User talk:Stfg/Archive 13

Requests page hijinks
Thanks, Simon, for the flag on Equilibrium (film); I took a quick look at the copyedit, and it looks like there's some ... er, active editing going on. I have my hands full as it is with MirrorFreak, whose gas pedal is stuck to the floor :-). Have you ever seen such an influx of newbies (see the thread above yours on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators), or am I just cranky? Don't know where they're coming from (I'm mentoring two, including MirrorFreak), but there's a lot to keep track of. Thanks for the note on TheQ Editor's talk page. All the best, Anne  Mini  apolis  18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anne. Yes, it's definitely related to the thread above. I've always been leery of offering barnstars for requests, for exactly this kind of reason. Well, Baffle has reverted it to NBF's version, which I think is the right move. I await events :) Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Anne. I'm worried about your chappie too. Take a look at this, his complete copy edit of that article, for which he has declared the request done. Compare this, which our colleague has found to do since. Your chappie currently has two requests marked as Working. Honestly, I can see this blitz turning into a nightmare. --Stfg (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Stfg. I must defend the "chappie" by pointing out that about a third of my tweaks were stylistic, the sort of thing I would change to prepare an article for FA, not for GA (which was what was requested). OK, the original copyedit was not ideal. I've left a lengthy note on the copyeditor's talk page, asking them to review my changes either in toto or individually. It's also clear (they posted on my talk page) that they saw I had made changes. This is perhaps a learning experience for the copyeditor, not a reason to descend upon them with fire and smoke. If Mirrorfreak is currently allocating themselves an article or two per day to copyedit, then of course someone should ask them not to do so. Be nice about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Sorry if I'm coming across as "fire and smoke", but we do need to address the problem that we're attracting people who just dive into the blitz and do inadequate work. I've looked at two copy edits by different editors this evening, and both were totally inadequate. It matters because it's unfair to editors who do major work on articles trying to get them to GA or whatever, and who rely on our help because they admit to weakness in their own prose. This consideration trumps being nice about it, imo. "Not ideal" is quite an understatement: the copy edit was almost vacuous. The only thing done beyond the lede was a single comma in the first post-lede sentence. Thank you for doing a good one yourself on that article. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Simon (and thanks, Demiurge, for helping out in a sticky situation). The Guild's reputation (which has, IMO, been pretty good) is at stake here. While I'm all for welcoming newcomers—we all were, at one time—AGF is not a suicide pact. We should take a middle ground, constructively encouraging newcomers while informing them of our standards in no uncertain terms. I still don't know where all these newbies are coming from, though, and wonder if someone is beating the bushes for new copyeditors without our knowledge. All the best,  Mini  apolis  23:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * exactly. And having slept on this, and this morning seeing this contribution to Wikilove on the part of "chappie", I no longer feel the least sympathy. Actually, I rather resent being accused by of "fire and brimstone" and told to "be nice" to this person, to whom he even gave a Barnstar of Diligence (of all things!) for that copy edit. We aren't a nursery school, for heavens sake! Yesterday evening, to be "nice", I undid my  on chappie's blitz section and, at Demiurge's request, credited him for that copy edit in the archive. My bad. I don't feel I can reverse these myself, but if you, Anne, or any other coordinator wanted to do so, I would have no qualms. --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. Well, their heart's in the right place, at least, and I think Demiurge is trying the carrot approach. You bring up a good point; when I joined the GOCE several years ago, I received no hand-holding and expected none. I think of this as the Teahouse effect; dumb things down enough, and people race to the bottom accordingly. Oh well, it'll work out. Thanks for keeping an eye on things; I know Diannaa's busy with other things, but wish she'd pop in occasionally also. All the best,  Mini  apolis  13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not here on WP to be "nice"; if my c/e reviews bruise someone's ego, so be it! If any coordinators (or anyone else for that matter) disagree with my reviews, feel free to remove them. I'd rather an independent reviewer was reviewing c/es, but they ain't. I've just replaced some requests and unarchived them, and I suggest archiving editors at least check the c/es before archiving them; if s/he isn't happy say so on the request—I know it's a PITA but can save time later. If they don't improve the article, they don't deserve credit in the archives IMO. At least some of the new editors seem to be shaping up well and I hope these stick around, but we shouldn't have to pander to egos just because we want to retain decent copy-editors. It's not rude to say "no, that's not good enough". :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, my feelings exactly. Yes, there are some good new arrivals, too. (I've never seen the PITA abbreviation before. It must stand for Pain In The Neck, doesn't it?) --Stfg (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Anne is right that some copy-editors need no hand-holding when they first join... but many do. I don't think this is any sort of Teahouse effect, though (which was intended to help make a friendlier atmosphere for female editors and anyone else put off by rudeness, not to dumb anything down!) The only likely role the Teahouse may play is directing people in the wrong direction - like "no you can't be an admin with only 20 edits, why not try something simpler instead, like copyediting?" Not that I've seen it in those exact words, but I have seen, even in the last few days, "no you can't have the Reviewer right with so few edits, why not get experience in RCP or new page patrol" (my emphasis). Ugh! Copyediting is seen as simple, but it is not simple for those with limited grasp of English, nor easy for those in an editing phase where what they want to do is button-mashing. Not that anyone discussed may be either, of course.


 * When people do need some hand-holding (which is very apparent in one case mentioned, and maybe it's worse than I thought, I've not had chance to review other copyedits), I stand by my approach of pointing out to them that this is what they could or (slightly more aggressively) should have done as a copyedit... that is something they can learn from (and perhaps will, in time, or not), whereas red crosses and archiving things back and forth isn't quite so constructive. Though it's fine if the workflow you're working through is to put red crosses in places where red crosses go, etc.


 * I've seen a fair few editors similar to MirrorFreak, and I do mean similar in every respect mentioned here and more. Not all of them end up at GOCE or cause problems at GOCE. Many of them get blocked. About 10% turn into great and valued editors with far more edits and far more peer reviewed articles than I have. Hence my patience. I do know most people don't really want to put up with the other 90%.


 * As for the outburst on some vandal's page - already apologised for - what worries me is that surely, to "redirect profane pages to kids T.V shows" would be far less problematic than the opposite? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No offense meant to the Teahouse; I was venting exasperation. The requests page is currently a mess; one requester had about four articles listed, one after the other, which Valfury (that's why I'm here, Simon, since you checked their first article) and Wilhelmina Will were knocking off at a pretty fast clip. Is it me, or is whatever system we have being gamed? And with all the babysitting we now have to do, how exactly do the articles on the list get copyedited {really copyedited)? I've never seen anything like this, and honestly don't know what to do. I joined the Guild to copyedit, not grade papers. All the best,  Mini  apolis  00:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Me too, and thus; I usually copyedit one article from the Requests list per copyedit drive, and I guess small pieces of work like that are how articles on the list "really" get copyedited. In the particular instance I encountered, I happened to see a particular editor taking on a Request and wasn't confident it would go well, so I watchlisted the article then tidied up once he or she had finished. If I chose to spend my time watching the Requests page around the clock and, as you put it, "grading papers", then I might get annoyed with spending so much of my time grading papers! Why choose to do something you don't enjoy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To answer the last question first, we may enjoy doing copy editing to the best of our abilities and then feel obliged to do some checking if we want to look after the reputation of the Guild. I'd have thought that this week amply illustrates why. Checking other newbies' copy edits is like paying taxes: I don't want to do it, but I do want to keep the NHS.


 * I did perhaps a bit more than my fair share of checking during 2012, and it's clear enough to me that there are different ways that newbies can go wrong: (A) they have language skills and diligence but haven't yet learned enough; (B) they may or may not have language skills but they don't make a serious effort; (C) they don't have enough language skills and should not be copy editing, or at least not the requests page. I'm fine with treating (A) with a bit of slack, especially if an experienced editor is willing to take the time to guide them. In the case of (C) it can be a bit painful, because these are very often nice, good faith editors, and there were times when I and other coordinators emailed one another to discuss what to do. But in the end, with grown-ups, we either have to be honest with them and ask them to stop, or put up with lapses in quality. In my experience, most editors respond like grown-ups when we ask them to stop. In case (B), which wp:civil and wp:npa always apply, I don't feel any need at all to be all sweetness and light. With four-year-olds, when they make any little effort and accomplish some little thing, we signal approval -- we don't expect stamina from four-year-olds. But editors here are assumed to be adults, and slap-dash work, short-changing the requesters, doesn't deserve that treatment. That's what I meant by the nursery school allusion, and why I think that giving MirrorFreak a Barnstar of Diligence was treating them like a four-year-old, and why I think it undermined our QA efforts.


 * The request which you re-edited has been returned to the requests page, and I see a few small things I'd like to do to it. If it's all right with you, I'll do them and then archive the request as done by "multiple editors". Is that OK? --Stfg (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As you were on that last one. There are big things that need doing to it, especially removing verbosity. I've got so far, but won't continue (noted on the requests page). I don't need credit in the archive for this. --Stfg (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

3O on Istrian Exodus
Hello, this 3O is really needed. Can you close the ANI so that I can post it again. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. As only you and took part in that ANI thread and you have both said you prefer a third opinion, I think you can return to WP:3O. --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In the meantime I have reported Director for 3RR. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only have you done that, but you have tried twice to involve administrator as well. Silvio, WP:3O is for content issues where just two editors are involved. If you go forum shopping like that, you can no longer say that only two editors are involved, and I am forced to decline your 3O request. If you can stop treating this as a conduct issue, then you might try WP:DRN, but you have taken this to too many people now to be allowed to have a 3O on it. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Stfg, in order to move forward, if I ignore the request on my talk page and fully protect the article would you still be able to provide a 3O? I'm just looking for a way for this to move forward and 3O looks like a good option at this stage. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for the suggestion. What I can do is to read through the whole talk page later and consider whether I have enough insight to offer an opinion. I'm not sure about that until read it. I'll ping you with an answer later. It may not be today or tomorrow because of RL, but it won't be later than Wednesday. Is that all right? please don't reopen the 3O request, as I have in in my sights. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stfg, I've protected the article for a week to give you some time. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the interest shown in solving this dispute and please take the time you need., of course I oppose the current protected version but these are the rules of the game. I did my best to form the 3O request in the most concise terms so it whould be relatively easy go formulate an opinion. However, if for any reason Sftg needs more time to go trough the matter, I will not oppose to a longer protection of the article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you, but don't worry about that. I won't be doing anything today, but it certainly won't take as long as a week. --Stfg (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Newbie copy editor asking for mentorship
Good day. I signed up for the September drive despite my mistakes on the August blitz. I apologize for that. I wish to avoid repeating my mistakes and to that end, I'm hoping you could mentor me. I recently finished copy editing the article Lyca Gairanod and listed the major changes I made on the talk page. Please let me know if I made further mistakes. Thanks, (Valfury (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Hi . Thank you for asking, I'm flattered that you chose me. I looked at a couple of your copy edits during the blitz, and you definitely improved the articles there. I'd be happy to look through some more of your copy edits and advise if I can. Please be aware that I've promised to do another task here on Wikipedia, and it's likely to take at least two or three days, maybe a little more, so I won't be able to start until after that. If you want someone to start sooner and decide to ask someone else, I won't be offended, but if that's OK, let me know, and I'll start as soon as I can. Please don't apologise for the blitz. You came along to contribute to Wikipedia, and you are competent. We all have to start somewhere. See you soon. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That is fine with me. I'm glad that you accepted my request. I could take the time to further study the copy editing guidelines and MOS. I'm confused though, should I mark the article as "done", "not done", or leave the "working" tag as I wait for feedback? Thank you for your kind words. Regards, Val. (Valfury (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Please mark it as done. The coordinators who maintain the requests page will decide whether they can archive the request. If you were to mark it not done, someone else may take it up unnecessarily; if working, a coordinator may think it's in limbo and needs chasing. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Report
I have intention to report in ANI user Director for his tounting with a video: am I correct editor?--Teo Pitta (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I'd prefer if you don't take that to ANI. It would disrupt my attempts to get some sense into this whole situation. His use of videos is very minor and quite harmless, and I don't think you'd get anywhere at ANI. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear STFG

The Nostradamus talk page is under attach. A$$Insert formula here$$ troll is on the loose with a very angry bee in his bonnet, attacking both the article and myself. Please block his efforts (see the attacks on me on the Discussion board) and re-protect the article. Until this has been done I am withdrawing my support for the article... --PL (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you came to me for this. I have no involvement in that article and I'm not an administrator. Take it the admin boards if you want to. --Stfg (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing an article title
I restarted the Social practice art page by creating a link from Social Practice but neglected to fix the capitalization (there shouldn't be any for practice and art). Could you fix?--Aichik (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ No problem. (It's just a matter of moving the page.) --Stfg (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Uses in Popular Culture
Hi. I've updated the talk page with the proposed change, and so far no response, which is probably good news. I'm going off-line for a few days, but want to implement the change before the discussion gets archived. Is there anything else I should be doing.? Perhaps you could leave a comment (agreement, suggestion or other). Thanks. Surrey John   (Talk) 13:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . I think it may be a little soon, because the proposed text has only been there for three days, and substantial points were made by several other editors. You could perhaps move things on by pinging them too. How long are you going to be off-line? That talk page is archived when threads have been quiet for 14 days. --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You must have the wrong person, sorry. I seem to have serviced an edit semiprotected request on an unrelated matter in that article a year ago, but I wasn't involved last month, nor in that discussion. FWIW, I think the emerging consensus there looks very sensible, but I have nothing to add to the excellent rationales already presented there. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Never tried a 3rd party request before, did not realize it conflicted with the RfC. Would you take a quick look anyway at 2014 Parliament Hill, Ottawa Shootings ? The eyes of an experienced uninvolved editor would be so welcomed. I could pull the RFC I guess, or you could comment on the RfC. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . Well, I'm not sure that my opinion was really needed, but since you were so nice as to invite it, I've looked at several sources and given mine. To my mind the sources on both sides are about equally good, so NPOV requires us to recognise both views and not try to decide between them. Also, it really isn't any more than a minor detail in the context of that article. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A word of appreciation
Thank you for your sensible and helpful interventions at TfD recently. I've also noticed you pour oil on troubled water in other forums. Much appreciated. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Così è (se vi pare)
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Grazie. --Stfg (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RfA?
As you know, most of my mentors during my early days on Wikipedia are admin now. Most recently got the tools and in the next 22 hour,  will receive the bit. So I think now it's your turn. I haven't checked your stats (Afd, CSD, PROD, RfA participation, number of edits, article creations) but I feel like you will be a great admin. Best,  Jim Car ter  08:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim, that's kind of you. There are several admin areas I never involve myself in, so I probably don't have all the right kind of experience, and in fact almost everything I really want to do here can be done without the tools. I appreciate the suggestion, though. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. But please let me know if you change your mind. I'll be glad to write a semi-nomination essay like this for you. Have a nice day!  Jim Car ter  13:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A flower
for you, for a good comment in a discussion I am prohibited to enter because I am so dangerous. Some thoughts about wikilove and the lack thereof on my talk, look at cookie and heart. I don't believe that an idea will be silenced by silencing people, and "I'll make music" (from the Gloria) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda, that's very nice of you. You are soooo dangerous, giving out flowers like that! Keep well. --Stfg (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sooooo well, singing! (Music still with me.) - I am on the list of the dangerous (arbcom-restricted) but don't mind too much, - the price for saving a friend from being banned and well worth it, possibly the best thing I ever did on Wikipedia. - Just some days (like yesterday) I wonder why I am there who never was in an edit war, while others revert several times a day and are free, - simple answer WP:NOJUSTICE, -Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IPs and guidelines: guideline is one thing, but how can any innocent editor guess that some authors of composer articles just don't like the unspeakables, to an extent that they got that unusual view protected by the highest authorities. As much as I usually support the protection of the interests of minorities, - when it comes to the information of our readers, there should be a limit. The unspeakable doesn't take away the slightest bit of those "beautifully crafted" articles, but may help readers, - there was a discussion where I quarreled as Abraham with God: "If there are only 10 readers who profit from the structured information about this article ..., would you deprive them of it? " ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * An "innocent editor" can't guess that footnotes go after punctuation and 1001 other such things. We don't need to enable innocent editors to guess these things, we need to teach them by politely correcting mistakes and explaining when asked. For the rest of what you say, well, I know the views of both sides and the reasons, but I'm deliberately staying neutral for now in the hope of helping to broker a NPOV solution to all this. The persuading has to be done in public, not here. --Stfg (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "persuading": I may not make more than two comments, Andy may not comment at all. Free speech (and reverts) for opposers only, that was the message of the arbs in 2013. I started advocating short infoboxes long ago, see Handel (25 March 2013, Talk:George Frideric Handel, now in the article) and Verdi in the case, - I placed the longer box on the talk because it was a collaborative result of several users, more than 30 edits simply reverted. Footnotes after punctuation and 1001 such things get changed, not reverted for no apparent reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to do, Gerda? --Stfg (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are doing just fine. If you would do something I tell you here you would do proxy editing for a restricted editor, - just don't ;) - I am so proud of my absurdity! You can clarify though, that Andy's restriction is only about the addition at individual articles, not in general. Many have tried to read it differently, a review is in progress to "clarify". See also, by Floq: "Odd; I strongly agree with AGK that the remedy as written was clear, but at the same time I disagree with his interpretation of it. Since neither of us is a fool, I guess that's evidence that the interpretation of it isn't as clear as either of us think." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, the proxying issue was what concerned me. As to the clarification you suggest, I can't do that, because my reading is as presented by Ruhrfisch in the Evidence page you linked. But I did emphasise that Andy's input today was constructive and that an issue shouldn't be made of it. I hope that that review leads to an improvement in the situation for you both. That's all I can say really. --Stfg (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ruhrfisch himself admitted that he had not enough input. Perhaps read HJ Mitchell instead. I don't want an improvement and said so, it's so wonderfully absurd! (An arb had asked me before the review if I wanted to be included. I said no.) - If anybody can show me a diff from 2013 to now where Andy was not constructive, I would learn something new. The one mentioned by a former arb as a reason to ban him was constructive. See for more absurdity ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the heads-up on Smooth Island (Tasmania); whatever those two are up to, it's not copyediting. Since you and I are apparently running this show now, please feel free to move or archive as necessary; frankly, I can use the help :-). All the best, Anne  Mini  apolis  19:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Anne, sorry it took me a while to get on to this: RL popped up (nicely). I've had a look at the article and I think it's fine. The two editors were letting copy editing spill over into general article improvement, but at least it was article improvement they were doing, so all good. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Margaritis Kastellis
Thank you very much for your message. The composer was my uncle and it is out of a sense of duty to his memory that I drafted the article with what detail was available. I drafted and submitted the same article in French as well. Now, I do not have any death certificate of his but I know for sure that the year of his death was 1979 (November), when I was in Africa and that news reached me there quite late. You can understand that I feel very uneasy with the prospect of this article being deleted. Iwould very much appreciate if you could tell me what I can do for it to remain there. Unfortunately I do not have any written sources other than the thesis mentioned in my article. The scores I drew the list on were left to me and it was I who took care of submitting them to the Thessaloniki University, so they may be available to anyone wishing to study them. I, personally, am retired and live in Belgium (Brussels)and very fond of music.

ckpqt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckpqt (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello there. First, please don't worry about the article being deleted. The deletion discussion has been closed, and the decision was to keep it. You don't need to do anything else about that. Now, about the date of death, the problem is that both the sources we have list it as 1972, and both seem to be reliable sources. Some things you might try: can you find an obituary in a newspaper or magazine? Or can you contact the people at the Ioannina web site and ask them for their sources for this date? Or can you contact other members of the family to find out if they know of suitable documentation?


 * Whatever you do, please don't change the date again until you have proper sources for it. And please would you read our guideline Conflict of interest and understand the risks of writing about your relatives on Wikipedia. Please especially note the section on "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest" there. Rather than adding or changing things directly to the article, you can also make requests on its talk page. There you can explain that you are related to Margaritis and that you want a change made, and ask for it to be made by a neutral editor. Then someone will check it and make the change for you. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  careful reading

Thank you for quality copy-editing, reading carefully, unafraid of long articles, tireless, and for using the phase "" in 2013 (found a typo), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 455th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gerda. (I hadn't noticed that typo before :)) --Stfg (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you notice in BWV 165 (FAC)? I noticed only yesterday that Bach wrote yet another cantata for Trinity, which needs to be incorporated, - always learning, - this one was not created by me, and you see it at a glance ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...
...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Attribution of internal copy-paste article creations
Stfg, could you take a look at this situation and let me know what you think? Over 100 new articles were created by copy-paste of existing content from Navy Midshipmen football results on July 11 and 12 (see, e.g., 1897 Navy Midshipmen football team). No attribution to the original content creator(s) was provided. Complicating this situation is the fact that the original article (linked above) is now subject to deletion at AfD, and if deleted, will break any connection/attribution to the original content and content creators. In your opinion, is this a serious problem under either our content attribution or copyvio policies? Please advise. There is also a separate problem that virtually all of the new articles include absolutely no prose whatsoever. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm not sure why you chose me, but I'll do my best. I have no view as to whether there should be the one grand article or one for each season, and the people at the AfD seem to have good handles on that anyway. I think it's difficult to accuse copyvio in this, since there really is no creative content in what has been copied, and it's mostly just copied from the big article's source anyway. Whether the copies are covered by WP:NOATT isn't clear to me; perhaps it's borderline. Your point about 100+ no-prose articles may not cut much ice, since the big article is almost a no-prose article too: an 11-word lede isn't much to write home about, and prose could be added to the new articles if anyone wanted to.


 * The person who did the split should perhaps have linked to the article copied from in his edit summary per WP:PROPERSPLIT, rather than merely mentioning it without a link. Such links don't make the original article immune from deletion via AfD, by the way, but deletion doesn't break attribution, since deleted pages still exist on the servers and can be viewed by admins, who could presumably give out attibution information on request.


 * The question is what to do now that there's this fait accompli. Perhaps if someone really wanted to, they could do dummy edits in each of the new articles with the proper " Contents WP:SPLIT from Navy Midshipmen football results " edit summary for each dummy edit. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Stfg. What I take away from your advice above is (1) the attribution problem is curable per WP:PROPERSPLIT with dummy edit summaries that link to the correct parent article name; and (2) if properly attributed in the edit summaries, the deletion of the parent article may not present a problem because deleted articles remain viewable to users with the bits.  I have also consulted with Hut 8.5, with whom I have worked on copyvio-related issues in the past.  Hut's take on this is that pure stats tables present no copyvio problem unless they include creative content.  In the context of stats tables, the most obvious example of creative content would be substantive original text within the stats tables "notes" column -- which requires an analysis of the notes in every new Navy Midshipmen season article's schedule notes.


 * As for the no-prose articles split from the parent, they present multiple problems under multiple guidelines -- regardless of the minimal prose of the parent -- and the more experienced AfD discussion participants know this. Part of what is going on here is that some WP:CFB editors believe that the creation of no-prose, single-season perma-stub articles is an acceptable practice, when it's not even acceptable under the WikiProject's own standards.  It's been several years since anyone has engaged in the mass creation of no-text, single-season CFB articles, and older editors have done their best to discourage the mass creation of no-prose stubs that don't satisfy the minimum requirements of the guidelines.  The first thing a couple of the experienced "keep" voters did was add three or four sentences of sourced text and a couple of independent sources to the 1887 Navy Midshipmen football team article to satisfy the minimum requirements of WP:GNG and the other applicable guidelines.  So, this is not really about the one 1887 season article; it's about the minimum standards the other 90 to 100 newly created article need to meet not to be sent to AfD, and I'm laying down those markers, including some regarding attribution compliance.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * that all seems reasonable. I've read your thread on Hut 8.5's talk page, and I think he has it exactly right. As for CFB matters, as a Brit I don't really have a view. On no-prose permastubs, I've never quite understood the insistence on prose: in an encyclopedia, one might as well present information in the way that communicates it best, no? But if people prefer prose, well, all right :) Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Chortle!
Hi Stfg, I see no reason to discourage the "chortling" on my talk page. No editor is forbidden from blowing off steam or for criticizing what are obvious deficiencies in the admin selection process. Regardless of what happens with my adminship request, the prevailing attitude toward the RfA system is that it is ineffective and will need to be fixed one way or another. Incredulity, and the subsequent chortling is integral to this process. I will also add that if I were to get the tools by being an ebullient phony, I would be gravely disappointed in myself. Regards, and I hope your Friday finds you well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for TFA for Pather Panchali
Please note that I have requested that Pather Panchali, an article on which you worked extensively, be included as Today's Featured Article for August 26th, the 60th anniversary of its Kolkata premiere. Dylanexpert (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted to sese that, Dylanexpert. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/Wbm1058
Heyo. I don't want to add more threaded discussion to a discussion about threaded discussion, so I thought that I might reply to you directly, here. I think that it's clear to most people that the tenor of this particular RFA was going off the rails. I think that I drawing an unambiguous line (all threaded discussion moved to the talk page) is an effective way to address the acute problem without offending editors too much. I understand that refactoring discussion is always a sensitive topic, and that this "everybody out of the pool" approach may rub some people the wrong way.

I do stand by my edit. I think that the before and after permalinks speak for themselves, but of course will not be upset if you think it best to revert.

Cheers, Hi DrNick ! 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * wp:bold says to be bold but not reckless. That was reckless. RFA is a discussion, and removing all discussion from all !votes turns them into votes without the bang. There was no need. Please see Xeno's comment in the talk page, dated 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC), where he says "Of course there is a line to be drawn between "questioning" and "hectoring", but I do not think that line has been crossed here." And with such a dramatic and hard-to-reverse (see below) step, you should have asked on the talk page before doing it, when you would have found very quickly that there would be no consensus for it.

Adding a link to wp:brd after the protest has been made is like showing two fingers. The move can't be undone by a straight revert now, because other people have edited the page. It requires substantial manual work and would take time that I don't have. You should be the one to spend time fixing the mess you've made. --Stfg (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No other ways!
Hi Stfg! Its been long since we talked last, how are you? I want to make an announcement but I can't figure out any other way but to drop a note on few intimate editor's talk page, including you! I appreciate if you can have few minutes to spend on reading this thread on my talk page. If you feel that I deserve a scholarship, I appreciate your endorsement on that thread. Please don't consider this an unusual spamming, I don't have any other way of announcing this. Thank you very much! Have a nice day!  Jim Car  ter  13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)