User talk:Srich32977/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

New page reviewer granted

Hello Srich32977. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Srich32977,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 810 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Srich32977,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 810 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You'd be proud of me

I'm serving as faculty sponsor for a group called "gays, lesbians, queers and trannies against safe spaces" at my university (I being the tranny). The snowflakes need to be purged if we are going to save liberalism (and fun, generally).

But you're a libertarian, not a liberal. I wonder how you voted in 16'? Steeletrap (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Marsy's Law

Hi Srich32977, I see you are interested in law and law-related articles on Wikipedia, and have recently edited the Constitution of California page. Last month, I posted a simple edit request at Marsy's Law asking editors to include recently enacted Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. As you may be aware, Marsy's Law is the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008. Is this something you might be interested in reviewing? I have a conflict of interest that is fully disclosed on the Marsy's Law Talk page and I will not edit the page myself. Instead, I have worked with others in the past to update Marsy's Law and created Marsy's Law (Illinois) through WP:AfC, but have had trouble finding assistance from editors for the most recent changes. I would appreciate any help you may be able to provide or any advice on where I might be able to find help if not. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

After bringing up how a project page rule is supercedding the WP:MOS, and that this rule is based on whatever whim the project enforcers feel is right at the time, evidenced by the fact that the person who had just edited that very rule seconds before could not follow the rule that they just wrote, I want to thank you for renewing my faith in Wikipedia editors by participating in a reasonable discussion. Abel (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, seconded, thanks for the thanks also Govindaharihari (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Please read WP:CITEDENSE. The cite was the same for sentence 1 and sentence 2. So cite only needed for sentence 2. Capisce? NPalgan2 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Charles Murray

Why are you keeping the biased language and information on Charles Murray's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raider1918 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources talk about the violence that occurred. No bias is involved in my editing. In fact, I've omitted the reported fact that "hundreds" of protesters where there. Middlebury should be proud of its effort to allow reasoned discussion of controversial issues and ashamed that its students sought to repress freedom of speech. – S. Rich (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep it up, Srich. Steeletrap (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Fenceline community

I can not see what mandates deletion. I removed your tag. Take this to WP:AfD is you must. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In the future, everything will be a think tank

I was reading:

Old media will find it impossible to run a profit, but most outlets will continue to survive as pet projects for oligarchs who need to push out their agenda in the form of propaganda. One oligarch will buy Newspaper A to focus on his global warming agenda, another oligarch will buy another Newspaper B to aid his immigration agenda, and so on. These oligarchs will accept their money-losing outlets as merely the cost of doing business. What’s a $100 million a year loss for your own personal Pravda if it’s making you $1 billion a year through favorable government policies and modified consumer behavior?

It sounds about right. The Washington Post will continue to exist and be cited here, but it's every bit as biased as Cato.org, or Mises.org, or any of the other libertarian sites. Wikipedia is simply a left-leaning site, and probably always will be. Its choices on what to add to the spam blacklist reflect its bias.

The bias goes to the very top. The executive director could, if she wanted to, say something on her blog if she found any of this objectionable. We've seen this happen with, say, the Chelsea Manning pronoun controversy. It won't happen with this kind of issue. Maybe there needs to be a Signpost article at some point, if there hasn't already? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Lazarus of Bethany

I'm looking for people who have an interest in this topic. My pastor, for the past two Sundays, has stated in her sermon that the raising of Lazarus was the event that finally led those who wanted Jesus crucified to desire taking action against him. I've never heard this. I need to find out where she got it from, but it's not in the Wikipedia article. If this is true, it should be.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental justice along the U.S.-Mexico border

Good evening Rich,

Thanks for taking a look at our page and proposing an issue however; can you pinpoint the POV Fork you found so we can edit what you consider to have a biased point of view. My group and I have been really trying to keep a unbiased flow going but if we have overlooked something or phrased something showing the opposite; it would be great for us to know where and why? Having someone look in from the outside can help us make these edits and propose a better article for the general public. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimisticallyhopeful (talk • contribs)

@Optimisticallyhopeful: For starters (and basically) the whole "Environmental justice concept is POV-based. That is, people want to say "my interests in the environment are being abused because such-and-such is happening." And when they disagree about a policy or plan or event they say "I'm fighting for environmental justice!" But these people don't consider the nuisances of what justice is. As to this particular article, there are many factors impacting the rights, liberties, responsibilities, etc. of people near the border. But overwhelmingly the various paragraphs are about all the "bad things" that are occurring in the area. Also some of the material has nothing to do with the border region. Like with Scott M. Moore's opinions on borders in general. If Moore had written about the US-Mex border, then his material might be pertinent. Lastly there is the basic editing sloppiness in the article. You should WP:BLOWITUP and focus on adding good stuff to the Mexico–United States border article. Then you have a slew of regular WP editors following your work instead of getting echo chamber feedback from your crew. – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Well Environmental Justice refers to the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens; thus far I do not believe the name should be a POV Fork when both countries suffer from environmental hazards and benefits along the bordering nations. That being said I do agree that we need to add more benefits as well to not just have the negative bias and will do my best to find environmental benefits between the bordering nations. As for the sloppy wording; we will clean it up and we agree that it needs major editing. We also intend to flush out and clean up the subtopics and will keep a keen eye out for irrelevant information. With Scott Moore, we went through his research and he does plenty of work on water boundaries for various nations thus; wanted to add an experts opinion on how and why countries divide water ways the way they do. We put it after McCarthy's Water Law Review info. to give the reader an understanding on why countries such as the US behaved in the matter it did. The reason we do not want to delete this entire article and blow it up is that we want to mainly focus on the environment along the border and have a page in which environmental justice is the sole purpose. I recognize your concerns and will work on the article to clean it up as much I can. On that note feel free to keep checking up on our page and letting us know your thoughts and calling us out on stuff. We learn to provide better information this way and thank you for your constructive critique. (Optimisticallyhopeful

Sorry, no. EJ is a social movement focusing on what the EJ'ers feel is justice. (And Wikipedia (aka WP) is a social movement focusing on building an encyclopedia.) The only way to build our encyclopedia is to eschew notions of "fairness", instead focusing on empirical, rational, and well-reasoned thought. So here is my challenge to you and the students in the class: write material about the border that will pass the Ideological Turing Test. – S. Rich (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Okay so we have been making changes feel free to critique and give us your opinion. Also, let me know if you see anything else you find to be a POV Fork; the feedback is great. We have been receiving help from our Wiki analyst and he has given us great feedback to eradicate our mistakes. We really appreciate that you gave us feedback and steered us in the right direction.Yvalley (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Optimisticallyhopeful--Yvalley (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Michael Malice

Hello Srich32977. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Michael Malice, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being a co-author of notable writers, co-creating a notable blog and being a regular guest on a notable program all are clear claims of significance/importance. Thank you. SoWhy 09:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I am noting that you are inserting questionable or outright unreliable sources into the Southern Poverty Law Center article. I suggest that you review our reliable sourcing criteria, and review prior consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There exists longstanding consensus that Breitbart's long and storied record of printing distortions, exaggerations, fabrications and outright lies about people and groups it disagrees with makes it an unacceptable source for anything except claims about itself. If you disagree with this consensus, you're welcome to open a new discussion on the RSN. However, I don't think it'll go any different than it ever has. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cite journal citation page range changes

Hello Srich32977. I noticed that you seem to replace page ranges by another style, that may be readable by humans but possibly less so by citation helper software, and not necessarily cleaner. I there a rationale for this, like something in the manual of style about it? The examples in the Template:Cite_journal documentation do use normal ranges. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: The WP Manual of Style allows for Chicago Manual of Style page range presentation, which asks for two or more digits (as needed) for the second number. (pp. 1–5, 10–15, 100–05). And the numbers should be endashed, not hyphened. My gnomish editing effort is to present consistent page ranges in the references, instead of multiple presentations. (p. 1 + p. 2 + p. 3 instead of page 1 + pg. 2 + p. 3). Hhmmmm – if the citation helper software can't read these page ranges, I'd think either the software needs fixing or the Manual of Style needs revision. – S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I remember having seen that style at times, although I didn't know its name and I did not really notice its use on Wikipedia before, but my account is relatively recent. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, do not let my ignorant comment stop you . I also agree that consistency is important. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

Hello again. Since you also work on citations a lot, have you ever considered joining WP:CCLEAN? It doesn't seem like a very active project (I have never received an answer or request about the thread I posted on its talk page when I joined, but I noticed that some editors clean up the bare-urls queue). I could also perhaps sometimes use the help of a more experienced editor in that area when I cannot find answers to my questions in the documentation (or find the relevant documentation), although I could also ask directly here, if you don't mind. Thanks again, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 10:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Best wishes! SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome

... to QAI, the cabal of the outcasts. Possibly that is not the right group for you, because banned users who were part of the history and improved articles (List of Bach cantatas, When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd) will stay in the list. Please consider what another founding member wrote about a missed banned friend. Feel free to remove your name, if we are the wrong company ;) - Otherwise, welcome, from gnome to gnome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I understand. Thanks for the info, revert, and welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

pseudo-fascist

I should have been More clear, I did not mean to imply that any editor currently involved was a pseudo-fascist, I meant that if we allow any old criticism in then we will bulk out the article with every person criticized by SPLC as a pseudo-fascist to put in "but I am not" comment in out SPLC article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My concern is two-fold. One, we want to avoid attacking other editors. But the term also seemed to apply to French, which not allowed per BLP and WP:TPNO. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
And as I explained iut was not aimed at other editors, or Mr French, it was a general comment about how people tend to deny accusations, even when they are true. If you think this breeches policy take it to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You need to clarify the actual text because it implies that French and/or other editors are .... This is a WP:BLP issue. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
No, he does not imply that. You misinterpret what he wrote. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Also I have clarified it, both here and on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Page ranges

I saw in this edit of yours you converted page-number ranges from using the full number of the last page to using just the last two digits (563–595 → 563–95). Is there a Manual of Style basis for that change? The examples given in the {{cite journal}} template used there all seem to use the full number for the last page. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

the WP WP:MOS allows us to follow a variety of editing styles when it comes to citation. In general I prefer the Chicago Manual of Style which calls for 2-digits or more after the endash. (I paraphrase.) What I try to do is give a consistent presentation of page ranges per article. When there are hyphens used, I will convert to endashes. When one or three pages are used, I will convert to either two or three ending pages generally depending upon what is already there. Overall a consistent presentation is my gnomish goal. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
All quite reasonable (and I love gnomes!), except arbitrarily deciding that Chicago should be used if that's not the dominant style already gets into WP:CITEVAR territory. Hyphens for ranges and consistency are pretty universal. But the end-of-range value format seems heavily contentious in various style areas on Wikipedia. My focus is physical science articles where many fields have their own style guides, so I have no idea how widespread Chicago is as a default choice in elsewhere. DMacks (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. But CITEVAR does not apply to my edits. The key phrase is "established citation style". In Agriculture we had spaced endashes, hyphens, unspaced endashes, "pp." for single pages, "p." for multiple pages, "p" with and without periods, etc. For hyphens v. dashes, see MOS:HYPHEN followed by MOS:DASH. At this point, after my edits, we have an established/consistent style. Thanks for your comments (and I love you too). – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kingdom Identity Ministries

Hello Srich32977. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kingdom Identity Ministries, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims coverage in books and such coverage seems to exist,so significance is asserted. Also, article existed for years now. Use WP:AFD instead. Thank you. SoWhy 06:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Florida Family Association

Hi, did you forget to place a tag on the article in question? I've also checked the logs and can't see a nomination for this article to be considered for speedy deletion. If you could point me in the right direction or clarify this that would be great. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jenova20:I requested a speedy deletion because the NYT said FFA is a "one-man operation". But the speedy was denied. That's fine with me. I do not have enough interest in the FFA to either improve the article or pursue a regular deletion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the reply Srich ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Free-use images over fair use

Wikipedia prefers free-use images over fair use.

Please don't remove free-use images in the future.

Please stop following me around to new article pages I've created recently.

Thank you !!!

Sagecandor (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I am not following you. I have an interest in Trump. (Where does it say WP prefers free-use over fair use. I'm willing to learn.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Please just take a break from showing up at multiple of the new article pages that I've strived to write, research, and create. Wikipedia generally tries to use free-use over fair-use. Per WP:Non-free content, which states: Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia. Sagecandor (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor:: You've been prodigious in your 7 month-stint at WP. See: Which is good. And it happens that your interests overlap with mine at the moment. (Note, I am one of the top 9 contributors to List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016.) As for image use, the article-content-guidance is one issue and the fair-use v free-use guidance is another. We don't just add images because they are free-use, but because they contribute to the articles. In the case of the books, the book cover images are pertinent to the books as article topics. Adding another image of his face does not improve the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You've been showing up at new articles I create, repeatedly, often to be highly critical of the mere existence of such articles and efforts and attempts to improve them. That is, at the very least, odd, weird, disturbing personally to me, and discouraging. Free-use images are preferable to fair use. Fair use images require fair use rationale, free use do not. Sagecandor (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Please consider WP:OWNERSHIP. IOW, don't take our mutual interest personally. Also, your rationale about free-use is off-point. The book articles have images (fair-use) which are sufficient to illustrate the articles. But when you say "free-use images are preferable..." you are suggesting that the fair-use images be removed in favor of the free-use. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "some "fair use" of non-free content is allowed in limited circumstances‍." Such is the case with the book articles. Please consider what is the editing/article-improvement rationale for using both free- and fair-use images that depict the same person? – S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This is NOT "ownership". This is YOU, following me around, making snarky comments that are unhelpful. Please STOP IT PLEASE, JUST PLEASE STOP IT OKAY, IT IS FREAKING ME OUT AND DISTURBING ME. THANK YOU. Sagecandor (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

I noticed you edited his comment again, even though I asked you not to. You seem to misinterpret his comment. Please do not edit his comment again, but ask him for clarification. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If they want to clarify the comment, they should do so. But using the term "fascist" and re-inserting it violates WP:TPNO and BLP. Note that BLP applies to talk pages as well as textual material. I suggest you restore the redacted mark-up. I am prepared to bring this up on the WP:BLPNB. – S. Rich (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Then do so.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, you misinterpret the comment. Slatersteven was not saying what you believe he was saying. If you want a second opinion on that then feel free to ask around, but please do not edit other people's comments. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It's okay. I know a WP:DEADHORSE when I see one. – S. Rich (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

Thanks for the message, but I didn't see anything in WP:TPNO saying removing troll comments wasn't allowed. The next section on that page specifically says that it's acceptable to delete troll comments. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi: – Pointing to the FAQs is the best way to handle such comments. After all, there has been an on-going concern about the name. Also, you removed non-troll comments. Thanks for the reply. – S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Srich32977,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 810 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious

I do my absolute best here, always.

Thank you for quality articles such as United Nations Memorial Cemetery and Carl Eytel, for countless gnomish edits, for improving the accuracy and neutrality of articles", and for "I do my absolute best here, always." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear! I see a tpyo in the message!! How can I edit it without violating WP:TPNO?! – S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
On your own talk page, you can do almost anything. I'm blind for the typo, please just fix it, - or did you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for all the cleanup you've been doing these past several months. It's excellent, painstaking, diligent work. Good job! LK (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

Is it inappropriate to have a Wikipedia "category" listed under "See also" in an article? Thanks. 2602:301:772D:62D0:D447:83:2CC0:F388 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not per se. But see MOS:SEEALSO. When we include the pertinent category at the bottom of article we avoid the need to include such category linkings in the SA section. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. Thanks - learned something today! 2602:301:772D:62D0:D447:83:2CC0:F388 (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Jefferson and Virginia

Glad to see your interest in the Jefferson article. I also got a kick out of your background - you have been on many a journey, both literally and figuratively! And as a Richmonder, I'm delighted to see you have been this way! Hoppyh (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

Can you please put it on hold and give me some recommendations to address please? Sagecandor (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Basically I have by not posting a failed GA review. I will post a note on the talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
So.... can you please give me suggestions to how to bring it to GA quality now? Sagecandor (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes it takes up to 6 months to get a reviewer, same for 2nd opinion. Sagecandor (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I've put the GAR "on hold". Please see the comments. (Also, I think the current drama will play out soon.) But as I've suggested in my edit summaries, the topic of the article is the book. IOW, how much does the current drama have anything to do with the book, or how has the book itself impacted the drama? You have an interesting quandary editing-wise. We have a notable book, but what impact will the book make in the drama. How can you improve the article about the book without adding to the drama? (And are your editing efforts tilted towards impeachment?) Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
My editing efforts are tilted towards any and all reliable sources about the book. I haven't found any critical. If you suggest some, I'll gladly add them ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

I see you are reviewing an article that you are involved in at GA. I also see this is your first review. I was told during my first review that we can not review articles we have been involved in, or make significant changes to the article while we were reviewing it. You are welcome to ask one of the admins about this, but I think it might be appropriate to reset the review at this time. Seraphim System (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

ADD to be clear my reason for leaving this note is that there have been numerous significant edits including:
  • removing a reference as SYNTH [1]
  • removing an image as offtopic [2]
  • removing multiple A/V files [3] [4]
  • removing pdf file for "nothing to do with the book" [5]
  • changing infobox for NPOV [6]
  • alteration of infobox without discussion [7]
  • removal of large chunks of sourced text [8]

Seraphim System (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: You are correct in various respects. And I put the GAR on hold. IMO the changes were helpful to the article were not that "significant" in that they definitely moved the article towards GA status. Still, I will heed your advice and reset the GAR. (Most likely this evening.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, it's totally okay, please close it

Hey there, it's totally okay, please close Talk:The Case for Impeachment/GA1 as failed.

I've reflected on this for a good deal of time during a break.

It'll give me more time to improve it further.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you close as failed ? Sagecandor (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay. – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your close

Thank you for your AfD close. Do you think it'll be thought of by the community as a solid non-contested close, as a "non-admin" closure of that one? Just checking to be sure. Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it's okay. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
It will stand. I suggest you look at some of the Category:GA-Class Book articles for examples of what books do get listed. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixing citation on Israeli-Palestinian peace process

Hi there! I don't yet have extended-confirmed rights on Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could make a minor change instead.

On this page, there is a broken reference, because that section is transcluded from this page, which does define the reference, but it's further above. Both of these pages and their talk pages need extended-confirmed rights. The reference is named "A/RES/3236 (XXIX)".

All you would have to do is define the reference on the Two-state page, at the second time it's used, so that on the peace process page, the transclusion's reference is properly defined. Thank you! --Hameltion (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Aura (paranormal)

Hello again. Since you also do citation cleanup work, I would be interested in your input about this article. It interestingly has been ongoing disruptive "cleanup" edits regularly by an IP-hopping editor. Because there never was an opportunity to discuss (there's a thread on the talk page I opened with another who contributed to the article, but the invitation was refused by the IP address editor so far). If you find something obviously wrong with the citations, I'd be glad to know, in case that's what this editor is trying to fix. The editor does not change the article content, only the referencing style. Thank you for your time, —PaleoNeonate - 12:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep Aura on my watchlist. And thanks for your Skeptoid template work. – S. Rich (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Truth

MOS:DATERANGE? Editor2020 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please specify your concern. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Cenker edits

Hello... I was going over the edits you made to the Robert Cenker article, changing text which I added. I fixed a typo you introduced, and most of the other changes are matters of opinion, but I'm OK with them as they stand. One thing though: you added a flag for "further explanation needed". I am not sure what further explanation is needed or possible on this simple point. Were you looking for a reference? RobP (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A bit more regarding your note that "During his 18 years at RCA" needs further explanation: The 18 year figure is actually referenced in the citation for the paragraph, and that should be enough. However, more info on the complicated history of the RCA facility is provided in the Spaceflight experience section as follows: "By that time, RCA had been purchased by General Electric, and RCA Astro-Electronics became part of GE.[21] Following two additional ownership transitions, the facility was closed in 1998..." Do you still think something more is required there? RobP (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with Congressional Institute article?

Hi there, Srich32977! A couple of years back, you made a few edits to the Congressional Institute page trying to improve references and clean up the ELs. Since then, the page has basically stayed just the same; there are still issues with sourcing and content, especially the excessive detail about the Institute's past projects and wording that feels promotional. I'm looking for editors to review a new draft for the page, per this edit request on the Talk page. The new draft trims down the content, offers reliable sourcing for included details, and brings the page up-to-date. Would you be willing to take a look? In full disclosure, I have a financial COI as I'm here on behalf of the Congressional Institute as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance for any feedback you're able to give. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@16912 Rhiannon: I shall, sometime in the next two weeks. Please watch the article and remind me if I don't get to it. – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll keep an eye on it and will ping you if I don't spot you there. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, was wondering if you've had a chance to look at this? Let me know if you're still able to or if you know anyone else who might be interested to help. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, S. Rich, I hate to keep bugging you, but no one else has replied to the edit request, which was posted back in April. Since you noted a willingness to help, I figured I'd try one last time before I find someone else to bother! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't feel bad about bugging me. Your proposed edits require some careful thought, and I'm a bit under the weather. Most of my recent contributions have been on the cell phone and in bed. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hope you get well soon! I've been looking around to find other editors who might assist, but if you do get a little time and you're able to take a look, I've not been able to get anyone to review the draft yet. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 01:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srich32977/Archive_19&oldid=1149963527"