the almost nonexistent communication amount to a lack of competence that is no longer constructive for the project. I am severely tempted to restore the indefinite block but would rather consult you beforehand. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here to say the same, having just deleted हिण्डौन उपखण्ड, a two-liner, in Hindi, which is yet another duplicate of Hindaun. Looking back through the talk page, I think this is really a case of someone who, however good their intentions, has WP:CIR issues which make them more trouble than they are worth, and I do not see any sign of improvement. Pandey has no edits on the Hindi Wikipedia, and may not even know that it exists, though I have just put contrib-hi1 on their talk page). I propose blocking with a suggestion that they edit the Hindi WP, where communication will be easier and they can learn how Wikipedia works. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi John, I have been in discussion with De72etc. I'm not sure if you're aware of the previous discussion at ANI. Abhiguru had figured out how to use the "thank you" mechanism, which made me hopeful he would start using talk pages as well. I am keeping an eye on the situation, and I agree that a block is now the most likely outcome unless we see a dramatic turn-around within the next 24 hours. Samsara 14:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Today, I reinstated the indef block after deleting an article that he'd pasted together from two external sources (copyvio*2) and where he also removed an appropriate speedy tag. I hope he'll come back when his English and maturity have improved, to work in a way that doesn't require so much oversight. Regards, Samsara 13:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good block, definitely a case of WP:CIR. I hope that, together with contrib-hi1 that I put on his talk page, it may encourage him to contribute at hi-wiki, where things can be explained in his own language and he will probably learn faster. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Averageness
Hi, could you take a look at the discussion on the merger of Averageness and Koinophilia at Talk:Averageness, it seems we are near agreement but need to decide which way the merger goes. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you've moved the Rate of evolution section out of Koinophilia. What, therefore, do you think of the Proposal to move the Koinophilia#Averageness and physical attractiveness section to the Averageness page? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Commented there. Samsara 10:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Pentax K-3
Hallo, ich halte es für sinnvoll den deutschen K-3 II Artikel in den K-3 Artikel zu integrieren, genauso wie bei K-5, K-5 II und K-5 IIs. Die Neuerung sind interessant für den insider aber nicht so revolutionär das es einen neuen Artikel rechtfertigt. Es ist ein vernünftiger - mir sehr gut gefallender mid time Update, leider haben sie das Klappdisplay der K-S2 nicht mit integriert.

Ich wollte aber vorher mit dir darüber reden. übrigens die K-S2 hat jetzt Bilder

Grüße --Joergens.mi (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to have diagram of "Hominin fossils species through time" restored on koinophilia page
Hi Samsara. You moved the section entitled "Rate of Evolution" in the koinophilia article, to a page of its own, and replaced it with an excellent summary, for which I am very grateful, and have thanked you above. However, I would very much appreciate it if you would restore the diagram of the "Hominin fossil sequence through time" to the koinophilia article, please. It is that very phenomenon, of fossil species occurring in parallel (rather than in series as predicted by Darwin), without any obvious links or transitions between them, so typical of all fossil sequences, that is an inevitable consequence of koinophilia. It is one of its central tenets. Without a visual representation of what is meant by those words, most readers have very little concept of what the "discontinuities in the fossil record" really means.

So, if you could restore it, it would make the article considerably more more complete. Its original inclusion in the article earned the article a very welcome and important congratulatory comment. Oggmus (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not principally opposed to this. However, I would caution against over-emphasising koinophilia as the explanation of what can at least equally well be explained by many other models, including incompleteness of the fossil record (incidentally rather misrepresented in the figure, i.e. not at all!) and limited contact. I suspect we will also easily agree that the diagram oversimplifies the situation by de-emphasising the variation that exists between different specimens that palaeontologists may nonetheless assign to the same species. So I think due weight would need to be given to alternate explanations for the observed patterns and the artificiality of the presentation. The more I think about this, the more I become convinced that this is a very poor diagram that should be substantially redrawn, specifically with time points that represent individual fossils rather than ranges, to avoid giving a false impression of the confidence of our inferences. Samsara 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. Let me ponder the problem. I also do not like this particular illustration (which I found in another Wikipedia article), but I have seen very similar ones in several authoritative printed texts on Human Evolution, but can obviously not use them for copyright reasons. Whenever time lines of fossil species (e.g. dinosaurs or the horse etc.) are presented in graphical form they have this appearance, but it would be helpful if the points at which the individual specimens have been dated are included. Oggmus (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cite isbn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Cite isbn. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of DxO Optics Pro


A tag has been placed on DxO Optics Pro, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "Click here to 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.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia
You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know/RFC DYK process improvement 2015
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know/RFC DYK process improvement 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikidata
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Canon EF-M 22mm lens
 * added a link pointing to Canon


 * Canon EF-M 55-200mm lens
 * added a link pointing to Canon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zeiss Otus 1.4/55, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeiss. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of selfie-related injuries and deaths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moscow City. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Cecil
Regarding the talk page section you removed, you are absolutely right. I'd encourage you to add some info about the EU and other non-US political activity regarding Cecil.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Three times. Samsara 16:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael W. Halberstam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Father. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of selfie-related injuries and deaths for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of selfie-related injuries and deaths 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/List of selfie-related injuries and deaths 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Samsara,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Philaethria hecale 2 Richard Bartz.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 29, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-09-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for page move
Hi Samsara, as you are involved in improving photographic articles as well, could you carry out the following four articles moves (leaving redirects) in order to achieve consistency in the naming used for Sony A-mount lens articles (see Category:Sony A-mount lenses)? These are also the only ones left with the "lens" appendage (not only among Sony A-mount lenses, but also among all A-mount and E-mount lenses):


 * Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA lens -> Sony α Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA
 * Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 ZA lens -> Sony α Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 ZA
 * Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM lens -> Sony α Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM
 * Sony Alpha Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZA lens -> Sony α Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZA

(I would carry out those moves myself, but there appears to be a configuration error in the move filter rules currently disallowing the α symbol to occur in page names, while it is possible to create new pages including the symbol without problems - but I don't want to move the article contents via copy & paste for obvious reasons.)

Regarding f/n, F/n or just Fn. While I changed this to Fn for the Sony E-mount lenses, I choose not to change this from the traditional f/n for the Sony A-mount lenses, as this would require changing all the Minolta A-mount lens articles as well for reasons of consistency, and the Fn convention wasn't used by Minolta (except for in service manuals).

Thanks and greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, - I meant to look this up sooner, but the proposed moves go against our naming conventions, see Article titles. Creating redirects would be fine, as would be moving to a title without the "lens" appendage. As for the strange configuration, I'm not the best person to speak to. You might be looking for one of these. Alternatively, IRC may help.
 * Greetings, Samsara 15:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Are you still participating in discussion?"
"Or just in revert-all mode? Samsara 13:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)", you wrote.

Naturally I do not know what your motivations are for keeping the info out of the article regarding the 12 articles that Nature (journal) rejected. Perhaps you can reconnect with your friends on Facebook, to discuss also that side of Homo naledi/Rising Star Cave subjects. Here to sway (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have given a very clear explanation on the talk page, which it seems you have read. Samsara 15:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed the header of your 3RR complaint
Please see my recent edit. When you filed this report, you didn't name the person whose edits caused concern. My assumption is you believed User:Here to sway was the person not waiting for the RfC outcome. It is strange to have a 3RR report against an unnamed person. I hoped to fix this defect in the report header, but I want to check with you to be sure I made the right guess. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The name of the notice board is "edit warring", and my comment relates to that. It was not a 3RR report per se, or I would have filed it correspondingly. Regards, Samsara 11:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)