User talk:Reyk/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: removal of my edits on the Go page
One's is a conjugation of "one is" Ones indicates ownership — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcroner (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, that is incorrect. Most possessive pronouns, such as "hers", "theirs" and "its" do not use an apostrophe, but "one's" is the exception. See, for example, [1]. Reyk YO! 06:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
interesting statement
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone said "It is not permissible to nominate such an article for deletion on grounds that it is not notable due to of lack of coverage." LibStar (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. He's quoting out of context again. What that passage was saying that it is that you can't delete a notable topic because it is non-notable. Because that would be a paradox. And of course nominating a notable topic on the basis that it is not notable would be disruptive. All it says is that people who persistently nominate notable topics, wrongly claiming that they are not noable, are supposed to get a topic ban for disruption. James500 (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Reyk and User:LibStar, don't the pair of you think it might be slightly inexpedient for two strongly deletionist editors to rip apart a notability essay, systematically pushing it in a more deletionist direction, and employing some fairly dubious arguments to do it, without seeking input from people with more moderate opinions? The wider community will just rip that apart again (assuming they read it and the penny drops for them). James500 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have not made a single edit to that essay. That's yet another factual error. I gave my opinion on the talk page. I have every right to but, true to form, you immediately started screaming at me at great length. It's a bit rich for you to accuse anyone of "ripping apart" a notability essay when you've spent so much time pumping it full of inclusionist propaganda and trying to take ownership of it. Anyone tries to object and you immediately unleash a barrage of your usual longwinded stream-of-consciousness ranting. Reyk YO! 13:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems like Reyk has left James in an unusual silence. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Blank userspace drafts
Can you explain to me this opposition to getting rid of these pages? It's not even mild opposition, I've got people name-calling me. Blanking them is offensive, deleting them is offensive, removing categories is offensive, everything gets opposed for some oddball. The MFD was opposed, the DRV has opposition, adding it to speedy deletion is opposed, asking for specifics is ignored. I've got nine year old stale drafts at MFD being opposed now. The only thing I can think is just reflexive opposition. I feel like I'm the crazy one here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what goes on in some people's heads and I'm not sure I want to know. Reflexive opposition sounds like a good description. Anyway, if I am reading the DRV discussion correctly the 166 IP editor has a grudge against you for unrelated reasons and his whinging isn't so much about the blank drafts as about a personal vendetta. If you take that out of the equation, most of the remaining opposition is only wrong, not derogatory. I really cannot understand opposing a measure that will declutter hugely oveflowing maintenance categories. Deleting a bunch of abandoned empty drafts that nobody will touch again is not a big deal, and neither is undeleting them on the rare occasion that the original contributor returns and wants it back. Reyk YO! 20:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've had editors out to get me for years. The IP seemed to have predated the WOP mess and may have been related to a editor who started creating screeds against me and Wikipedia at DailyKos. Clearly I'm doing something to attract these people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
78.26's RFA Appreciation award
|
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award |
| Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Happy New Year, Reyk!
Reyk,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thanks, you too. All the best, Reyk YO! 21:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Winningest
You may not have been aware, but there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles regarding the use of winningest. You are invited to join the discussion to help from a consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I must take exception to your replacing "winningest" with "most successful". This is imprecise, as success could be measured by other criteria than number of wins. Length of service, size of salary, number of offspring etc.
How about "most victorious"? --Pete (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Until there is resolution of the issue concerning the propriety of the term "winningest" at the link provided above by Bagumba, the status quo should be preserved. If a consensus is formed to remove the word, that would be the appropriate time for mass revisions. Making those mass revisions during the pendency of the discussion is unnecessarily condentious. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Cbl, you should come to a halt on that point. When the discussion is over, then we may all tread firmly on the same path. I suggest dropping all modifications to these articles until that point. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Cbl, there is no call for your mass reverts. I think consensus favours removing "winningest" and replacing it with English words. Accordingly, I shall restore my edits. Pete, I'm not using "most successful" exclusively. I use this phrase when it's clear from context what it means, such as when the career wins record or number of championships is listed nearby, or when it's not obvious that the original "winningest" just means number of wins. Other times I use things like "most career wins", "wins record holder", or things like that. IMO "most victorious" is often as vague as "most successful". Reyk YO! 07:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Cbl, you should come to a halt on that point. When the discussion is over, then we may all tread firmly on the same path. I suggest dropping all modifications to these articles until that point. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Until there is resolution of the issue concerning the propriety of the term "winningest" at the link provided above by Bagumba, the status quo should be preserved. If a consensus is formed to remove the word, that would be the appropriate time for mass revisions. Making those mass revisions during the pendency of the discussion is unnecessarily condentious. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Reyk: I kindly ask that your refrain from any further changes to winningest in articles, such as your recent edit here at 2016-01-15 08:59:57 (UTC), until a consensus is reached. Continuing to edit in this area is disruptive and edit warring is discouraged. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Just a heads up, but if you refer to good faith edits as vandalism, as you did in this revert [2], you can be sanctioned for it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. It was vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk_page_vandalism, where the very first thing it says is "Illegitimately deleting other users' comments". Curly Turkey had no business removing my comments and it wasn't done in good faith (note how he calls me a liar in the edit summary). Reyk YO! 07:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA
|
|
Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award |
| Thank you for participating in and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated at this difficult time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 403, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70 which you may wish to give your input on.
Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.
Thanks for your time. Jeni (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Carfax Abbey
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Carfax Abbey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JumpiMaus (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Outcomes
Hi Reyk. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed part of an essay, not a guideline - correct, but only in so far tat that 'essay' is the only available (or nearest} Wikipedia page type for classifying it. It does however not express any opinions and it draws its content from clearly identifiable facts. It is a neutral documentation of the way the community has chosen to handle the notability of a few special kinds of topics. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do not like the practice of treating something like this as a rigid iron clad rule in AfDs and then retreating back to "it's only descriptive of community practice" when someone asks questions. Reyk YO! 07:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- I dislike the practice of saying 'OUTCOMES is only an essay'. It's not an essay - not even in the wildest imagination.. That said, I'm the first to admit that not even our sacred policies are graven in stone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Pldx1
After almost two days, you and @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: are the only third parties to weigh in, and the latter gave no indication that he/she agreed with me. I really thought my OP comment was not TLDR material this time. This is my third ANI thread on the guy, and so far the only user who appeared to oppose sanctions was only doing so because of Pldx1's then-recent activity in the Wikicology case (which it turns out was actually negligible -- ArbCom was probably going to ban him no matter what) and because of a misplaced belief that Pldx1 was willing and capable of helping clean up Wikicology's mess. If this one gets archived, I have half a mind to open a new thread with
I'm being trolled. I posted the evidence last time, but no one read it. Check here, here and here if you don't believe me.
Did you try to deal with the problem before, or just ignore it?
Would you be able to open the next ANI thread should this one get archived? (I've seen people unarchive threads until they got a proper close, but only where dozens of editors had been involved.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- This guy craves attention. Don't give it to him. My experience with trolls like that (and he's not the first) is that they use pompous, pseudo-polite baiting and sarcasm to try and get an exasperated response from you, which they then hold against you. Don't bother with ANI; I tried that once with another similar troll, and my experience is that the peanut gallery at ANI would rather focus on the time I said "fuck" than look at the patterns of long-term stalking and harassment. Reyk YO! 08:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88 and Reyk: User:Pldx1/Listeria...? Muffled Pocketed
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No idea. I honestly don't care when users who make no sense do so in their own user space or in other areas of the project that are far away from me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
List of Rozen Maiden characters
| No. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi Reyk, I think your redirecting of List of Rozen Maiden characters was inappropriate. In response to the DRV, DragonZero has chosen to start a straw vote to decide whether the list is redirected or not. While the DRV gave him license to redirect the article if he chose to, he instead thought it best to hold a vote (and I personally agree with that decision). That straw vote is leaning slightly towards redirecting the article, but doesn't have a strong consensus. An uninvolved editor should be the one to close that vote, and it should remain open long enough that people have time to participate. As a voter, your carrying out the redirect just isn't appropriate. Calathan (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
|
SvG clean-up
In the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
not you...
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This refers to the recent conduct of Bobo192 at AfD discussions. Harrias talk 18:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The Lombardi Curse
Hey, I saw the message you left on the article I created The Lombardi Curse, where you said the article is written too much like a personal reflection or opinion essay. Can you specify where, because I do not really see it at all. No "curse" can be 100% proven, but instead connections are drawn that are too much of a coincidence to be ignored. Isn't that basically what I did? Vince Lombardi's only playoff loss was to the Eagles, and the Eagles haven't won another championship game since including having never won the Super Bowl, and the trophy for the Super Bowl was named after Lombardi.
Or maybe you aren't talking about the curse itself, but the way I wrote the article is poor. If that's the case, can you help me specify the areas that need the most improvement? Thank you!
SpookyTheGhost (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| asteroid | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 281 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- mixed, see my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. You've been named at [3]. Please take part if you wish. Thanks. Jack | talk page 22:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Reyk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. This discussion may be of interest to you. Regards, Waj (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
[[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub>: Reyk YO!
to
[[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub>: Reyk YO!
—Anomalocaris (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Indian villages
Hi, further to the recent Village Pump thread and your Indian village clean-up, I've long held doubts about onefivenine.com because it appears to aggregate information, including by mirroring Wikipedia. However, I've just seen this example and things may be worse! Doesn't that look like an open wiki structure, ie: anyone can edit? - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not reliable by a mile.See this.No known editorial control and it ain't a RS.Winged BladesGodric 11:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Sitush and Winged Blades of Godric: I hadn't taken that close a look at this particular site, but I agree with you that it is unreliable user-contributed content. I don't think it's a suitable source for Wikipedia articles. I guess the next step would be getting consensus to that effect at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and then seeing about getting all those links taken out. What do you think? Reyk YO! 12:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can do, although it seems to be a palaver unless someone is actually going to contest the removals or we are seeking some sort of edit filter to prevent future additions (which might be worth the effort). - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- There are at least ca. 2000 articles using it. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's plainly as unreliable as it can get.Onus of proving that the source is reliable is on those adding the source.I don't even see the need of a RSN consensus to start pulling down the refs manually/semi automatically (using AWB)!Winged BladesGodric 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Sitush and Winged Blades of Godric: I hadn't taken that close a look at this particular site, but I agree with you that it is unreliable user-contributed content. I don't think it's a suitable source for Wikipedia articles. I guess the next step would be getting consensus to that effect at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and then seeing about getting all those links taken out. What do you think? Reyk YO! 12:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not reliable by a mile.See this.No known editorial control and it ain't a RS.Winged BladesGodric 11:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#onefivenine.com_-_broad_consensus_sought. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
PROD
FYI that I had to decline one of your PRODs because it had been deproded 5 years ago [4]. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Bayesian
An article that you have been involved in editing—Bayesian—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of BrowseAloud for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BrowseAloud 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Reyk--I could do with some advice. I'm looking at this article which was passed for GA, but by a reviewer with a bit less experience than I'd like. The article is up for DYK, and while on the whole I suppose it should pass for that well enough, I don't have much experience with articles in that area, and it is entirely possible that I missed something that is obvious to you. Do you mind having a quick look? And if you think the GA is valid, then I can pass it for DYK. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'll have a go over it now. Reyk YO! 07:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Proposing a new page for addition to WP:SOLAR
Hello, here is a question because I saw you editing Near-Earth object and remembered seeing you listed as specialist on asteroids and small moons at WP:SOLAR. I created a new page, temporary satellite, and thought it would be worth to add to WP:SOLAR. But I found no instructions on the project page on how to make a nomination. Could you look at it? Rontombontom (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey there, tanks for all your recent good article work. I've added temporary satellite to the astronomy and solar system wikiproject scope by adding the relevant parameters to the talk page, so I hope I've understood your question right. All the best, Reyk YO! 12:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yep... Thanks! Rontombontom (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Curie supercomputer
I wish the article had not been marked for speedy deletion, but instead, if really problematic (I don't think so, see below), someone had reworded it.
I created a stub article on the Curie supercomputer and, as recommended for stub articles, wanted to fill it with some text to let the next editor know how to expand the article. I copy-pasted the first paragraph of the official Curie supercomputer website, justifying my action as follows:
- Said paragraph served well the purpose of a placeholder for the stub article.
- Said paragraph linked to the original website, allowing the next editor to easily continue my work.
- Said paragraph constitutes IMHO fair use. I am not a lawyer, but here are my arguments for (see Wikipedia article on fair use):
- Purpose and character of the use: Said paragraph informs the public about a supercomputer.
- Nature of the copyrighted work: Said paragraph states facts of public interest. Facts are not protected by copyright, although their particular expression is.
- Amount and substantiality: Said paragraph is only a smart part of the webpage it was copied from.
- Effect upon work's value: Including Said paragraph in Wikipedia does not undermine the websites or the operator of the Curie supercomputer to generate revenue.
In conclusion, I would have preferred a notice to be left to rephrase the content perceived as problematic, instead of marking it for speedy deletion and not giving me any chance to take a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristiklein (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- The entire content of the article was a copyright violation, and Wikipedia's copyright policy is generally stricter than fair use arguments, so removing it was the correct decision. Rewriting it wouldn't have been an option either because that would still leave the copyvio in the article's edit history. Nothing is preventing you from writing a copyright policy compliant article though. Reyk YO! 07:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
RAN
I saw your comment in the recently closed RSN thread about Political Graveyard. I am waiting for RAN to come back online and respond to my last post on his talk page. If there is no satisfactory explanation then I think I will take the issue to WP:AN with the intention of obtaining consensus for a community ban. The problems appear to have been going on for years and the number of them in just one list, together with the combative approach to valid concerns raised, suggests to me that they have little intention of ever changing.
As an aside, I notice that you are still helping with the clean up of onefivenine.com citations. Thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- No problemo. I will keep an eye on the drama boards for when, and if, this issue comes up. Of course, I hope the behavioural problems will stop but that does not look likely, unfortunately. The onefivenine stuff is very boring, but I figure if I do a handful a day it will be manageable. Cheers, Reyk YO! 15:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
AN - RAN
Mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Richard_Arthur_Norton. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Akolner
Hi Reyk, Thanks for your contribution for Akolner. I did in-depth research about Akolner and found this link (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/Green-tribunal-takes-cognizance-of-petrol-leaks-in-Akolner-village/articleshow/34400055.cms). Can you please check whether we can add it on the article? Thanks in advance! Gangasagar Vishwakarma (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there, yes that looks like a credible and reliable source. My problem with 159 is that it is full of content submitted by users of the site, so it is not reliable. There are some related discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#onefivenine.com_-_broad_consensus_sought for background. Proper newspapers, with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, are more than suitable. Thanks for your attention and hard work. All the best, Reyk YO! 08:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Reyk, Thanks for the information. I really appreciate your assistance. I will surely keep it mind while adding any reference link to any article. Gangasagar Vishwakarma (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 11
Regarding, as the encyclopedia ages and matures its quality goes up, oh, if only that were the case :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say, overall, it's probably true. Though of course there are large segments pulling the other way, unfortunately. Reyk YO! 14:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Cricket project's SNG
| blocked sock |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello again, @Reyk: having become involved in the Chitty case which I stumbled upon by reading the cricket project's home page, I have been taking a long, hard look at that project and, to put it mildly, I am not impressed. I gather that is a sentiment shared by you. Cricket is one of the main interests in my life and, when I decided to join Wikipedia, I was looking forward to helping development of cricket articles along with classic cinema, the Second World War and one or two other subjects. No sooner had I started than I noticed something in the Lancashire County Cricket Club article, about my own county's club, telling the world that we did not become a first-class team until 1895. From 1864 until 1895, apparently, we were classified as an important team. That, as I am sure you must know, is a load of absolute Coming back to the important match nonsense, I see it is included in the cricket project's SNG which is called WP:CRIN. I tried to remove it, as I have done from various articles, and one of the project apparatchiks immediately undid my correction and insisted I get a consensus. My perception of that project, having looked at its discussion page and seen the attitude of its members in the Chitty case, is that it is not something I would wish to be involved with. Unfortunately, as you have said, Wikipedia is stuck with a lot of non-articles created by that project because this CRIN thing provides a substantial measure of protection and these people, probably no more than six or seven of them, will always close ranks to quote their CRIN bible in any deletion case. That is my perception. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. After the administrator, User:Ritchie333, closed the Chitty case with a non-consensus verdict, I wanted to write to him and ask why but you and others were there first. I did write to him anyway and I made a suggestion that the CRIN SNG should be amended so that its bar, if I may call it that, is raised from a single first-class match to more than one first-class match over more than one season. This would exclude the guest players and one-hit wonders which are common throughout the sport's history, especially those like Chitty where only a surname on a scorecard is known. It was just a suggestion and I don't think I expected any support for it but User:Mr rnddude did support me if, as he said, it stands more than a snowball in hell chance. From what I can see of the so-called cricket project, the snowball hasn't a hope. Anyway, what do you think? Is my idea worth pursuing? Is there any way of getting that project to see sense or, failing that, is there any sitewide way of overruling them? I understand the working of the site hinges on consensus as if that were the Oracle, no less. My experience of consensus in real life has always been it's a case of who turns up and who bothers to register an interest (Brexit is the classic example). Given that there is evidently a clique mentality in the Wikipedia project that purports to represent the interests of the noble game, there is going to be a problem if they are providing the consensus. I have been here less than a month and I feel disillusioned. My respects to you, Reyk, and I hope you can suggest a way forward. If not, then I will confine myself to improving specific articles and ignore the forums. I am working on Brian Statham as I have several sources about him and his article has been disgracefully neglected by that project, which I see is blatantly focused on recent events. Recentism, in my opinion, is effectively a form of vandalism. Unfortunately, Lancashire County Cricket Club is afflicted by it too and, if and when I gain more experience of the site, I will try to address that. I am afraid I am tied up with my business interests for a few days at present (I am semi-retired) but I will try to look in, probably on Sunday if not before. Best wishes. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC) |
RfC on which you !voted, has been amended
In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Reyk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Longevity stuff
WP:LONGEVITY would benefit from your input Legacypac (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been meaning to check it out and maybe come up with some productive suggestions. Reyk YO! 09:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- On what I'm sure is a related note, I agree with your latest observation. The history and AfD for Seven Witches is remarkably the same, except probably even more blatant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinga (film 2019)
| Please don't canvass for keep votes |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
requesting for comment. please save my article i spent lot of time to create this article with many notable references still some one tagged deletion. Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
God
I have been called many things but god is a first :) - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Cardarelli references
Thanks for your work on the various dubious unit articles, and the addition to my commentary. It seems to me that when a book has been shown to be (real-world) unreliable, it ought to be possible to blacklist it as not "WP-reliable" either. But previous attempts to remove obviously bogus claims have been met with amazing resistance by WP-lawyers. Well, perhaps I will try to get rid of "stuck", at least. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm no longer surprised at the antics of the wikilawyers. No source is too crappy or unreliable to base a bunch of empty permastubs on. No source is too erroneous or irrelevant to help "win" at AfD. Reyk YO! 06:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I am writing to ask for a review and reversal of the deletion of the wikipedia entry about me and my project, Noble Ape. The entries deleted were created by a series of listeners to my podcasts from 2007 through to about 2013. To be clear, I am only interested in the reversal for Noble Ape and Tom Barbalet on Wikipedia. The other two articles are less important to me.
While I appreciate the articles that were deleted were not ideal, the articles Tom Barbalet and Noble Ape did represent my work in a form which was comparable to others who have contributed a similar extent to the field of artificial life and still actively represented on Wikipedia - OpenWorm, Critterding, Avida, Boids, Polyworld.
They also show through Wikipedia and external academic references (http://www.nobleape.com/sim/#Academic) that my work is not a walled garden. It has contributed to a number of different areas and been used by Apple and Intel for their development.
As the article on Artificial life organizations also shows I have also fostered a community of developers and dialogue in the field of artificial life.
Probably unknown to you through this process is that a number of the external references to Noble Ape are currently being suppressed through payment to Google and other search sources by a comedian who aggressively promoted a comedy tour and album under the same name from 2016 to the present. This has lowered any chance of finding external references to Noble Ape.
I continue to work on Noble Ape to this day totaling more than ten hours per week on average. This is a voluntary effort to further ideas in social evolution, philosophy and open source software. I appreciate that working on Wikipedia is also a voluntary effort. I thank you for your time and considering my request to appeal this deletion.
Barbalet (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm bordering on BLUDGEON territory at the moment, so I'm not going to post the following, but I do kinda think it's worth noting, so I'll leave it here if you or anyone else watching your page agrees and wants to make use of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm just noting that thus far every single "endorse" comment (excepting that of the deleting admin) is from a non-admin who was not involved in the AFD, and so can only judge both the AFD and the article itself by the content of the AFD arguments, while
all2/3 of the "overturn" comments are from people who already !voted keep in the AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Huh Levivich (talk · contribs) beat me to the punch anyway, and in the process pointed out to me that actually the good colonel had not participated in the AFD. Weird I missed that, and sorry for bothering you with what turned out to be (partly) a mistake. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
HackMaster
Hi, I redirected the article you prodded to the main "Palm OS" article. There are few RS about this application, but probably not broad enough coverage for a standalone article. Pavlor (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Martin Concepcion
Hello Reyk, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Martin Concepcion, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The blocked user only created this page, and since then there have been enough edits to say that G5 does not apply. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Masum Reza📞 12:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Strophoid.PNG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Strophoid.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Geroge Davis is innocent
Hello Reyk. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Geroge Davis is innocent, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3: R3 only applied to recently created redirects, WP:RFD should be used otherwise. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review for TOPCAT (software)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of TOPCAT (software). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 2 ) Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
continued conversation on my talk page; no need to keep pestering Hijiri88 with it.
Understood, @Ivanvector:. I will not make another similar comment. However, in turn, I expect that the next time those on the other side of the table start calling people vain, slimy, and paranoid, among other slurs, that you threaten them with blocks as well. I don't recall that you and I have had much to do with one another before so I'll do you the courtesy of being blunt: first, I am profoundly weary of the civility policy being selectively enforced and second, I respond a lot better to persuasion than to intimidation. Reyk YO! 21:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I, too, am exasperated by uneven enforcement of the civility policy: on one hand it's difficult for users to comply with a policy which is so inconsistently applied, but at the same time it's difficult to enforce anything evenly when so many editors get away with clear violations, and when one user's incivility is so regularly accepted as a defense for another user's personal attacks. I try to call out personal attacks when I see them because I think it's important that users see that there are admins willing to enforce that policy, otherwise it's meaningless. I normally do so through the use of notes like the one you read (because I believe in WP:DTTR) but I accept your criticism that those can come across as intimidation, and I appreciate it. For what it's worth I actually rarely block anyone for personal attacks, thinking that warnings seem to work, but if that's because editors feel intimidated then I'm not accomplishing what I intend, and so I have to think about that. You're right that you and I have rarely crossed paths and so there's little reason for me to believe that you would have a problem with calling people names, and I ought to have reminded you in a gentler fashion, or perhaps I should not be butting in on Hijiri's talk page in the first place. I guess I really don't have anything to offer here, but thank you for the honest feedback. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
re: Dumb question..
No idea, through that new editor popped up on my watchlist yesterday with a series of votes on AfDs I have watchlisted. Quacks like some sock, but I have no idea whose. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea what they're up to. My best guess is they were trying to make it look like you were socking incompetently: stacking your AfDs with votes that kind of look like yours, and "accidentally" linking their user page to yours. I don't know why else they'd be following you around. Reyk YO! 06:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Possibly. But since it is not me it would fail checkuser so what's the point? I also made this comment in SPI but it was removed because stupid rules: [5]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's why my first suspicion was A Nobody. He's been recently socking, and I can't think of many other people unethical enough to try a stunt like this and daft enough to think it would work. But that's only if you buy the "false flag" hypothesis, which I thought was a bit of a long shot. Reyk YO! 15:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Possibly. But since it is not me it would fail checkuser so what's the point? I also made this comment in SPI but it was removed because stupid rules: [5]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
617 Patroclus
You created the article at 617 Patroclus. When you scroll down to "Physical characteristics," the chart of "The largest Jupiter trojans" overlaps with "100+ largest Jupiter trojans". Any idea if there is way that content can be reordered or something so it doesn't do that? --Galileo Newton (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I took out the one with the fancy blue heading. It was too big, and redundant to the other table. It should look a bit nicer now. Reyk YO! 23:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I see you changed it. Thanks for acting so quickly! :) --Galileo Newton (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
DPL count
Hello, Reyk. When you edit the monthly challenge list of disambig pages, please be careful not to add extra blank lines to the list. Doing so breaks the automatic list numbering. Cheers! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea why this keeps happening. I'm not putting them in myself, and I'm careful to remove the spurious blank lines in the preview but, as you can see, there's no guarantee that will actually work. Reyk YO! 11:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
PA
I struck it. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Your random thoughts
I have to say, there was quite a convergence at WP:Articles for deletion/Jean Claude Jacob. What especially gets me is the one promising to improve it said the quiet part out loud. I've been waiting for a while to compliment you on your observations, and this seemed like as apropos a time as any. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Eurgh, what a weird little article. I guess coming from a legacy encyclopedia, there wasn't much chance it was going to be deleted, but it's mostly a giant block quote. At least it hedges the almost certainly untrue claim of his 120+ age with "supposedly" and "claimed", so it could be worse- but not much. As for my random thoughts, I found that cataloging the weird things I see is better than getting upset at them. It's nice that others see the same issues I do. All the best, Reyk YO! 08:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Makes sense. And for my part, it's good to know someone else sees it too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはReykたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
RANDY
As I said, here, from a certain point of view (sorry, I'm on something of a Star Wars kick right now), I am Randy from Boise and Francis and/or Martin is the self-proclaimed topic expert. A point of interest that I like to bring up when people mention RANDY in my vicinity is that one of that essay's original authors (DreamGuy) was actually posing as someone with specialist knowledge and forcing his opponents (who were actually more competent in the topic area than he was, regardless of their/our other flaws) to politely submit based on WP:PACT. This has no real relevance to the discussion, since the universal message embodied in WP:RANDY transcends its original author (and his undeserving targets): I just thought you might find the story interesting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's an interesting backstory- and I am something of an enthusiast for a good backstory. As for the current dispute, Illegitimi non carborundum. Sooner or later you'll need to accept two unalterable facts: first, that sticklers for exactness and good sourcing are held in contempt compared to people who just throw words at the page in a slapdash manner but know how to play the ANI crowd. And second (your annoying buddy Pldx1 is a fine example) some people just pick, pick, pick, pick, pick at someone they don't like until an admin tells them to knock it off-- then they submerge for a few months before resuming the pick pick picking, at which point everyone will say the warning was so long ago that it can be let slide. Best thing is not to start yelling at them- that just gives them the attention they crave. I've found an air of distant, austere disapproval works better than anger and immediate calls for sanctions. I learned this lesson the infuriating way myself. Reyk YO! 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't technically yell at "Please Do X" (I'm 90% certain that's what his name is a reference to, given that it characterized 90% of his early interactions with me), rather straight-off pinging Swarm to handle it, but I see your point.
- That being said, now that other editors who agree with me have chimed in, including heavy-hitters like SMcC, the "ANI crowd" don't seem to have been successfully "played" by Martin and Francis on this occasion. Francis (who started coming after me almost immediately after his own year-long de facto site-ban expired -- he's had it in for me ever since I pointed out he was engaged in blatant POV/OR and misrepresentation of sources at the Pontius Pilate's wife article) has almost no sway at ANI to begin with, and the only two editors Martin was able to convince he was not a troll and this was a content dispute were (i) Krow750, who has made fewer edits in his whole Wikipedia career than you or I typically make in a month and (ii) Kudpung, who has honestly always been apparently really bad at clicking on diffs to determine whether or not something is a "content dispute", at least when it comes to Japanese (?) topics.[6] (I plan on asking him about it once the thread is closed: it is way out of line for any editor, but particularly an admin, to dismiss a good-faith ANI report off the bat just because he doesn't like the filer -- something he all but admitted to with
Hijiri88's collaboration on Wikipedia has been troubled to say the least
,Martinthewriter isn't the one with a long history of unsociable behaviour
and[Hijiri88 has] proven yet again that not even in this season of goodwill is he able to participate civilly and without personal attacks
-- and not even click on any of the diffs or other evidence provided -- evidenced by the "content dispute" and "DRN" remarks, especially given that his first comment was after Martin had already posted a transparent string of lies, filled with diffs that directly contradicted what he said they said, to the ANI thread. Supplement: I went back and read some of those old Enkyo2 threads from summer 2013,[7][8][9] and Kudpung skillfully avoided showing his face in any of the subsequent three threads. Maybe he realized he was wrong and was embarrassed to admit it, which isn't a quality that's desirable in admins whose word is essentially treated as legal precedent by their peers [see particularly Rjanag's close of the first thread and his comments in the second thread]; maybe he noticed what was going on but stubbornly refused to believe he was wrong, which is an even worse quality in an admin; and maybe it was just a coincidence, but that seems somewhat unlikely given his level of activity on ANI around the same time and the number of times his name was invoked in the subsequent threads Anyway, a direct message on his talk page asking him to explain his recent actions/inaction should invoke an answer that will be less open to ambiguous interpretation 03:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC).) - We'll see if anything comes of the ANI thread, but at the very least now that the overwhelming majority oppose Martin/Francis's edits to the article and they've both demonstrated once and for all that they are more interested in wasting others' time than in actually building the article, the article itself is basically safe, and that's really all that should matter. If you or I or anyone gets screwed over in the process of building the encyclopedia, well ... that's a price I'm honestly willing to pay, because unless they threaten me or my family/friends in real life (I don't think it's fair to say the likes of this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, and one other guy who I won't name because of a still-in-place IBAN I requested a little under three years ago threatened me in real life because they facilitated/protected one of the ones who did), all they can really do is prevent me from building an encyclopedia: the only thing at stake one way or the other is the encyclopedia's integrity, so if that's preserved in the long run it doesn't really matter.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
ME3: Citadel
Good afternoon sir! I just wanted to check in and let you know that I finished making your suggested revisions to Mass Effect 3: Citadel. My apologies if you are already aware - I just wanted to make sure you saw. Thanks again for the review, and please let me know if you have any other recommendations to get it across the finish line. Cheers!--Ktmartell (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hey there! Sorry for my absence the last few days. Real life has taken up quite a bit of my time recently, but I will try to finish this in the next day or two. I saw the changes you made and it all looks good, so I don't think there will be any issues in passing it. All the best, Reyk YO! 18:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Suspect ... off-site canvassing via email?
I was gonna post the following to the "random observations" section of my user page, but I'd rather not keep it for prosperity, which is what that is normally for. I also, per my statement at ANI, don't want to post it to the AFD itself for the benefit of the closer (who may just count !votes, see a clear-but-not-overwhelming majority for deletion/redirecting, and close as "no consensus", even though most of the keep !voters are making a nonsense argument). But what do you think?
It strikes me as very suspicious that five members of the so-called Article Rescue Squadron (apparently all but one regular member of the group) could spontaneously show up at an AFD to support a position held by only 2/13 of the non-ARS editors when the AFD has not been publicly posted to the ARS list.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Of course the ARS wander around voting as a block and making nonsense arguments. They've been doing it for over a decade, but the community has absolutely no will do deal with the issue. Reyk YO! 07:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Masters add value by removing that without.
care to explain? cheers EnTerbury (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is a terse way of saying, "Wiki masters add value to the encyclopedia by removing valueless content from it." It just means that being a conscientious editor means deciding what not to include as much as what to include. That doesn't just mean being vigilant about spam, hoaxes, endless pop culture fancruft, and articles about trivial topics. It also means avoiding jargon when plain English words will do, removing empty padding that's only in there to make the writer sound clever. Reyk YO! 09:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Feedback on essay
Hey Reyk, no idea if you're interested, but I've just written an essay that I'd like someone to proofread: User:PJvanMill/Modern Wikipedian values. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi PJvanMill, it looks pretty good to me. I don't see any spelling or grammar errors. I think the content is fine too- some pretty respectable sentiments there. Personally I think #8 is maybe just a touch naive- there's times when peoples' behaviour is so outrageous assuming good faith seem wilfully blind-- but that's just my opinion and a total quibble. Reyk YO! 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)