User talk:StAnselm/2016b

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     2016b   
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  ... (up to 100)


Jesus

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Information icon Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. "Atlantic" Discuss on the relevant talk page.-Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Ken Ham. Just because you don't accept facts of science doesn't mean that Wikipedia accommodates your peculiar perspective. Cut out your religious proselytization. See WP:RNPOV. jps (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's just ridiculous. I was restoring consensus wording that was a result of a discussion that you participated in. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. The consensus, as MastCell wrote, was not WP:ASSERT facts. jps (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

I have reported you to AIV for your repeated violation of NPOV. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ham and 6000 years

I'm sorry your idol believes something so absurd, but it's right there in his own words on page 108 of How Do We Know the Bible is True?:

While some will claim that I am unreasonable to believe that God created the earth about 6,000 years ago [...]

The biblical age of the earth is determined by adding up the genealogies from Adam [...] to Christ. This is about 4,000 years [...] Christ lived about 2,000 years ago, so this gives us about 6,000 years as the biblical age of the earth.

So there's your citation and no, it does not fail verification. clpo13(talk) 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're talking about this edit here [1], where your (StAnselm) objection in the edit summary is that the note talks about the age of the Earth only. But the note includes "Rejecting literal days of creation naturally leads to the acceptance of the supposed big bang as the evolutionary method God used to create the universe.", so Ham doesn't seem to split hairs here, and seems to directly link the age of the Earth with the age of the universe. I was ready to remove the 'failed verification' tag, but I realise this is a contentious issue, and rather than clutter up the edit history, I thought I'd first seek your blessing here, StAnselm. Willondon (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Melinda Gordon.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Melinda Gordon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, StAnselm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

→Σσς. (Sigma) 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Pollock Twins case

I agree that when you nominated the article for deletion, at that time it didn't look notable. I tried to find other sources, but most are in snippet views where contents can't be viewed properly. I have found these sources after the AFD nomination:

I don't believe in ghosts, paranormal beings. I found the topic as notable. All the delete votes are coming from those who were in the discussion at Fringe theories noticeboard. X-Men XtremE 00:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this also, The Sydney Morning Herald aryicle from 1966 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19660417&id=FJ5WAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DucDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4079,8420511&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Men Xtreme (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday newspapers aren't to be regarded as reliable sources either. If we could reference the original Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (I can't find it through JSTOR) that would be better, but I think the most it would do is demonstrate the notability of Ian Stevenson's book. (The case wasn't reviewed in the journal, but only the book which covered it - and many other cases.)
Every book can't have online version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Men Xtreme (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Turner revert

On 21:57, 12 June 2016‎, you reverted 1 edit by Hogie75 (talk): "Please do NOT add this back in without a reliable source, per WP:BLPCAT." The reversion was a social inequality link. I notice the lede paragraph refers to this subject with a reference to RS Paquette, Danielle (June 7, 2016). "What makes the Stanford sex offender Brock Turner's six month jail sentence so unusual". The Independent. Retrieved June 7, 2016. Did you consider this insufficient to support the link? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - certainly insufficient for a BLP. The quote doesn't suggest that Turner was privileged in any way, and even if it did, that would just be one writer's opinion. StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice

I would like your opinion on this, should the Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice be merged with Carpus and Papylus? Happy editing and Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - the article on the people has information (on veneration, etc.) that doesn't belong in the document article, while the document article has (or could have) information (date, location, manuscripts) that doesn't belong in the people article. StAnselm (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, because I was thinking about creating the Acts of Perpetual and Felicity but the article: Perpetua and Felicity already cover that in detail even though the article is a biography. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not everyone agrees with me, but I prefer lots of smaller articles linked together. With biblical articles, that means articles on both stories and characters, even if they are closely related (e.g. Syrophoenician woman and Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter). Anyway, I'm confident the article would pass AfD, especially if you include information about manuscripts, etc. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Perpetua and Felicity, I see it has lots of info about manuscripts - I guess that can be split off into a new article, making Acts of Perpetua and Felicity a legitimate content fork from the main article. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and request for WP:SPLIT. Thnx! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not particularly bold - being bold would be making the split yourself. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I already suggested a split and placed a tag. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion and advice requested

Hi StAnselm. I plan to write a list and later nominate it for FL. I plan to base the list on the records and distinctions earned by cricketers in the Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 match. Can you please suggest an appropriate name for such a list article? I am not able to source the right precedents to base the name on. Your suggestion and advice will be very helpful. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my advice is not to write the article. I cannot for the life of me see how it would be notable. Of course, on this sort of thing I might be out of step with the community - there are a whole lot of ridiculous cricket-related FAs around. Anyway, read WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and make up your own mind. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll check the link out too. Thanks again for the suggestion. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lipsquid (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Content of John

Template:Content of John has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chapters in the Gospel of John

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of John has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle of the Swine

Hi. Please, stay reasonable: 22k vs. (less than) 2k hits is OVERWHELMING (11:1! With "Gerasene", so "Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac", it's even 12:1!), so the petty argument that "serious sources" would prefer the minority name is... petty. Did you compare the 2,000 with the 22,000?
Your invitation to "discuss" it is disingenuous, I did open the discussion, but you chose to revert rather than discuss. Plain and square. Stay constructive, or please don't sabotage others who do so. Thanks. ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't seen the talk page discussion. If you want to move a page you need to follow the procedure at WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Coffee to ArbCom

You probably shouldn't take Coffee to ArbCom. He will not get any restrictions placed on him, that is almost certain. At the most, I can see an admonishment, but one possible mistake isn't worth it. Also, the block was only for 48 hours, so it wasn't overly long, it's only a minor block. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Daniel's Final Vision

Anselm, I only just saw that you listed this proposed move on 22 June. Thanks for that. I may have messed things up, because I just made a manual redirect without discussion. Sorry about that. But it seems nobody is discussing it. Perhaps we need to contact editors who've shown an interest in recent months? I know of only two. PiCo (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been done for us by an admin :) Thanks for your help. Hope all's well with the studies. PiCo (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks mate. StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Donald Trump article is under a WP:1RR restriction. It says in big letters on the edit page "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.".

I have decided to give a 72 hour block in response to this violation[2][3]. I have decided not to use discretionary sanctions such as topic ban as I think that you will not repeat this in the future.

Please understand that American politics is an extremely volatile area and that is why discretionary sanctions have been applied to it. Editors in this area are held to a higher standard. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

StAnselm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am well aware that American politics is an extremely volatile area, and that is why editors need to be especially vigilant rgearding BLP violations. I claimed a BLP exemption, and some - but not all - editors have agreed that the exemption is a valid one. But I think I have adequately defended my reasoning on the talk page and the EW noticeboard. In fact, it is not clear why User:HighInBC doesn't think the the exemption applies: is it because the claim wasn't contentious, or because the claim was adequately sourced? Hardly anyone is saying it's not a contentious claim, and multiple editors have demonstrated that adequate sourcing was not present. If we're not going to include BLP exemptions for violations like this, then the whole BLP policy is compromised. StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, as the below discussion indicates, the block admin has misunderstood the situation, particularly how the claim in question was not adequately sourced. HighInBC has acknowledged that he blocked me without being aware of the EWN discussion where I have explained and defended my second revert. StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC) One more thing - whether the block is lifted or not, I will be taking the page off my watchlist and backing away from US political articles. I am not American myself (I'm Australian), and I had forgotten how hot things get in US-election years. Yes, I stand by the principle that BLP violations should be reverted, but I will not be getting involved in US politicians pages until at least next year. StAnselm (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You have been unblocked, see the note below. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 13:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off both sources listed describe him as "right-wing", "populist" and "right-wing populist". Secondly the 1RR rule is in addition to obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious. I did not consider your edit contentious, but I did see it as a 1RR violation and I don't see the BLP exemption applying. I am happy to defer to the block reviewing admin's judgement on this matter. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 00:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem here - I think you have misread the sources. The first source doesn't use the phrase "right-wing populist" at all; the second uses the phrase exactly once, when it says "Trump, like Europe's right-wing populists..." - i.e. saying Trump is like European right-wing populists, but not using the phrase to describe Trump himself. I really don't I'm being pedantic here - multiple editors have pointed out that right-wing + populist ≠ right-wing populist. StAnselm (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page full of people on the article talk page disagreeing with you and more on the edit warring noticeboard. This is not the first time you have let your own interpretation of the BLP policy substitute that of the community's. If the phrase is really a problem then someone else who is not violating 1RR can remove it. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 00:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought everyone is under 1RR restriction there?! Negative BLP material that uses SYNTH to combine two terms would not stand in any other BLP area. Who's minding the store here? It would be shot to pieces on the Hillary Clinton article. The willingness of admins to ignore NPOV, BLP and NOR on this subject is disturbing. Who gives a fuck if people think Trump's a jerk? It's a BLP unlike any other. Doc talk 01:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doc what I meant was that someone who has not reverted today will not be in violation of 1RR if they remove it. You for example could remove it. One of the sources uses the precise phrase so this is not a SYNTH issue in my opinion. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is that not SYNTH? It doesn't use the phrase to refer to Trump. StAnselm (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to revert this [4] on the grounds of it being poorly-sourced and contentious for a BLP, I would not be blocked? That was restored while the thing is still being discussed! Doc talk 01:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't block you, and since you have not edited the article today you would not be blocked for 1RR. I can't speak for other admins with different reasoning though. Speaking of other admins with their own reasoning I will defer this matter to whichever admin reviews the block. I will happily accept their judgement in this matter. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc9871: Per the updated restrictions you would not be permitted to make such an edit. Please be aware that this constitutes a formal warning whereby if you do make the edit, you will be blocked. Please don't test the Arbitration system, thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a sick joke. So anyone can add horribly sourced bullshit in a "BLP" without consensus, and it can't be deleted?! Nice. See you at the Hillary article, buddy. Doc talk 01:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: this is a hypothetical question (since I don't plan to edit Donald Trump again) - what happens if someone breaks this rule, and it's not picked up by an admin? In this case, the BLP violation was added, removed, and then added back in - are you saying no-one is allowed to remove it again? Or is reverting to the status quo allowed? StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not editing the Trump article is exactly their goal here. Don't you get it? Through threats and blatant twisting of the rules the "opposition" is silenced. It is absolutely disgusting. Doc talk 02:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Coffee - what are you going to do about the article now, given that the BLP violation was added back in an hour before you changed the rules? StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc9871 you are way off base. I have no goal in this subject area, I could care less. Everyone is welcome to edit the article if they work within the restrictions of the page. If 1RR was violated putting the information in I would have blocked just the same. My only concerns regarding the content of the edit was that I did not think it was a BLP violation given the sources. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 02:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, please make it clear (by indentation or otherwise) whether you are addressing Doc9871 or myself. StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the comment "Not editing the Trump article is exactly their goal here", I have no horse in this race. I am Canadian, we have a sensible leader already. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 02:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They" is basically every admin, because Trump is so vilified. No admin is truly willing to be unpopular enough amongst their peers to do the right thing and apply the rules evenly for fear of ostracism. It's a very real concern. I have no problem with you, Chillum. However, above you say, "First off both sources listed describe him as "right-wing", "populist" and "right-wing populist". I can find exactly one mention of the term "right-wing populist" between the two sources. Are you absolutely sure that both sources describe him as a "right-wing populist"? Because I sure as heck do not see that term in one of the sources whatsoever. Zero. Doc talk 02:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout you, Coffee, since you're so eager to ping me and throw your weight around? Do you see the term "right-wing populist" in this source?[5] How can the "scare quote" be justified using that source?! Do your real job and protect BLP articles from things that don't have "firm consensus" to begin with. Doc talk 02:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take it down a few notches, please. I've executed more admin actions protecting Trump-related articles than I have protecting Clinton/Warren/Sanders/Obama-related articles combined. --NeilN talk to me 13:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth Doc I have never had any admin on wiki or on IRC ostracise me for any political position. When the subject of Trump comes up, they tend to each have their own mind on the subject. We are far from a unified voice. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 13:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

While I do think that the edit was a violation of 1RR I also believe that you thought it wasn't. More importantly I think you have no intention of further reverting regardless of how right or wrong you think you are. Based on that I am unblocking you.

Our BLP policy is open to interpretation and edit warring exemptions rely on the community sharing that interpretation of BLP. Keep in mind in the future when the interpretation of BLP is the very thing in question that an exemption based on your interpretation may not be reliable.

I do hope that you have not been driven away from the topic. It is a minefield, but I believe you are editing the area in good faith faith. Frankly it is any area I try to avoid because people take everything so personally. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 12:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There are, of course, millions of other topics here - I have gone ahead and removed Trump from my watchlist. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discretionary sanctions for American Politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 00:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Matthias Media logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Matthias Media logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your ARCA

Your clarification request has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Acason

Hi there, I understand the logic behind the revert - but does she then belong in Category:Family First Party politicians? Seems odd that she would qualify for one politician category but not the other. Mattlore (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just going by the category description. I think we normally put failed candidates in political categories: Category:Politicians includes someone who "is or was associated, as a candidate or full-time staff member, with a political party which has won elections." StAnselm (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some help with biographies needed

Hello there,

I noticed your activity in the biographies noticeboard and therefore thought I'll ask an experienced wikipedian for assistance: I noticed this warning about the importance of removing poorly sourced content. I noticed that some of the professional players biographies mention the equipment that these athletes play with. As a table-tennis player and referee myself I know first-hand that there is no way whatsoever to prove this. The only sources are either the websites of the athletes' sponsors (these cannot be trusted as the athletes play with the equipment that suits their playing habits and not (necessarily) the equipment of their sponsors) or they are baseless stories from fans somewhere in the depths of the Internet. I also firmly believe that such information does not have biographical/encyclopedical importance. Do you think I can safely remove these pieces of information? Cheers! Havlicek stole the ball (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can - and should - remove anything that is unsourced or poorly sourced. If it's supported by a sponsor's website, I think it should be kept in, but changed it from "Jones plays with a Sunshine bat" to "Jones is sponsored by Sunshine Bats". StAnselm (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McCarter

StA, it would take a consider amount of evidence and argument to decide that this is the guy we have been seeking as the outlier exception for WP:JR. A quick scan of sources however turns up a few that omit the comma, and not that many in total, so I see no reason to treat this guy as that special guy of a guy who insists on a comma. Do you see something I'm missing? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Darcy

StAnselm, greetings. You contributed the Sam Adams entry: if still interested, FYI, I have expanded substantially -- please see Samuel Adams Darcy. --Aboudaqn (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please join me in helping Jeppiz on Christ myth theory

Here is a topic that you and I can agree on. We can work side by side and help out Jeppiz. We don't have to be enemies all the time. The page looks like it needs lots of work. Wouldn't it be fun to work together for a change? Am I dreaming, thinking that you and I could work together? I hope not. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the olive branch. I noticed I'd been pinged, but I really don't want to have another high-stress article just at the moment. Bart D. Ehrman is chewing up a lot of my WP time. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Bruce Metzger was alive...

Sorry. This has almost nothing to do with Bart Ehrman so I didn't want to post it here, but it is vaguely relevant to what we were talking about.)

I have been trawling through the archives of every Ehrman lecture and interview I've ever seen to find that one passage we were talking about, and in the process I found myself re-watching this. Apparently, when Metzger was alive, he liked to brag about how some conservative Christians had accused him of being corrupted by Satan and accordingly sent him boxes of ashes (?), but now that he is dead he has become the conservative icon who would be ashamed of how his disciple Ehrman has moved so far to the left on his views of the corruption of the text of the New Testament. (Even though the same year Ehrman wrote Misquoting Jesus he co-authored another book of NT textual criticism with Metzger. The "Metzger would be ashamed" argument really seems to be without water.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First man or woman

We can't really complain about the inclusion of Hindu mythology while assuming that readers of an English language Wikipedia would be principally looking for Christian mythology--at least, not if we are to maintain our global perspective. India is an English-speaking nation of 1.2 billion people. Could you please revert your edit? Many thanks,  • DP •  {huh?} 19:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about Christian mythology? It's in Judaism and Islam as well. StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you like it--it doesn't alter the basis for my request.  • DP •  {huh?} 19:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been on the page for quite a while - there should be discussion and consensus before it's removed. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the Hindu listing should not be removed without such a discussion and the Abrahamic one remain without thereby demonstrating WP:Bias. I felt it was inappropriate to list such a relatively small instance and better to explain why it's inappropriate and offer the opportunity to address it. Are you committed to such a bias?  • DP •  {huh?} 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it was inappropriate to list Adam and Eve, or to list the Hindu protoplasts, or both? StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to list one of them, then we ought to list the other, as the editor who attempted to add it was suggesting. If that suggestion is rejected and reversed, then neither should be listed. The reasoning for excluding the one applies just as pertinently to the other. The reasoning for including the one applies just as equally to the other. Assuming, that is, that we aim for an unbiased, global perspective relevant to our mostly English-speaking readers. 03:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Certainly if I google "first man and woman", Google thinks I am looking for Adam and Eve. I see Navajo and Filipino stories coming up too, but no Hindu ones. StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing the principle meaning of the term in English, but rather the appropriate contents of a disambiguation page. Might I suggest your reasoning is flawed too. Who is most likely to be looking for Adam and Eve when they enter "First man" into Wikipedia? The overwhelming majority would simply enter Adam and Eve. I see the IP editor has restored it. I will clean it up with appropriate wikilinks.  • DP •  {huh?} 18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic authorship

Anselm, I was actually the one who started the article on Mosaic authorship, so I don't think I'm prejudiced against it per se. I just think we have to keep the sidebar for major articles, or else it will clogged with everyone's hobby-horses. I ask you to reconsider. PiCo (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it fits to fell in that particular template, where we have a section especially for articles about authorship. If we can have Authorship of the Johannine works on the template, why not Authorship of the Books of Moses? StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel

Sure. My only problem with attributing it specifically to Coogan is that it's much more widely held, the normal view in fact. Not limited to him.PiCo (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I realise that, and that is precisely why we should get more people involved. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and immanent Trinity

I've noticed that on 29 June 2016 you tagged Economic and immanent Trinity as being of disputed neutrality, with the edit text "lots of unsourced POV - removed some examples, tagged the section". However, you have not added an explanation to the Talk page of the dispute.

Per WP:NPOVD you should "on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." Could you do that please? Havelock Jones (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Hey man can we add the Gospel to the Jesus page❓ I feel personally like we should The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that people have lived in dread and sadness since the God created them because of the natural consequences of our own sin Sin is when we hurt God in heaven by not living his best life for us because he only wants what is best for us and that is why he sent his son Jesus whom is God to restore people a happy and fulfilled life separate from our sins and trespasses in loving relationship with our father God Romans five eight says that God understands that we cannot dodge the bullet of our own sin because it's speeding to fast and we love to stand in the way of it and that saddens him to see us stand in the way so he took it for us He didn't just take it for us or jump in at the last second he was born and lived to show us how to live where he rose people from the dead and healed and when he was crucified on the cross there were two men at his side also being crucified One sinner cursed Jesus and the other said Jesus remember me as you entee unto your kingdom and Jesus responded today you will be with me in paradise Romans five eight says that God died for both men while they were sinners demonstrating his love for us that it isn't about our condition but it is about his love for us John three sixteen for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son so that whosoever believes in him may not perish but have eternal life Jesuseditor (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statewide Opinion Polling for US Election

According to WP: BRD you should never have reverted my edit without discussing it first. Table and map are a clear violation of WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS. It is up to you to demonstrate how it doesn't violate wikipedia's policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have appealed to BRD - you made a (very) bold edit, and it has been reverted. We are now discussing it on the talk page. You should not repeat the edit (i.e. remove the material again) until there is a consensus to remove it. You have made three reverts in a short period of time; and more and you can be reported to WP:EWN. StAnselm (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Élizabeth Teissier

I really hope this new one goes through. This whole situation feels like I'm being attacked primarily for having bothered to do work on an article, from every side. And, you know, I know that everyone almost certainly means well, but it's still frustrating. It's really put me off DYK. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attributes of God

Mission is not an adjective and can't be an attribute. Finding two people who support that claim doesn't mean it is article worthy. I could add claims from Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. about attributes of God like hatred, illogical, petty, etc. but that wouldn't be appropriate for the article. Mission is not appropriate either. Mission is not an attribute and that is a made up definition. Just sayin, that is nonsense. Lipsquid (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the attributes from Hitchens wouldn't be Attributes of God in Christianity. Also, none of the headings on the page are adjectives - they are all in the noun form. I suppose the adjectival form is "missional". In some ways it's the same as "love" - for whatever reason, the Bible says "God is love" rather than "God is loving". Anyway, with regards to the "two people", the idea has become pretty influential: here is a reference to "David Bosch's now standard treatment". StAnselm (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made my edit, stated my point, I don't think "mission" lines up with the other words which all have at least adjectival forms. I think it makes the article look silly. Missionary would be a better choice like all the other words that end in "Y" that are attributes the average person relates to. Not here to quarrel, just want a good encyclopedia. You are free to keep the article as you like. I don't have the subject on my watchlist and won't repeat the edit. Best..... 04:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

David Baron

I agree it should be sourced and indeed seems to be in Pseudohistory. I see quite a few reliable sources. Do I need to do this or do you have time? Doug Weller talk 06:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources to the article. However, there is not enough to state that he is a pseudohistorian in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction (Westminster John Knox Press, 2011) does not mention "pseudohistory" at all. StAnselm (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Northfield School & Sports College logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Northfield School & Sports College logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion.

Thank you. Begoon 07:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aria Montgomery.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aria Montgomery.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jesus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

StAnselm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did indeed make three reverts, but I was very careful not to break 3RR. I took the user in question to the EWN rather than reverting a fourth time, and I had already resolved not to revert any more. I also started a talk page discussion to get input from other users. The other user accused me of breaking 3RR, but this seems to have come from simple miscounting, and I'm surprised the blocking admin took it at face value. Finally, the edit summary says this block was given to "prevent further disruption", but I had already stopped reverting. StAnselm (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

By your own admission you were edit warring, which is blockable. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

StAnselm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This unblock request has been declined once already, but for a very superficial reason, and it appears the administrator in question did not take the request seriously. Firstly, I did not say anything about edit-warring; I said I had made three reverts. Secondly, blocking is not meant to be a punishment: it is meant to stop further disruption. But as I noted above, the very fact that I stopped reverting, reported the incident to the EWN and started a talk page discussion indicate that there was going to be no further disruption. StAnselm (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have a rather extensive history of being blocked for edit warring. You should know by now that Wikipedia:Edit warring isn't defined solely by going past 3 reverts. You don't even need 3 reverts to be considered edit warring. As is standard practice, your block lengths have escalated each time. You may well have intended to stop your reverting just before you were blocked, but how would the blocking admin know that, given that you have already established a record for yourself of being blocked for edit warring? So, yes, the purpose is not punitive, but preventative. Continued incidents of edit warring may result, eventually, in blocking you indefinitely to prevent further disruption from this account. As blocks go, this is short term, and about half over, expiring soon enough. I suggest you wait it out. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016

Thanks for partipating Wikipedia Asian Month last year, and I hope you enjoy it. Last year, more than 7,000 articles contribute to Wikipedia in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month, making us one of the largest event on Wikipedia. We will organize this event again in upcoming November, and would like to invite you join us again.

This year, we are lowering down the standards that you only need to create 4 (Four) articles to receive a postcard (new design), and articles only need to be more than 3,000 bytes and 300 words. We are also improving our postcard sending process, e.g. making the postcards right now, and collecting the address after the event ends without waiting other languges.

Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". We will send you both digital copy, and a paper copy of the Ambassador certificate.

Thank you for considering! --AddisWang (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Futures League

Hi St A. Following on from this AfD, the same user has created this article. I'd appreciate your thoughts on if you think this is notable or not. I don't see it being notable myself, as none of the matches are FC status, but it could scrape the WP:GNG. If you don't think it is notable, I'm happy to take it to AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - I imagine the only coverage is routine - scores, etc. I do find it very interesting though - I like to keep track of how the fringe players are doing. (Especially Jordan Silk, whose article I created.) Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'd vote delete in an AfD. It's probably like Victorian Premier Cricket - the league is definitely notable, but we don't have articles for individual seasons. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Acacia (Vachellia) into Vachellia

Hi StAnselm. You inserted the merge tag of these pages, but you did not create the merge discussion. There is substantial discussion on the talk page, but editors are not addressing and focussing on the merge proposal per se, as there no such section on the page (presening the justification). I would gladly create such a section, but thought I would rather first let you know. Regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page was moved with a future merge in mind, and I see that (rather unfocused) discussion happened at Talk:Vachellia#Acacia. Yes, if you would like to create a formal merge discussion, I would appreciate it. Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. Shall do so. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bill Clinton haircut controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Clinton haircut controversy 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/Bill Clinton haircut controversy (2nd 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. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello StAnselm. 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.

  • 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.

information Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Dash

Just a cordial note to warn that you are edit-warring at Stacey Dash. Per WP:BRD, after being reverted we go to the talk page to discuss the issue and try to reach consensus with other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not edit-warring - I made a significant change to address your "promotional" concerns. StAnselm (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's edit-warring. I've begun a discussion at Talk:Stacey Dash#Patheos. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Florida Christian School logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Florida Christian School logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Wales Evangelical School of Theology logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wales Evangelical School of Theology logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

StAnselm Thanks for the heads-up, but I'm taking a break from the Bannon article; however I think you should consider posting this quote in the RfC for due consideration: 'Pastrana told NBC News there was nothing obvious in Bannon's voter record that suggested fraud to her, especially since he had not voted in Miami-Dade since registering there in April 2014. "There is nothing here that I see that he did wrong," she said.' Makes it obvious that the issue is a complete nothing-burger. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello StAnselm.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, 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.

  • 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, StAnselm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello StAnselm,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 819 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero 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!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Jesus

Hey, you reverted my edit to Jesus. I'd like to discuss this change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#/talk

Thanks. -- Mysterious Gopher (talk, contribs), 18:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello StAnselm,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Collect your prize

Hi, please carefully read the instructions at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon for collecting your prize. I will need you to send me an email, your wiki name, what I owe you and your preference for currency in dollars or pounds/country of residence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mary Elise Hayden

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.

A tag has been placed on Mary Elise Hayden, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks!

Thanks for thanking my edit, unfortunately it was reverted, as well as being reverted on multiple articles as well by the same editor. There's a discussion about it here if you'd consider giving your opinion. Drsmoo (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of HTW

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.

A tag has been placed on HTW requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 09:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

Hello StAnselm, you changed (article Rathenow) the heading from Sons and daughters of the town to Notable residents, although all the people were born in Rathenow. So I think sons and daughters is the better heading. Regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it might be common to speak this way in German, but it is not the usual phrase in English. StAnselm (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StAnselm/2016b&oldid=1142023424"