User talk:Srich32977/Archive 25

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Money emoji
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Athaenara • DeltaQuad
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
 * A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news
 * Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present.  You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
 * The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid misleading edit summaries
As an experienced editor, you should know better than this. Entirely deleting any mention of this part of his public life from the lede (despite it being covered in a substantial part of the article body) is not a mere "copy edit". Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've got some experience on WP. And the vast majority of my edits are minor. In this case I read the Christian Science Monitor article on Schultz and decided that this aspect of his life was quite minor. It was either do the "right thing" -- fully explain the edit -- or move along with the "efficient thing". I chose efficiency. But I do not regret my edit, nor my opportunity to thank you for your good catch. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Cabayi • Lee Vilenski
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Boing! said Zebedee
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg NativeForeigner

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Someguy1221
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news
 * There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news
 * There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration
 * Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous
 * The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Easter
or: the resurrection of loving-kindness --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news
 * Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
 * Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news
 * The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
 * created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous
 * A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit to Bath School disaster
Some of the changes in this edit puzzle me: I wanted to change the edits back to their more complete form, but if there's a MOS reason etc for your adjustments please let me know - I learn new stuff around WP all the time. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many of the publication dates within cites were changed from a specific date, say March 2009 to the year 2009. But March 2009 is the verified date of publication and the form of Month/Year is not against MOS.
 * The google book URLs were changed from, for instance, https://books.google.com/books?id=0JVFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=false to https://books.google.com/?id=0JVFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA150#v=onepage but the second/changed URL resolves to the 1st/original URL so is the change necessary? Also code like "&q&f=false" was stripped out of the changed URL but when the changed URL is put into a Search it includes the &q&f=false statement.
 * Let me look at this more carefully. Thanks for asking. – S. Rich (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * – Repsonses:
 * 1. the google book URLs go to the same page, with or without &q&f=false. Why the cite bot does this I don't know. But it's a great bot because it fixes all sorts of problems.
 * 2. The month of publication for book isn't very relevant to the average reader. So when we look for Arnie's 2009 book at Amazon, Google, Open Library, LCC, or via they all give us 2009. (The date of copyright) 2.a. I'm looking for consistency in the citations. Years only for books is great, but we need months and days for magazines & newspapers. (Sometimes I see day of the week and particular times in citations. What a bunch of clutter!)
 * 3. Arnie's book is in the refs 6 times and with two different ISBNs. So which should the reader use if they want verification? And do the different ISBNs have different page schemes? I hope we aren't giving the readers a multitude of formats. E.g., do the different cites to to Kindle, Hardback, Paperback versions? 3.a. IMO Arnie should get one citation, and we us the template for each different bit of info.
 * So, I hope your concerns are addressed. Thanks again for asking. – S. Rich (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The extra bit of code in the URLS isn't really an issue, they both get the reader to the same place.
 * Thank you so much for pointing out the different ISBNs. No, it wasn't different formats at all, I'm not sure where those ISBNs crept in from. After you mentioned it I checked the information and cites & corrected them to the paperback version I have (which is 978-0-472-03346-1). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

AutoEd edits
Hi, I've seen several of your edits on my watchlist recently which don't seem to be doing anything useful. In particular, moving white space around, removing underscores from piped links, removing empty parameters from templates, and changing ISBN to isbn don't produce any change to the rendered page and should be avoided unless you're making a substantive edit at the same time, per WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:MEATBOT. Best, HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reported the ISBN= to isbn= change, which was probably recommended by Citation bot, at the bot's talk page.
 * The removing underscores from piped links edit was not cosmetic; it fixed a curly apostrophe and added a year to a citation, and maybe fixed a WP:LISTGAP problem (Caveat: I don't really understand LISTGAP).
 * The other two edits do appear to have been cosmetic and should not have been published. Please be more careful in previewing edits before saving cosmetic edits, . You've been down this road before and have been blocked for similar behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The other two edits do appear to have been cosmetic and should not have been published. Please be more careful in previewing edits before saving cosmetic edits, . You've been down this road before and have been blocked for similar behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The other two edits do appear to have been cosmetic and should not have been published. Please be more careful in previewing edits before saving cosmetic edits, . You've been down this road before and have been blocked for similar behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Anniversaries ... today is the birthday of Claudio Monteverdi and Hans Herbert Jöris, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for article improvements in May! - DYK our list of people for whose life I'm thankful enough to improve their articles? - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

B. Franklin
Hi Srich32977, I left a note about B. Franklin's date of birth on the relevant talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Franklin). Your input is most welcome. Shams lnm (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SQL

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration
 * A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

June
Thank you for improving articles in June. I can proudly present a FA, quite a gift after a year without, and a FL is in the making, comments welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Malcolmxl5
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg John • TheCoffee • Tim!
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bbb23

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news
 * Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration
 * Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
 * The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you in July
Thank you for improving articles in July! Now a FTN is open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cedar, Kansas
Please do not change the term to describe an incorporated community, because they legally vary from state to state, and defined by laws in each state. For example, in Kansas an incorporated city is always a city, even if the community shrinks below the current minimum population to newly incorporate a city, until such time that a tiny community decides to disincorporate. In Kansas, a "community" is either a city, or an unincorporated community, or a ghost town; in many other states it is more complicated. Page 9-3 to 9-8 in the following PDF describe the legal terms for communities in each state, as of 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20141020110606/https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/GARM/Ch9GARM.pdf •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 03:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red Phoenix
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Euryalus • SQL
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg GB fan
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news
 * There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
 * Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
 * Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
 * There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

G. Oatman for you!
Legend has it, his first name is Gary, the unknown and long-lost survivor of the clan. Some say that goat still roams the hills in search of Mary Ann to this day. You formatted one citation with metadata on Olive Oatman and it got me on a kick, thinking "okay if Srich329999999999 wants it then I guess I better". And I forgot to stop. So thanks for infecting me with oatmania. I had no idea it was such a mess all this time. Olive and Eva thank us too.

— Smuckola(talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 

Clinical trial terminology: Phase vs. phase
Hello - when the specific trial stage is named, as in 'Phase I' research, Phase is capitalized, but not when it is the subject or object (without level) in a sentence. Examples here. Note: in COVID-19 drug development, the capitalization is (and had long been) correct in the last paragraph of the lede, but is not a correct capitalization in the caption of the graph under New chemical entities. This had been extensively and carefully edited over the life of this article. Thanks for trying, but more editing is now needed. Zefr (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Quite interesting. I think I've now parsed the Phases and phases correctly. – S. Rich (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Treaties
Hello I don't know if this is one right way to write you. But I saw your username in the page history. Page in question is about peace treaties. I removed some content from that page, as it seems just as some personal activism. I checked that user who added that content and seems to the same user Johncdraper added own writen content. And also seems as just an advocacy or own ideas without broad or significant coverage or support.And I explained my edit by reading "what wikipedia is not" and also what is relevance etc. Please if you can check to I did not made some mistake about removing content. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.185.225 (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You did fine. Thanks for the heads-up and the helpful edits. I've gone to the PT page and made various other corrections. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Page-ranges in refs
Regarding this edit, what MOS specifies that page-ranges should use the shortened form of the second value (example: 365– 67 rather than 365– 367)? Last I knew, WP went with full values nearly everywhere by default, and I can't find anything in cite journal specifying to shorten it (instead, its own examples use full value). DMacks (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have been asked not to do this in the past. Once again, removing full page ranges is contrary to MOS:NUMRANGE, and imposing a new CITEVAR by changing all of these non-ambiguous page ranges to ambiguous ranges is not acceptable. Please fix any edits in which you have changed these page ranges, and change any script you are using so that it does not make such page range changes in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This edit also contained MOS:NUMRANGE and MOS:POSTABBR errors. I have reverted it. Please fix your script. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh FFS
. Fix your script so you stop doing wrong things with page-numbers in cite templates. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Please stop.
 * Also, please slow down and inspect your diffs before saving. This edit, unless I am missing something, appears to have made no changes to the rendered text and fixed no errors. Meanwhile, five citation errors remained unfixed. (And another one.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please slow down and inspect your diffs before saving. This edit, unless I am missing something, appears to have made no changes to the rendered text and fixed no errors. Meanwhile, five citation errors remained unfixed. (And another one.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at WP:AED. It adds spaces so that "automated screen readers discern list markup". Look at, it had various MOSDASH errors and citation (e.g., page-number) inconsistencies. I make gnomish fixes, there is no need to go overboard with rollbacks that re-introduce the errors. – S. Rich (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When you have been asked to stop doing something that contravenes MOS, it is incumbent upon you to fix your script or your editing method. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help Requested: Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Another Wikipedian came by and tagged the Pritzker Military Museum & Library for primary sources, etc. and Pritzker Military Presents as an AfD.

Can you help address the respective issues? Useful information for PMML is on its talk page. TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you change the era style in the Sumer article?
I noticed that a couple of days ago you changed the era style in the article Sumer. I checked the Talk page, and the archives to see if anyone had agreed to change them on the article, which had been consistently BC for years, and I couldn't even find people talking about it. I have restored the BC/AD era style on the article for now, but if I missed something please let me know. NDV135 (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed a mix of BC and BCE usage, so I switched in order to achieve consistency. Since there is no consensus to go with BC/AD, I recommend that we switch back to BCE. The article has nothing to do with Christian or Western Europe history, so Before Christ is irrelevant. Moreover, high-quality research bodies like the Smithsonian Institution regularly use BCE/CE. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That isn't a rule, if you want to switch it, feel free to bring it up on the talk page. But there is not anything in the manual of style that says that that is what should happen. You can check it for yourself here. It also talks about the fact that you need community consensus before changing it. It is just the way that this website works. I will report you to an admin if you keep making changes like this without permission, but I hope that we can reach an understanding here, since sometimes people make mistakes. But even if we did change the article to BCE/CE then I would be breaking the rules since there has been no community consensus on this, and without I don't have the authority to make that change. If you look at my Talk page, you will see discussion about the article Akhenaten, where a similar era style change occurred, and how it was considered a BC/AD article due to long term stability, and no community consensus. Don't worry about the other discussions, I changed a couple of era styles I shouldn't have because I didn't realize that there were archive pages on talk pages since I was kind of new. Also if you look back through the history of the Sumer article you will find that those BCE/CE's were placed onto a BC/AD article, making them the mistakes. NDV135 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually there is a "rule". MOS:ERA says "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article." When an article has a mix of notation there is no "established" style. (I'm not going to review article histories to find "mistakes". Such mistakes only dis-establish the style.) Now that you've taken out the BCE's you can assert "established style". (And I'm not edit-warring over the issue.) But my assertion, supporting BCE–CE consistency as the established style is valid. Your favorite notation style will stand as long as you watch the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

But there was an established style only a few weeks before you made your changes, and it is YOUR job if you are making these edits to find which you should be harmonizing to. Also you clearly don't get what is meant by mix, that article had a single new section someone had recently written with a different era style there are articles where every paragraph is different from the last and you will see things like AD 1 - 250 CE, but that is not what this was like. It is your job to determine era style, and if you aren't willing to do so, please just don't touch the era styles. I spent 20 minutes looking through the history and Talk page before I made that edit, and you should have done the same. NDV135 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

150,000 edits compared to 140 edits. Please stop trying to lecture me. Good-bye. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, just one last thing, I have an example of an admin (Doug Weller) reverted changes where I did the exact same thing you did, a couple days before someone had changed a few of the dates on the article Fort Ancient. The era style had become mixed, however the admin rightly restored it to the previous BCE/CE. Since, like when you changed Sumer the page had only been mixed for a few days or weeks before I harmonized the wrong way, and I trust his opinion on this. NDV135 (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

August
Thank you for improving articles in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Distributed-element circuit
What is the rationale for this edit. Spaced dashes are not actually used in the title of the works you altered. SpinningSpark 09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just realised that you made a similar edit to the article in October which I reverted. Don't just repeat edits without explanation. SpinningSpark 09:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

G13
Hi Srich32977. I have reverted your edits (example: 1) to Pee Tern's sandbox pages. None of these are even remotely eligible for WP:CSD, so please don't tag them again. Thanks,  F ASTILY   04:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please help me out. Pee Tern created lots of sandbox pages which now look like abandoned drafts. I caught notice of them when looking at some categories related to templates. It seems Pee Tern added categories to some of the drafts. See Category:Anthropomorphic_status_codified_templates. To reduce this bit of WP clutter I thought a speedy would work. (I did get a bit of validation!) Well, to continue my effort, shall I WP:T3, TfD, "colon-ize" Pee Tern's template drafts, or what? Thanks. I – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't delete user pages of longstanding editors, even if they appear to be "abandoned". It's fine if you remove the categories from the user pages however.  -  F ASTILY   05:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I shall do the needed colon-izations to PT's [drafts]. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Hopefully my stumbling about with Pee Tern's abandoned templates is over. The categories which I came across are now colonized out. Thanks for your guidance. 06:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

September
Thank you for improving articles in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump administration political interference with science agencies
Would you be okay with this title: Trump administration politicization of science? Johncdraper (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. What is "politicization"? It implies something B-A-D. Scientific method itself is a process of dispute and debate. And the scientific process is not helped by injecting public opinion. Let's let the science stand on its own, without trying to bolster scientific results with non-scientific posturing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking specifically of this reference, but there are any others. I mean, I could build a whole reflist demonstrating this if need be. Still no good? Johncdraper (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Great source – thanks! And it reinforces my point. Take DDT for example – "many of the health concerns of DDT have shifted away from science ... to emotionalism [paraphrased]." We would not create an article titled Politization of malaria control or President X administration political interference with malaria control efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of science policy agenda? Johncdraper (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is only one item on Mr. Trump's agenda. "What? We Exclaim!" (Or "Who? We Exposit.") For a clearer answer we can look for articles on other presidents. Which of them are titled "President Q's policy agenda on RST"
 * There is a long-established series of Foreign policy of the... administration, with the last iteration being Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. There is also a series of ... Policy of Donald Trump administration, e.g., Economic policy of Donald Trump administration. So, Science policy of the Trump administration would make sense, right? Johncdraper (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It sets the stage for a NPOV exposition of what those policies are. And within the article the critics will have their say about how good or evil the policies have been. (So, let's cut & paste this discussion over to the article talk page. Then I think we could soon WP:BB and change the article title.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
Thank you for article work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)