User talk:Laser brain/Archive 7

Really?

Maybe, just maybe I find your "house keeping" to be controversial! lol ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please reconsider

People with level heads are always needed here-in both admin and non-admin capacities. Hope you'll take a little time out and consider coming back. We hope (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Seconded, Andy. Hope you'll reconsider. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, per the ANI discussion, User:RickinBaltimore has unblocked Cassianto. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• You will be welcomed back with hurrahs all around when you return, and your bit restored immediately. Have a good rest and come back when you are refreshed. Don't let the vagaries of inevitable interpersonal dramas and inevitable human fallibility discourage you for too long. You are far too fine a Wikipedian, and far too fine an admin, for us to lose. Be well, Softlavender (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Adding my voice to those hoping that you reconsider and come back when you're ready. I've always found your contributions to be very beneficial to the project. In any case, I wish you all the best.- MrX 17:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry to see this.

(all said above.) Anmccaff (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Same here; I hope you reconsider. You'll be much missed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I literally said yesterday that Laser brain is a voice of reason on the English Wikipedia, one that I trust. Please reconsider. The benefits of Wikipedia outweigh the negatives, and if we're going to effect some sort of culture change on the site, we're going to need people like you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Laser brain, I hope...well, Hallmark card stuff. Thanks for your service. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Adding my voice here. I really enjoy working with you and I hope you come back soon. Katie^talk 19:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• +1 from me too. Thank you for your help on my first (sadly failed) FAC. I have seen you be similarly helpful to many others, particularly first-timers. I hope a break is all that is needed, and that you will be back when you are ready. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Boing is sad ;-( Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• My category should be red. But now that it's blue I hope you may join. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Very sorry to hear about this. You'll be greatly missed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have been watching this shit-storm from a distance. It was not the communities' finest hour. It has depressed many who have not commented. It was a clusterfuck basically. But I think it was a zeitgeist of misapprehensions, and stressed colleagues. I recall you helped me as a newbie, back in the day. You are good. Get back soon mate. You are needed. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• You were one of the (too few) good ones. I too have not been very proud of this "community" recently but still have hope that things will turn around when enough people's eyes finally open. You will be missed and I don't blame you in the slightest for being disillusioned.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• I haven't been able to edit as much as I would have liked lately, but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for everything you've done for Wikipedia. You are a major reason that the FA process has maintained high standards, and I've personally learned a lot from the comments you've made at various FACs. I hope you do come back at some point, but if not please know that many of us appreciate your significant contributions to the site and won't forget them. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• I always thought the FAC coords were some of the most upstanding folk around here. Let's hope this is just a matter of letting heads cool off and we'll see Laser Brain back soon. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Well this sucks. Take care. Would be good to see you back but WP don't pay the bills nor put food on the table...so I ain't gonna guilt ya or nothing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• A week late and a dollar short ... this is the first I've seen of this. Very sad to see you go. - Dank (push to talk) 11:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your advice

I'm not sure how to deal with this edit, and I'm hoping you might give me advice. I carefully checked the sources, and then removed unsourced content. Should I revert, and get into an edit war over unsourced content? Go to ANI? Report this one revert as edit waring? This editor habitually adds unsourced content, and the pattern seems to be that I tag their talk page with another "final warning", and nothing happens. Thanks for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed you left the project. All the best. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw that you left but shamefully didn't write then to say please come back. Events in the last few days have persuaded me that I ought to. I'd like to try to persuade you that administrators are not usually "held on a special platter". I've been blocked four times since I became an admin, and have only just avoided a fifth. I hope the example of my long block log can demonstrate to you that sometimes admins do get their just desserts. When they don't, it is a failure of individuals not the project. Best wishes, DrKay (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

GAR

Gojira (band), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Oh, yeah, you left... Hope you're doing well. All the best, Drmies (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Laser brain. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you back?

Glad to see you're back! Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Just saw this pop up on my watchlist. Hoping that the project is lucky enough to see you returning to the project for good, but don't want to get people's hopes up. Either way, hope all is well. ceranthor 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'll be around and focusing on content development and reviewing. Thanks for the note! --Laser brain (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way to 'love' edits, just 'thanks'. :-) Welcome back. Really glad to see you back at work. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Seconded! --Xover (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Good news! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hurrah! Welcome back. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm almost perfectly happy seeing this.

The reservation comes from fear this is further proof that Wikipedia is more addictive than opioids.

Welcome back. Anmccaff (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful to have you back. Cassianto^Talk 11:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with all the above; glad to see you back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

GAB likes this. GAB^gab 16:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, Laser brain; really nice to see your name again. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You already know how pleased I am to see you back, Andy... Now if you're looking to review something, I'd welcome your input on this FAC... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I know I said it over there but I'll say it here too - It's great to have you back! :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Laser brain!!


Hi Laser brain, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and All That

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disruptive

I just thought that the finger looked like a reproduction organ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Reason Why I nominate FAC's

Dear Laserbrain, The Reason why I nominated Tokyo Mirage Sessions FE is because I felt like all around it was deserving of a TFA, I want to understand why you removed by featured article nominations, it feels like a slap to the face. Can you please tell me why? Eltomas2003 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S

Why do I have to be a major contributor to an article in order for it to be a FA candidate, also lets be friends! Eltomas2003 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I saw this comment of yours; wanted to respond but did not want to flood Ceoil's talk page any further. Just want to say I share many of your sentiments. I thought it was silly for Ceoil to edit war, but perhaps it's the natural response to warnings in general. Your work is always appreciated. Thank you. From a silent admirer, Alex Shih (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello can you please help Daniel Genis writer about the Pavle Stanimirovic page very important if you can help so you can make the page better and for it not to get taken down . John of #%%$ Is on a war path and it's personal. Please object and contact Daniel Genius please . Thank you a friend of a friend. Chateaux Margo (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Stopping by

I see you also left for an extended time. I am pretty much gone for good, although occasionally real life forces me to rub internet shoulders with another Wikipedia outrage, and I briefly entertain the notion that I can just pop in for a moment and fix the issue. After beating my head on the wall, I come back to my senses :)

From what happened to Ceoil, it looks like participation must be way down, and besides the age-old problems with the admin corps, there seems to be a new standard in both clerks and arbs.

I forgot my old yahoo password, so have another email, but hope you are well! Heck, if you can still stomach the shenanigans, you should probably be an arb-- the newcomers can learn a lot from you! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Yes, overcome by my urge to come back and do things that this site was actually meant for... building, reviewing, improving... but it's hard to sit idly while people I respect are bludgeoned. Once upon a time there were arbs we could trust to be maddeningly fair, who didn't think they were "authorities" and realized they just had some extra tools to help us. I should keep my head down and mind my own business but in a way this is all of our business. Anyway, hope you're well! --Laser brain (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy. I want to express my gratitude for your comments last night; against all that noise, your words had a lot of credibility and resonated very strongly. Agree with Sandy, you have been a voice of reason here for the many years of your participation. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been floored IRL with a couple of things. Just noticed all the hoo ha that went on. Sorry I didn't get a chance to chime in. Sigh. I agree it does seem to be quieter but then every so often a new content builder pops up which is a good thing....the med stuff is sobering... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to see both of you and thanks for the note. Perhaps I should have just had a dram or two of Bunnahabhain and went to bed, but tacit acceptance of the poor treatment of people is too common. --Laser brain (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Bishara

Laser Brain,

I recently spent a bit of time with the Joseph Bishara entry. You went an undid all my updates. Let me walk you through the why I did the changes.

- Occupations: Since Bishara works in both the music and film industry, it is necessary to identify him as a music producer as it is very different from a film producer. Changing Actor to Creature Performer is to clarify that he is monster costume operator, not one of the extras in the background.

- Citations: The change to the citation style allow the visual editor to correctly add in new citations. The citation style of the page is not the most current format used on Wikipedia. It will cause issues as new contributors add material to the page.

- Yesterday's Tear: Yesterday's Tears is a song by Zakk Wylde (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4EILN3dVZA). Yesterday's Tear (no "s") was Bishara's band (https://www.discogs.com/artist/4246062-Yesterdays-Tear) that was latter renamed Drown

- Exploring vs Improvising some: Improvisation has the connotation of Jazz when it comes to music. The musicians did not jazz it up but they did experiment within Bishara's figures and systems. So the word "improvise" is inaccurate and misleading.

- Demon: Bishara's official crew credit for The Conjuring 2 identifies him as "Demon" not winged creature (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3065204/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast identifying) (https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Who-Plays-Demon-Conjuring-2-41604276?stream_view=1#photo-41604289).

I am going to undo your actions in reference to the above as these edits improve the functionality and accuracy of the entry. SyrLA (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Laser Brain,

Thank for accepting my contribution to the Bishara's entry. And also your patience with the process.

I was thrilled that you included the credit of "Demon". I looked at your original source and noted that they incorrectly stated the role as "Winged Creature". I was at a bit of an impasse but your solution was wonderfully stated.

Thank you again, SyrLA (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

template for acdcguy

Was that necessary? I already left a warning on his page in my own words and there haven't been any reverts since then. Templates tend to piss people off. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: Unfortunately, yes. If he has to be reported to the edit warring noticeboard (which based on his behavior and history is likely), they will be looking for him having been given a proper and formal warning. I agree that templates suck, but sometimes we just need to demonstrate that someone got the standard notice. --Laser brain (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Aloha From Hawaii

Why delete edits to an article where even the source article that has been cited for viewer ratings admits that the figure is improbable? As I stated in the article, if you add up the populations of all the countries the concert was broadcast to then you reach a figure in excess of 1.5 billion, but you cannot reasonably expect every single person in a country to own a TV set, and of those that did at the time not everyone tuned in to watch the concert. The figure of 1.5 billion therefore must be considered dubious (albeit should be left on the page with a citation to that effect). By removing edits to the contrary you're flying in the face of common sense, not to mention ignoring the very source material that is currently used to 'prove' the viewer ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.138.35 (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research—please see WP:OR. The article accurately states what the viewership figures were estimated at by published sources. For you to research populations and come to a different conclusion yourself is original research. You'd need to locate published sources stating that the figures might be inaccurate and why. --Laser brain (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Are official census figures then to be counted as original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.138.35 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you looking at census figures and making your own determinations about what is true and false is original research. You need to find published sources for making claims in articles. --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Absurd. A policy that results in the peddling of a patent falsehood dreamed up by PR men should have no place in an encyclopedia dedicated to preserving genuine knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.138.35 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I see I'm hugely out of date, but...

... it is a delight to see you back editing again. I hope all is well. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

I replied to your post on my talk page. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

infobox (sorry)

As a recent participant in the discussion over at the Stanley Kubrick talk page, I wanted to discuss the possibility of an RfC on the inclusion of a by-default-collapsed infobox. I brought this here because I believe asking it at the talk page until ready to present something as an RfC would be counterproductive at this point as there is too much hot blood over there at the moment.

The idea about a collapsed infobox was a considerable part of the last RfC on the topic, and suggested as a future avenue for discussion. The general idea is that many people who want an infobox will be satisfied by one that is collapsed, and those that oppose an infobox for asthetic reasons essentially get their wish. You had a different idea, about an infobox being a "magnet for those wishing to introduce unsourced parameters" and I think we could address this by proposing that only relevant and directly sourced parameters be added to a by-default-collapsed infobox.

What do you think of this idea and do you think it is a possible avenue to find a compromise for this article? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Generally as a user experience I don't like anything that's collapsed by default, but I don't really think aesthetics are a primary reason for having or not having an infobox. My concern is that for this subject, anything simple enough to be in the infobox is already in the lead. Anything more complex, is too complex to be represented in a simple parameter. I'm not concerned about what we (the participants of this discussion) put in the infobox—I'm concerned about the legions of drive-by editors who see infoboxes as places to add unsourced genres, job titles, relations, and whatever other random things they think of. They are well-meaning but don't understand that infoboxes are supposed to contain only things that are written and sourced in the article. That's actually the primary reason I don't like infoboxes in certain articles. I'm not an anti-infobox crusader or anything. Both of my Featured articles have infoboxes. Someone added an infobox to an article I was working on (Joseph Bishara) and it's so absurdly useless as to be almost comical, and I still left it in. But I believe we should not shy away from making good decisions on a case-by-case basis. --Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(watching with interest:) I am also no friend of anything collapsed, and have a friend with a disability that makes it difficult for him to click on the "show" button. - I am a friend of short simple infoboxes, telling for people what we used to have in persondata, together at a glance: when and where born, when and where died, and why do we have an article. The date in the lead is not the same (templated, useful in whatever language) date as in an infobox, with an automatic age calculation, for example. We have short boxes for Percy Grainger, Bach and Beethoven, and nothing happened in several years. Also, instead of a hidden notice about no infobox, we can have one about no additions without a discussion (as we have for Beethoven). I've also never been a crusader, even if some may think so ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, I know you mean well and if I was ever stuck for people to sing the Hallelujah chorus in a church, and I knew you were passing, I'd give you a ring, but can I just remind you of this conversation from one of the most respected admins on the block? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No need to remind me because I remember it well. What has it to do with noticing that a friend has trouble clicking the show button, and that foreigners are better served with parameter-value-pairs of what used to be persondata (and we now have nowhere together)? May I remind you that Beethoven was my design, which was installed by the arb who wrote the infoboxes case as the community consensus. - Working on Psalm 84 for GA. Hallelujah or Alleluia ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

False accusations of sock puppetery, etc.

This is new territory for me. On one hand, I feel like ignoring it, but socking is a serious charge. One day, I might like to make the discography a Featured list candidate and a charge like this on the talk page may put some off. Also, more broadly, this may be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Any ideas (AN personal sanctions, demand a retraction, etc.)? —Ojorojo (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: I've been pondering the action here. It's clear that this editor feels put upon, but it's also clear that he's having trouble understanding our guidelines and what he's reading. He does need to understand that making accusations of misbehavior without evidence is quite serious. If it's ok with you'll, I'll leave a note on his Talk page requesting a retraction and explaining WP:ASPERSIONS. If the behavior continues (and he's already made two insinuations that we're engaging in sockpuppetry) I would escalate the situation to the admin noticeboards for outside assistance. --Laser brain (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a prudent approach. Thanks for taking the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There hasn't been an explanation about the initial article edits by the IP and the following reverts & discussion by the editor. WP:BOOMERANG? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what the outcome will be. My hopes that hearing from someone completely outside the disagreement will have a positive effect and he'll understand the seriousness of leveling such accusations. --Laser brain (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

New FAC after old oppose

You might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive2 after opposing the first nom back in '10.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Gosh, eight years! Have we been around that long? I'm a bit short on time for the next few days but I'd be happy to take a look soon. --Laser brain (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No rush, whenever you get a chance. Hopefully things have improved in the meantime!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding to Eric's comments, but feel free to weigh in. I'd definitely appreciate your thoughts on a solution, if there is one, to the reason for Eric's oppose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

TAP Air Portugal Flight 425 edit

Hello Laser Brain,

I´m sorry for not explaining my edit. The reason I removed the part saying that adding an extension was "too expensive" is that, in the very next sentence, it is made clear that an extension was added. This clearly indicates that the reason the extension was not added straight away was not because it was too expensive, as that would have meant that no extension could be added (on account of it being too expensive). It was merely indicative of the fact that the priorities were not with safety at that moment. Since that time two extensions have been added, enabling that airport to be used by wide body aircraft. I´ll leave it up to you to decide if those extension were made for safety reasons or to enable those bigger air planes. One thing is for sure, whatever the reason, the extension wasn´t "too expensive" after all.... I have edited again to say that an extension was "very expensive", I hope that has your approval, and if not, that you will give me your side of the argument before removing my edit.

Kind regards, God-Himself (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Formatting

This is a rather embarrassing question. I'm having trouble formatting the name of a new article. I can't seem to put a portion of the article's title in italics, as per the typical IUPAC nomenclature (the page is for a chemical compound). I've added a link (still red) to the compound on the page for Benzene, under Benzene derivatives.

Thanks.

ThreePhaseAC (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@ThreePhaseAC: Not embarrassing at all! It's actually a bit tricky to include italics in an article title because the platform doesn't allow wiki-formatting in article titles. You have to use a template at the top of the article: see {{Italic title}}. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:DISPLAYTITLE. {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Italicized'' part of page title}} will display as "Italicized part of page title". --Izno (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Box marked "too difficult"

It's already been closed, Andy. Perhaps it was too difficult too answer. Cassianto^Talk 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your block of User:PerhapsXarb

Hi, I just noticed your block of User:PerhapsXarb. This seems very harsh. The editor looks like a well-meaning, constructive but sometimes misguided newbie, not someone "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". I presume (but feel free to correct me) that the edits to Talk:Stanley Kubrick are what caused the block (they are what caused me to notice the editor), but wanting an infobox (or not wanting an infobox) are not signs of someone "not here to contribute", ceryainly not when their other edits are actual contributions and useful suggestions (again, considering they are a newbie). Of course, if they would be a sock of some known troll, then a bock would be justified, but then a clearer block summary would have helped.

Can you please reconsider the block and/or explain it? Fram (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Yes, we have an ongoing issue with troll accounts coming in from external sites where the issue of infoboxes and the surrounding Arb actions are discussed and involved editors are mocked. They coordinate the creation of accounts who make a handful of seemingly innocuous edits and then start trolling Cassianto and others by posting to infobox discussions. I'd prefer not to publicly discuss how these accounts are normally identified but feel free to email me for more details. --Laser brain (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. His edits indeed seemed innocuous enough, so... Fram (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

My bad

Thank you for this catch. I completely misread and thought I was on featured topics for some reason. Sorry about that! Sock (tock talk) 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

([1]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Reopening Friends FA nom

I'm requesting that you undo the closing at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Friends_(Beach_Boys_album)/archive1. Most of the issues that JG66 brought up were immediately addressed. Their only remaining concerns was to perhaps add a detail about the album cover (it is unknown whether there is even anything to add) and to reorganize the citation style. We don't need two weeks to revise the books citations (the task is about 30 minutes at best) and I was actually waiting for one more editor to voice an opinion before going through with it.---Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

addendum Completed revising the citation style...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Paint, I was going to drop by your talk page but then I saw you post here at LB's. I'm sorry that my comments at the FAC led to the nomination being pulled. I thought the article was improving, although I still think it has a way to go. I referred to a "fresh pair of eyes" giving it a copy edit – well, that was also with a view to ensuring the overall focus of the narrative continued to be honed towards a more coherent, Friends-targeted piece, rather than Friends with the artist's career details wrapped around it.

I've never bothered to take an article to FAC myself; I can't really see the point, and I was put off by (what I saw as) the cronyism that got a few WP Beatles articles listed as FA soon after I began contributing to the encyclopaedia. But while you and I have clashed over article content several times, I've always considered that we're similar in that we work up and hone a '60s music article over a period of many months, years even: we care about giving the subject its due, and doing it right. I think that approach has been lacking this time around, with Friends, and it puzzled me. I'll continue to help where I can – if it is a help. As I mentioned on the FAC page, the reason I'd not felt able to compile a list of bulleted points was because the issues I recognise are to do with the entire approach, the article from start to finish. That's what I'd hope that a thorough copy edit, a rewrite in places perhaps, would address. JG66 (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: With all due respect, I think JG66's comments have illustrated that substantial work is needed on the overall approach to the article, not just a brief checklist of things that can be fixed. FAC is not a venue for bringing articles up to standard—it is a venue for articles that are already at FA standard and perhaps just need a bit of fit-and-finish. Please work with JG66 and other interested parties to fully prepare the article before renomination. --Laser brain (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Laser brain. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey

That couldn't have been easy. Whatever happened, at least one person besides me told the truth. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

HIAG

Hi, I'm still working through the issues. Please don't archive it just yet. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been listed since April and there are not any declarations of support—it's a long way off. It will be more productive to address the issues outside of FAC and re-nominate after the minimum two-week waiting period. Thanks, --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about opening a second FAC

Hello again! Thank you for the help with the source review with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Blue (TV series)/archive1). I believe that it is ready for promotion as it has already received an image review and source review and a fair amount of commentary. I was wondering in this circumstance, if I could put up another FAC, or if I should wait. I completely understand if it is not advisable, but I just wanted to check in about this. Thank you in advance, and have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Sure, no problem! --Laser brain (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Rolling Stones edit

Hi Laser Brain,

I made that edit because the timeline reflect that Mick played bass in the mid-2000's and I believe the page for the album "A Bigger Bang" also reflects this.

Thanks! EPBeatles (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I don't like those timelines—once they start layering all the colors in there I can't discern anything of value from them. If there's a tiny speck in Jagger's line showing he played the bass guitar, you may be right. However, I believe that section should be reserved for "main instruments". --Laser brain (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nine inch nails

i made a compromise edit for now on the Nine inch nails article. you can revert the edit if you disagree with the edit. we'll have the compromise edit until we reach a consensus on the talk page. I'll start the talk page discussion soon once i'm done with a few things. Statik N (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Lion copyedit

I submitted the article for copyediting but haven't gotten a response yet. LittleJerry (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Thanks for your assistance! --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about FAC

• Hello again! I apologize for always leaving you messages and bothering you. I just have a quick question about the FAC process. My current FAC was put up on June 19, but it has yet to receive any commentary. I was wondering about the time frame in which an FAC is archived due to lack of activity. I am not fishing for reviews or anything of the sort, but it just made want to know more about the whole timing of FACs in respect to archiving. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: No worries! In normal times, the coords will start considering archiving at the two-week mark if a nomination hasn't attracted any review, especially if the backlog is larger. I won't have time to go through the nominations list until Monday, but Ian Rose may do some work on it this weekend. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hello again! I was wondering if I could have an update on my current FAC? Hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Prison education FAC

Hi there. Look I'm not mad or anything but I just want to say something. I know the FAC wasn't going to pass, but I think it would have been a much better idea to leave it open. This article sat at peer review for more than 3 months (see here) and only received two reviews (and I think I had to initiate a trade review to get at least one of those). By comparison I got four unsolicited reviews in less than 2 weeks at FAC. More importantly my reviewers had not reached a consensus about the best ways to move forward. One thought the article should have a sub-section on military prisons, one did not, one person thought the History section should be entirely rewritten, though nobody else commented on it etc. At this stage there's no clear consensus on how to move forward with the article. I'm going to renominate it for peer review, mostly because if I don't the fact that I didn't may get brought up against me at the next FAC for this article, but I anticipate about as much interest in the new peer review as the old one, so I don't see any major improvements coming out of it. Anyway I guess what I'm saying is I really think the goal of FAC shouldn't be to just put stars in the corner, rather it should be to just improve articles in general. I mean, I don't care if it wasn't going to pass. It was getting better and now it's just going to go back to stagnating because very few editors comment on peer reviews. Freikorp (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand your position, truly. However, in recent years the clear community consensus has been that FAC is not the place to hammer out more substantial issues. If something requires more than just a final polishing, and especially if there is substantial and well-reasoned opposition, it should be closed. You don't have to open another peer review. You should just work on the article talk page with the existing reviewers to resolve issues. I'm sure they'll be willing to re-review once you renominate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

John Adams FAC

Hello. A few days ago, I posted a question here asking why you closed my John Adams FAC so soon. Since you did not respond then, I'm wondering if you would do so now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I stated a closing rationale when I archived it and again when questioned here. I'm sorry I didn't respond on the nomination page but I don't typically continue posting in a page once I've archived it. --Laser brain (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The idea that this would have been a "lengthy negotiation" over the length and scope of the article is false. Two other editors to the article, one a significant contributor and the other a reviewer, suggested that I cut the diplomacy section and create a separate article. I indicated my desire to follow through with their suggestions here. In fact, I have already done so. In any case, you should have closed it after it had already become a lengthy negotiation, not after you came to believe that it would likely become one. I had no opportunity to respond to the objections, and unless an article is SERIOUSLY unprepared, it should be given more than 5 days. You're statement that I could renominate the article in only a few weeks time is ridiculous. A few weeks is about how long reviews are supposed to take, and so it is a colossal waste of time to suggest that I renominate the article after so short a period if that is all that is going to be required. Whatever happened in that Black Friday discussion, I highly doubt that there was a consensus to reject FACs after only 5 days and without even giving the nominator a chance to respond to comments. Like I said, I dealt with them only a couple days later. If only you hadn't been so ridiculously hasty. Display name 99 (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think, if LB doesn't mind me putting it like this (and making an assumption with it!) but ever since Black Friday (Featured article candidate), I think everyone's kind of going to the mattresses a bit  :) I think Brianboulton sums it up succintly! IMHO<, YMMV of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That review was open for over a month and was evidently rather chaotic. Mine was open for only 5 days and I was in the middle of responding to reviewers. I don't see a comparison. Length was the only major issue for the John Adams article and I was in the process of resolving it. In fact, I feel it's mostly been resolved already. Display name 99 (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not comparing them at all, just saying the BF fiasco has led to—a heightening of concern, strictness maybe, a greater degree of formality and adhering more closely to the letter of the law. Or something like that, I might not know what I'm talking about. But, regarding the whole Black Friday generally, it was "a big shit sandwich, and we've all gotta take a bite" as the fella says  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I'm sorry that you disagree with my action and rationale, but I stand by my decision. I have years of experience coordinating these nominations and I have a good sense for they are likely to elicit lots of work, which means they are not ready for nomination. The community has recently spoken for swifter archiving of nominations that will require a lot of work, as it's best to perform such work outside FAC. You are welcome to renominate the article when you've hammered out the length issues with those who commented on such. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Laser brain. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Replied. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Nuking ITN and DYK permanently

Re "Also, anyone who wants to collaborate on a proposal to nuke ITN and DYK permanently, let me know." I would strongly support such an effort, and would be happy to look over a draft of said proposal and offer suggestions. Alas, I am dealing with health issues of a family member and wouldn't be able to put a lot of time into such an effort. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Great, thanks for the note! I will keep you in the loop. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Plus one", LB—please. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support such a proposal to the rafters. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Count me in. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Like --Xover (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's put together a draft proposal and talk about what wording is best. Too many times I have seen proposals devolve into discussions about easily-corrected flaws in the wording of the proposal rather than about what is being proposed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I agree. I'm sort of mulling over the high-level approach mentally right now and then I thought I'd draft a high-level outline with key points for collaboration. --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent thinking, Guy Macon. In this case, you'll also need to face the "Main page redesign" black hole... if this material disappeared from Mp, what would replace it, without consensus on how to redesign Mp, which we've discussed a bazillion times without result. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(Of course the obvious solution is just to slightly shorten OTD and run it in the space currently occupied by ITN. Then there's no need for a redesign. In fact, the design would be enhanced, as less content would be 'below the fold'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Me, too, but I am hardly around so pls post on my talk if something is proposed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I know the crowd at Wikinews wouldn't mind a bigger role. If ITN does go, why not some kind of autolink to the English Wikinews main page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lion FA

Hello. All the problems you have with the article had been taken care of expect sourcing. Should all the sources be looked at? I can tell you that any information I added is properly cite and paraphrased. LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I think we should do some spot checks of anything added after it became an FA. --Laser brain (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked editor requesting edits

I'd like clarification on this. It is my understanding that a user's talk page should ONLY be used for discussing unblock attempts while blocked, and not to request edits from other users. Please help me understand where it says the latter is allowed. --Tarage (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Blocking policy for relevant information. Nothing there says blocked editors can't use their talk pages for things other than posting unblock requests. See also the heading "Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors". --Laser brain (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting a second opinion on this. Everything I've seen in regards to talk page revoking has been for editors using their talk page for anything except talking about their block and appeals. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Autism

You applied indefinite semi-protection to Talk:Autism more than 5 years ago. Is there any reason why it can't now been unprotected? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I've removed the protection to see how it goes. Back then, the page was subject to almost daily disruption from drive-by IPs. --Laser brain (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping re FQSR workshop

Andy, just checking in re this conversation; with Sarastro1 inactive this month, would you be able to take a look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I closed two. But, it looks like Roger B. Chaffee wasn't even at FAC? I'm a bit confused. Kees08? --Laser brain (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is independent of FAC -- just a test to see how the process could look. What about the others that have feedback? I was thinking the standard coordinator response would be to nudge the participants, since there's been no declaration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Also pinging Ian and Sarastro1.) What do you think of the other three? The untouched one can probably be ignored, for purposes of the workshop. Would it make sense to fail the other two, or ping the reviewers to see if they wish to post a support/oppose, or leave them open? If we leave them open I think we should re-advertise at WT:FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie and Ian Rose, I'm unsure what we want to do with ones like Shannen Says. If that were inside an FAC, I'd say it needs more feedback and wouldn't pass the nomination as such. But "needs more feedback" isn't really a pass or fail, unless we want to say that an entry "fails" after a certain period because it wasn't sufficient to pass. --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe ping Nikki to see if she has more to say? If we were to adopt this process, I think there would have to be time limits and a two-week waiting period as per FAC, but in this case it's not clear Nikki has decided that the article does not pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And if she doesn't want to continue the review, it occurs to me that it might be time to call the workshop completed and make that a question for the WT:FAC conversation about next steps -- what should be done in a case like this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: They are all closed except the one that didn't get a review. I left a bit longer of a closing note on Shannen Says because maybe we need to invent some different terminology from "failed" when the nominator addressed comments but the review wasn't comprehensive. We'll see what the community says. --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post a summary and a discussion section at WT:FAC (probably tonight) to see if there's interest in taking this any further. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticism

Thank you for trying to help, I am grateful, and while it probably seems like a stupid question--what is a PMC? Can you tell how I ended up with two different ones since I used the template and since I'm pretty sure I just filled it in once? I have been on Wp about a year and a half, and there is still more that I don't know than I do know. I apologize for what must seem like obvious nonsense to you. Even with your knowledge and skill, it will be a full day just getting ref #8 fixed--which I still don't know how to do--and there are 150 of them. I appreciate any suggestions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Judeca put it back to its original format and it seems to be work okay that way. #8 is fixed! YAY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: No worries at all. Templates and wiki markup in general are probably two of the least intuitive and accessible things I can think of. The process of using citation templates and trying to figure out which parameters to fill in (and how) takes most people a long time. PMC is an identifying number for documents in PubMed, so it's just another way for people to access the document. It looks like what happened is that you had the correct PMC number in there, and Judeca's edit introduced another template parameter and filled in the wrong number. I was trying not to give them a hard time about it, but it's actually a very irresponsible use of an automated tool. They are supposed to check the edits carefully before saving them, which Judeca obviously didn't do. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

So is it likely it messed up other references as well? If you look at it--he went through every ref there. I think he was trying to help--but jeez--what a mess! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give them a hard time but that was very irresponsible. So all of Wiki has come crashing down because of a simple mistake. You made your point already Laser. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Juggling...

Part of lack of focus on FAC is also the quagmire that is all these daughter lion articles. I feel the main page (lion) is under control but the forking is out of control. Am trying to reign it in with proposed mergers etc. but then you get to see how low traffic areas struggle to get a consensus happening. Sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Understood, and no rush on FAC. I've spent time reviewing the lion subpages until I went cross-eyed and I'm no closer to understanding the issues. --Laser brain (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

In essence, our lowest split for taxa is species or occasionally distinctive subspecies. With lions, latest research indicates there are only two. I am proposing that these be the only daughter pages. Discussion is at Talk:Northern_lion#Merger_proposal (we also had two separate pages on the same entity), Talk:Panthera_leo_melanochaita#Merger_proposal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's funny, areas I edit in are generally pretty quiet but there are some contentious groups of articles, including the largest stars, the most poisonous snakes, largest eagles, and...lions.....sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Oh I know how vigorous some debates can get in academia. Actually I've seen two PIs get in a fist fight over plant growth facility space and scheduling... --Laser brain (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The splitting of Corymbia from Eucalyptus led to some acrimonious debate at the New South Wales Herbarium in the 1980s too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in here Laser brain, but after seeing the talk page at lion, does it seem like the behavior problems are escalating? I'll admit I've gone cross-eyed trying to figure out what's all going on at big cat articles too. I've run into Leo1pard at AfD's and seen some pointy behavior already to the point I thought a topic ban might be needed, but I didn't realize how much more of a mess was going on outside of the snapshot I'd seen. I'll admit I don't have the energy right now to pull things together for an ANI, so I figured I'd pose the question here since it looks like you maybe have a better read on whether things are getting worse or just settling into a dull roar that us periphery watchers just don't want to deal with right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I'd say the behavior problems are escalating, yes, but it's been difficult for me to get a grasp on whether anyone is being tendentious enough to warrant looking at their behavior. Attempting to look solely at the content issues and ignore editor conduct has been a challenge. However, I believe that each editor in the space is trying to contribute in good faith. @Casliber: Any thoughts? --Laser brain (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I just think he has a view on what the lion pages should look like (which is having lots of subpages on dubiously distinct populations), and is being stubborn about it. The walls of text can be hard to follow as can the multiple threads. It takes alot of patience and time to wade through the talk page, and most likely discourages people new to the debate. Obviously this is a Good Thing as the fewer the participants then the more likelihood of a no-consensus close. How purposeful is this editing to this end? I don't know. But I am bothered by the similarity in language between him and Punetor - however as it was felt there were not enough grounds for a checkuser I have left that alone. But more immediately, it raises the idea of competence - is the editor capable of communicating and summarising their ideas clearly to discuss content with other users. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber and Kingofaces43: When others started making more and more discussions, away from the discussions that you started on the 6th of November, I objected to there being so many discussions despite the fact that the old issues weren't resolved, I had tried to get some mergers done, and I said that I don't want articles for every described subspecies that was mentioned in WP:reliable sources, but see how the thing can be adequately merged. Initially there was a merger done, but others didn't agree to that, splitting up articles from the merged up ones on the two recognised subspecies (Panthera leo leo for northern parts of Africa, already called the "Northern lion" by sources like this), and Panthera leo melanochaita in southern parts of Africa, for which I had earlier used a name based on references like this, but then someone who had falsely accused me of edit-warring in a conversation to you Casliber, when in fact this edit of mine was based on a previous discussion in which he was involved, in which I tried to stop the arguments between him and another user mentioned here, and I cautiously decided not to revert that, but make a compliant here, and interestingly, you decided to side with him, even making an investigation regarding a matter that I had tackled beforehand. If you find the talk-page of Lion frustratingly large, like I did, then why didn't you raise this matter? Leo1pard (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

FAC

Laser brain - an approach from me may be unwelcome at present, and I quite understand that. But I did want to say I think you handled a very challenging situation very well and I see no reason at all for you to consider resigning. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and I don't think an apology was required either—although it was a powerful thing to do. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Late to this, but echo the above. ceranthor 16:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

Hello. I see that you recently blocked IP 66.69.132.230 following a good-faith but misguided systematic bypassing of redirects. 66.25.201.147 now appears to be swimming in the same duckpond and may need a watchful eye. Thanks, Certes (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks, no doubt the same person. I often think we failed to get their attention rather than that they simply disregarded talk page messages... but is that likely? --Laser brain (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I didn't get (or didn't notice) any talk page messages during my brief and ancient spell as an IP editor but I hope they're as prominent as those we see as registered users. If not then I'm struggling to think how else we could make contact with this contributor. It would be a shame to give them a negative experience, as that sort of diligence could be usefully applied in other areas such as fixing links to dab pages, but I agree that the message is not getting through. Certes (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Laser brain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Bishara

Hi Andy, I've done the tweaks for Joseph Bishara - mostly getting rid of the score/d repetition, but a couple of other minor ones too. In terms of the structure, I think you've got it about right, given the level of information available. I tend to let the content determine the sectioning, and this is about how I would have done it with the same amount of info.

It's one of those cases where a good press article and interview could change the whole article by building up the early life with some decent background information on the man and his music. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks so much! I have some additional materials in the works. Glad to know the structure seems appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2019 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Laser brain: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Jill Valentine's FAC

Your summation here was a bit vaguer than usual. How do you suggest I proceed? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you feel is vague about it? I actually tried to leave more detail than I normally do, so I suppose I came up short... --Laser brain (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

i.e., I plan on renominating, so what to do before then... Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If I were in your shoes... I'd work with an experienced FA writer who's completely disassociated with the topic. Get some help on the and second opinions on the issues raised. It's not impossible to have a FAC candidate promoted over substantive opposition, but we need enough input and commentary to judge consensus to promote over the opposition, if that makes sense. --Laser brain (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

While we're here, Homeostasis, there is an instruction at the top of the FAC page about a two-week wait before nominating any article when your previous nom is archived -- unless leave is given by a coord. If Andy is fine with waiving the rule, then so am I but personally I think taking a breather from FAC would be a good thing in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Yes, I didn't notice, but the nom you just opened will need to be closed. --Laser brain (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose:, I understand one-at-a-time, and two weeks before renominating an article, but "any nomination" seems like a strange addendum. Can I get an exemption/waver? I was more than prepared for Jill Valentine to not pass, so I'm not especially plussed about it. My work with Marilyn Manson (band) is completely distinct from JV's controversy (as ironic as that sounds). Antichrist Superstar was my third Manson album nom., following The Pale Emperor and Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death), both of which passed without incident. I don't feel like taking a breather is necessary in this case, especially since the glacial pace of FAC means Antichrist probably wouldn't even get a comment this side of the 3rd or 4th week of January anyway. But I have to say I feel irritated on Aoba47's behalf, who was evidently partway through their review before the nomination was abruptly deleted. But I can easily distract myself with other projects over the next few weeks in either case. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I sympathize but this rule was put in place by community consensus as a method of backlog management and I'm not inclined to grant exemptions on it as we've consistently received feedback from the community that we should be tightly managing the list. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle for Aoba47 to post their remarks to the Talk page in preparation for the FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine. But if that's the case, then you may want to amend your posting here, because I seriously doubt this happens to be only the 2nd time you've refused an exemption. Homeostasis07 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

That was in reference to the two-at-a-time rule. If someone has a mature nom going that seems almost ready to promote, we'll generally allow them to nominate another article. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Basshunter discography

Hello. I found you on the volunteers Peer Review list of music section. I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to check this discography. Eurohunter (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your useful comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Becky Lynch/archive1. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, including the FA work leading to a tricentenary appearance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You are amazing for preventing vandalism. Inalol (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Mark XIV bomb sight you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Kevin Beattie

All issues at the FAC are now resolved and there are a few supports.

I'm rusty with the process. What happens with the FAC nomination now? Does it sit for a set period of time before being reviewed by one of the coordinators?

Please excuse the question.

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller: Hey there! At this time it's just a matter of when one of us makes the next pass through the list on the lookout for things that are ready for promotion. We'll assess the existing comments and consensus, ensure the proper image and source reviews are in place and resolved, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks dude. And thanks to you and the team for your work at FAC. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, I noticed you listed yourself (or was listed) as a volunteer at Peer review. If possible, could you take a look at the article 1989 (Taylor Swift album) and give some input? Thanks very much, HĐ (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I owe a review at FAC I'd like to get to first, but I'll take a look at yours after that. --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A Suggestion-slash-favor

Would it be prudent to block 14.248.5.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for a while, considering that it's the same user as Douglas Markatop whom you just blocked?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Compulsory figures

Dude, were you going to leave your comments or not?! ;) No, seriously, it's been over a week since you said you were going to weigh in on the FAC, so I wanted to check in. I'm worried that the article is going to fail yet again because of lack of reviews, so it'd be really really great if you chimed in soon. Thanks for your willingness to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Oh I need to get off my butt and do this! I promise within the next 1-2 days! --Laser brain (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Second nom?

Hi Andy, I hope all is well. I currently have Sinking of SS Princess Alice‎ with seven supports, no opposes and a clean bill of health in terms of sources and images (it's been running over three weeks). Would you be OK if I added a second nom that came out of PR yesterday? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Definitely. Cheers! --Laser brain (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Andy - you're a star! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

npvic featured

Well, that didn't take long... It would not have occurred to me to nominate National Popular Vote Interstate Compact for featured status, but now that it failed, I wonder what is wrong with it. Could you perhaps briefly elaborate? KarlFrei (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@KarlFrei: It's not that it failed, I just archived the nomination as out-of-process. The instructions are clear that articles should be nominated by those who have deep involvement with them (or at least, in close consultation with those who do). We like to see a period of preparation (like Peer Review or something more informal) where it's evident that the article has been carefully checked against WP:WIAFA, which is a good deal more rigorous than GA standards. At a casual glance, the article contains unsourced statements so that would be problematic to start with. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

MelungeonEire

He just doesn't get it.[2] Doug Weller talk 07:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I was hoping this wasn't heading for drama boards, but I'm afraid that's the next stop on the train. --Laser brain (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. That's his last chance. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Infinity Gauntlet

Hello!

Would you be amenable to reopening The Infinity Gauntlet's FAC? The month's warning was given in March 18, but it's already closed (even though I was going there to help with the review).

Thanks very much!

@Argento Surfer: --Neopeius (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Crawlspace

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-1997-08-19-9708190347-story.html

Crawlspace here. Dont know how to correctly communicate yet. Still learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawlspace (talk • contribs)

Why did you delete the FA status of 2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship?

99721829Max (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I left a message on your Talk page about this. If you don't understand the instructions, feel free to ask me any questions. --Laser brain (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you said in my talk page. 99721829Max (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There are established processes for nominating articles for GA or FA status. You need to read the relevant pages Wikipedia:Good article nominations and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and ask any questions you might have. --Laser brain (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

General request for pointing in the right direction

Hi there, based on your closing comments here, I do want to ask for some helpful suggestions—the other comments were useful, like peer reviews themselves, which I'm grateful for because when I did put the article out for peer review (asking specifically for style/ce help, because I know that's where it's lacking), only minor things came back. I also worry about GOCE because of how obscure the topic is; some of the editors are great, whilst some aren't afraid to vivisection an article and I wouldn't want anything lost. There doesn't seem to be much interest in old Venezuelan film on Wikipedia, but if you know of other avenues for style help beyond the comments you already gave, I'd really appreciate them. Thank you, Kingsif (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: If it were me, I'd target some active editors who have brought film articles to Featured status. They may not have an interest in Venezuelan cinema per se, but they know how a film article should be written to really shine at FAC. The prose standards are quite high at that level. Maybe Erik can offer some feedback or suggest someone. --Laser brain (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for feedback on new article

Hello, I was wondering if I could get your feedback on a new article I put through AFC, Draft:Trimaco, Inc.. I really appreciated your help and advice with the NRG Energy article and want to make sure I am following the correct process for a paid editor. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for improving the article? Thanks, Kelsey246! (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kelsey246!: I see that Scope_creep gave you some feedback already, but the new article reads very much like a company web site or marketing material. --Laser brain (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: thanks for getting back to me. Do you think the entire article is promotional or just specific sections? Is it the tone that is promotional or the sources? Do you have any suggestions of how the article could be improved? Thanks,Kelsey246! (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kelsey246!: It very much reads like the article of a company that paid to have someone create an article about them. My primary concern is the depth of coverage in the sources provided. The coverage seems mostly incidental or of a press release nature. Why is the company notable? It's unclear. Many of the details in the article are not of interest to a general encyclopedia audience, like the list of products and services, existence of various facilities and call centers, and so on. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Thanks for your response. I thought the company was notable because it has a history dating back to 1906 and has been involved in multiple acquisitions. I noticed that the paint and flooring industries are not represented well on Wikipedia. There are are no articles about drop cloths, paint strainers, or surface protection. Do you know why this would be? I also modeled the Products and Uses section after Huawei's Products and Services section. Is there a reason why Huawei's section is acceptable but Trimaco's is not? Thanks so much for your help and feedback! Kelsey246! (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kelsey246!: I'd say it's because Huawei's products are notable on their own. Pick one and you can probably find dozens of articles discussing it, tearing it down, and so forth. In terms of notability, there are thousands of companies out there that have long histories but they are not notable (for Wikipedia's purposes) unless they are the subject of sufficient independent coverage calling out why they are notable. I think you don't find too many articles on standard "objects" just because they are not the subject of much coverage. --Laser brain (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Thank you for your response! That makes a lot of sense. I'll see if I can find more notable sources and remove the promotional language. Thanks again for your help! Kelsey246! (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer review request for John Denver

Hi Laser brain, I noticed you were listed as a volunteer on this page, so I thought maybe you could give John Denver's article a look. He is an iconic musician and it would be nice to nominate his article for GA in the near future. I have been editing citations, but I'm not really experienced enough to spot smaller details. Your resistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, NightBag10 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@NightBag10: Sure. I'm a bit short on time for the next few days, but I'll get to it within the coming week. I'll have to review the GA standards since I'm not all that familiar with how they've evolved over the years. --Laser brain (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Take your time, I am appreciative that you responded in the first place. Thanks, NightBag10 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive2

Why on earth did you archive this? There is an ongoing conversation with an issue I’m trying to resolve. This is the second time you have closed a nomination of this article when there were conversations active within the last week, and Jo-Jo Eumerus and literally started this discussion, which was ongoing, only a week ago to get the ball rolling. Last time you did this the guy who was starting a review never responded to attempts to re-engage, and then I had to wait another two weeks to re-nominate it. Now, after this being shut down in the middle of discussion, I have to wait weeks again after spending a month waiting for someone to comment at all? I don’t see how this helps, especially on an article that was inches away from passing in the first run. Toa Nidhiki05 17:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Toa Nidhiki05, it could be that it had been open for a month without any supports at all. The FA co-ords have to make tough decisions sometimes, and have to keep the queue moving along for the sake of other nominators and reviewers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It was up for a month without any comments at all, period, and is now being closed right after discussion started. I fail to see that does anything at all to help anything, and now I have to wait two weeks before nominating this again, where it will probably again get no responses and the process will continue indefinitely because it’s a niche area. I suppose I could take it to peer review, although it won’t get any attention there either given how my last one went. By now the two supports it had in the first nomination here are long gone, the discussion I had going on in the first nomination is long gone, and now this one is gone, so what’s the point of even bothering? This discourages me from ever going through this process again. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Try asking the reviewer if he would help by finishing the review on the article's talk page. Tell them you want to re-run it once the two weeks is up, but if they could help you'd be grateful. In the mean time - i.e. over the next two weeks - review some FACs. Make your face known there as a reviewer and people will be more likely to look at your article too. From the current noms, I don't think you've reviewed anything over the last month (although I may have missed something). It takes five positive prose/content reviews to pass an FAC, which means you have to pull your weight reviewing too; you can't complain that no-one has reviewed your nom if you haven't reviewed anyone else's. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried that last time. The guy never responded, and neither did the editors who originally supported the first nom (which was also shut down during discussion), so I’m back at square one and have an entire month wasted with no improvements to the article. I doubt this time will be any different. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well keep trying. If you think the article is worth putting through FA, it takes effort, not just in writing, but reviewing too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I get that. My concern is with closing articles in the middle of a discussion with another editor, which has happened twice now. It clearly didn’t help then and I do not think it will help now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: I understand your disappointment but I really can't leave a nomination open that's gone past a month without any support for promotion. Any time we've brought this topic to the FAC community they've indicated support for more robust archiving rather than having things languish. The only time I'd wait for an ongoing conversation is if the nomination is "almost there". --Laser brain (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Toa Nidhiki05 21:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lion again

Hey. Do you think that the lion article may be too large. I reduced it from over 172,000 to 168,008 but is it still bigger than tiger (158,840) and elephant (145,126). Wolf was recently reduced to 118,239 from over 170,000 to prepare for a possible FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Based on current consensus, yes. Also, the images are creating some really weird layout problems. --Laser brain (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The readable prose size is now 60kb...and 50kb is generally considered the upper limit of article size unless there is a good reason to exceed this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I slimmed it down to just under 160,000. I think that's okay for now. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Need editing advice on my draft

Hello Laser brain (or anyone else??), I have a draft of an article that I would love some advice on, particularly in terms of notability. Would you please take a look? I've had no edits yet, so please assume good intention. Thanks! Albus89 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Albus89/sandbox/Griffin_Anthony

@Albus89: I'd say it's a edge case in terms of notability and it's possible the draft will be rejected. One of the criterion is being the subject of articles published in notable sources. The only thing I see that might meet that standard is the Nashville Noise article, although I'm unsure of the notability of that publication. The other articles you provided are blogs, which are not generally notable works. Another criterion that might make him notable is having composed the music for a notable work. You've listed "Catskill Park" but you'd have to show evidence that it's considered notable outside just being shown at a film festival. None of his albums have been released on a notable label either (I'm unsure why you've listed BMI as one of his record labels). I think you'll have more work to do to show that he's notable for inclusion here. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Laser brain , thanks so much for the advice! I appreciate your time. Albus89 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

IB

I'll move this here as the "restrictions", which I've suddenly realised, may include speaking about IB in general in particular discussions, but then confusingly, go on to say that I can speak about them in general in general discussions. Anyway, you ask why do people keep starting IB discussions? In short, because they can. ArbCom are complicit in this continued disruption as they have never addressed the problem. They allow for people on the pro-IB side of the argument to be as disruptive as they damned well like; people like the editor you've seen on Kubrick refuse to take no for an answer, are allowed to start discussion after discussion after discussion in the hope they get the answer they want, and put on a passive-aggressive, faux display of pleasantry. As far as ArbCom are concerned, it's far easier, as I've said with regards to Eric at Moors murders, to deal with the result rather than the cause which is why I find myself being limited to just one comment, while HAL and people like them continue to disrupt the project. Hope all things are good with you. Cassianto^Talk 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(can't help watching:) what do you, both or anybody else, think of this 2018 comment: Yay!? - I never had any connection to HAL333, and thought about how to explain that "live and let live" part to them. Laser brain, can you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I respect your calm view, as always... however, "live and let live" applies to passive situations. Folks who repeat an action (like making inquiries) until they get the result they want is a form of aggression. --Laser brain (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

While I agree in general, in this particular case there was an invitation just above the RfC by Bishonen to try again in a few months. Going by AGF which we ahould always apply I see HAL333 as a rather new editor who has zero background information about an old conflict, and who patiently waited even longer than a few months. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I'll reiterate my argument that it costs nothing for people to drive by and say, "How about now?" without offering any new arguments. They should not be encouraged to do so. On the other hand, it costs a lot of time and energy for those who have to monitor the page for the latest inquiry, reiterate the same arguments, and have the spectre of DS hanging over their heads. It's an unworkable and lazy system set up by Arbcom that punts responsibility and ignores the human factors involved. I don't blame people for lashing out under those circumstances. It's also very frustrating when they come in and say, "I don't understand why we can't have an infobox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction" when the reasons are there for anyone to read. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

When I read "good point" I thought you'd agree a little more ;)

1. It wasn't a drive-by, it was a person who patiently waited, and I'd owe them respect for doing so.
2. I am not going to reiterate arguments. I don't even plan to participate, firstly because it's a waste of time (you are so right about that), secondly because some will only wait for that ;)
3. I don't blame people for lashing out etc, but only because I try to never blame people. It wouldn't hurt to use polite language when dealing with an editor who patiently waited.
4. It may be frustrating to hear "I don't understand why we can't have an infobox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction", but here I am, 7 years into that conflict, and it's simply true: no argument why we can't have an infobox has ever convinced me. I am just silent because it's a waste of time to argue, and because I respect that those who improved the article to FA don't like an infobox ("let live").

I turned to leaving articles by others alone, and instead to writing articles which I "control", and of course with an infobox ("live"). I have a peer review open, btw, you are invited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Given his comment in this IB discussion, "I have consulted multiple guidelines and discussions, such as the one above", I wouldn't necessarily say he has "zero background information". - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, sorry for being too sloppy. I meant zero background when they "first" came, and meant about the old feuds from 2005 on which even I don't know about, coming in only in 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No-one needs to know about the "feuds from 2005" to know IBs are a sometimes controversial topic. He was involved in the Mozart discussion in December 2018 and then decided to rejoin it to comment about me in March 2019 – two months after I'd left a message asking someone not to personalise it. But sure, let's play the "zero background information" game and keep pushing the message that anyone who presses again and again for the inclusion of an IB is saintly and untouchable. – SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also add that there is evidence we are being trolled by some off-site group given that whenever this comes up, we have random IPs, sleeper accounts, or "new editors" who magically find their way into the dispute. --Laser brain (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Definately. It's no surprise that as soon as the RfC was posted, there was an IP adding one in, and a second one today (who also left me this charming message too). I expect there will be more, as well as the sleeper-socks that magically appear whenever the IB question is raised. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Facts

Every now and then, I look at the discussion, sooo tempted to go but determined (for my peace of mind) not to. Just facts: It has been said "This article was written about 4 years ago, it's not had a box since then.". The article was created in 2001, had an infobox from 2005, and looked like this in 2015. I have no time to check for how much longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Peace of mind is a good thing. I should disengage. --Laser brain (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Bishonen said on my talk that I should rather comment in the RfC than on several users' talk pages, but what could I say? I generally support, that is clear, but seeing how desperately some - who added greatly to the article - cling to the version without, I won't have the heart ... - it's their peace of mind also. We have hundreds of articles where an infobox is requested, - if this one is without, the world will still move on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Today: Immortal Bach, - that's where I want to spend my time, "the last word meaning peace" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Also today, four years ago, is when "consensus" was established, "Infoboxes are optional and should be the choice of those who have made contributions to the article." Interesting to compare the names then and now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: As always, I respect your calm and reasoned approach. I understand the notion that directly engaging may be too difficult for various reasons and that you may wish to engage in sidebars with others. Honestly, it's become akin to people in two different political parties talking past each other. I don't know what the state of political discourse is in Germany, but it's bad in the UK and even worse in the US. Funny that someone brought up Brexit in that discussion. --Laser brain (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I went in a bit more detail on my talk about why I think the RfC is a farce. Just today, I read, addressed to an editor who seems new to the hotness of the topic and inserted an infobox AGF (reverted, of course): "It's you who wants to reduce a well-written article into a list of bulleted factoids." (User talk:Biografer#WP:DISINFOBOXes, if you don't believe it). Hopeless to argue with that, really. I tried for a while, but it's eating too much of my life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Viktor Fogarassy, for another focus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, and because I've already had my one comment over on Kubrick.

An apparently "new user", according to Gerda, who seemed very quick to welcome them after three very productive years, has just happened upon the Kubrick RfC by way of "coincidence". So not only has this RfC been undermined by HAL333's blatant canvassing, there's also now the possibility of socking taking place. And here are the rally cries on reddit. Cassianto^Talk 11:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that the canvassing issue was neutralized, but a lot of what's happened since then is disheartening. The current environment heavily favors people who want to add infoboxes to articles, as they are given near-unlimited reign to drive-by additions and comments. Anyone who's opposed is tied to paying constant attention to these discussions, restating rationales, and having the spectre of sanctions hanging over their heads should they step out of line. I don't know why I expect anything more from ArbCom. --Laser brain (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

And rather ironically, I've not been part of it. I think this goes to prove that even with me not involved, infobox discussions still continue to be a problematic, hostile, troublesome, and uncivil timesink. Funny that. Maybe ArbCom should take their heads out of their backsides and concentrate on the real causes. Cassianto^Talk 14:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to correct that when I see a red talk link, I welcome them without checking any of their history. The assumption of good faith is not in rich supply, it seems. I focus on singing. - And like you said, Cassianto: even with me not involved (and deliberately not voting - wrong question anyway - and deliberately not sending thank-you clicks because even those have been scrutinized), the question "why not?" will not die, - timesink, yes. Just imagine for a moment the Kubrick infobox had been kept in 2015. Would we have had any discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know you could see other people's thank-you clicks. Wild. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"... a new low", the edit for which I thanked was this. Well hidden as outcommented text, but still bothered me, back then at least. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Just imagine for a moment if the Kubrick infobox had've had a consensus to add it the first place. We (are supposed to) work on WP:BRD around here and there is no time limit in which someone can revert. Consensus on either side of the argument is supposed to be non-negotiable. Cassianto^Talk 16:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Cassianto. I looked at that 2015 "consensus", key argument "I respect that the choice of infobox is left to the major editor first and foremost." I respect that, to make you happy. Please don't ask more. Peace of mind has been mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Gerda. Where was the consensus in 2005? You don't get to add a box without a friggin consensus and then demand a consensus when it's deleted. It's a tried and tested argument that no one on your side of the argument can coherently answer. Cassianto^Talk 17:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What in "Please don't ask more." was unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Then don't answer, simple. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Cassianto^Talk 17:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. Your words were much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks

one of the better comments I've seen throughout this mess. — Ched (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

One oppose triumphs

Fowler&fowler was the only one opposing Mullum Malarum's FAC. Everyone else was in favour of it, including Mr rnddude who withdrew without giving a verdict. Fowler's actions were widely criticised, so how can his lone views be considered consensus? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed his comments and determined them to be valid and actionable. As issues continued to be found at this late stage, it's best to archive the nomination and address them. It's common for reviewers to locate issues that other reviewers overlooked, so try not to read too much into it. When I was an active reviewer, I would routinely find prose issues in articles that were enjoying broad support otherwise. I realize it is a disappointing result after the nomination had been open that long, and I do hope you'll re-nominate after working with F&F to address their concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: As an aside, I'm shocked by the tone of your remarks aimed at F&F. I understand you may be upset, but you can disagree with someone in a professional manner without saying things like "fuck you". We've long had a problem with reviewer shortages at FAC, and one of the reasons for that problem is reviewers being harangued and insulted for their feedback. It's disheartening. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I almost felt like crying upon learning of my failure for the fourth time despite all efforts. The tragedy is, some cynic like him will always oppose, and if I solve one of their comments, they will bring even more. I won't apologise for calling him that, because he first gave oppose, then withdrew after generously improving the article, then again gave oppose. He didn't stop there, he gave even more increasingly negative comments which were hard to address, let alone understand. I feared I would fail the FAC (AGAIN!), which is why I had a co-nominator who was much more social than me and succeeding at FACs, and believed he'd be able to address them. But he didn't move even an inch and never explained why. It felt like he backstabbed me. I may apologise for my language, but I won't forgive Fowler for what he did.., ever. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Being upset is normal. It's discouraging. It doesn't give you the right to take that frustration out on others. If you can't forgive a reviewer on a website for saying something critical about your work, you may be in the wrong line of business. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. FAC can be very frustrating but try not to take it personally. If it was a terrible article I wouldn't have supported it, at least take something from that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3

I’m just a tad over a month in on my nom for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3 and I was wondering if there was any input you could give about its chances at this point. It has four supports and no opposes and the sample issue resolved, so I’m wondering if I need to see out more feedback or if it’s fine to wait it out at this point. I’d rather not have to go through a fourth FAC so better to know sooner rather than later, right? If you can’t give an answer that’s fine, just figured I’d ask. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: The nomination looks good currently and I'd say it reflects a good consensus for promotion. I always full read through each article before promotion and I was unable to get to this one during today's run-through. I'll try to take a look this weekend! --Laser brain (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Source reviews

Hi Laser brain, I hope you are well. I'm looking to get a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 Tour Championship/archive1 but been a little unsuccessful. Do you know who I might be able to sweet talk/badger for a review for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

On a separate sources matter, I see that Almost There (album) has been promoted, apparently without a sources review; all I can see are some comments from Lingzhi about the referencing style, but no examination of format consistency, links working, quality/reliability, etc. Or am I missing something? I can't see sources having been properly checked in the earlier, archived noms, either. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: That's my oversight. I had in my mind that Ling had done a source review, but I see now that's a poor assumption on my part. I'll undertake a review in the next 24 hours since I missed it. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

I had pinged you earlier to comment here, you got time? --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I'm not inclined to weigh in with opinions on any of the content. My job as an FAC coordinator is to weigh consensus for promotion, not dispute resolution. I continue to be troubled by the language you are using toward F&F. --Laser brain (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll respect your wish and not ask you further. I'm also trying very hard to reduce my animosity towards Fowler. Since both Ssven and Fowler pinged you, that's why I came to you in case you didn't get it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Clara Schumann

Clara Schumann just had her bicentenary of birth, and I did what I could the day before to improve. One thing I didn't like was that she was called Clara throughout, which is somewhat reasonable having to mention her more famous husband again and again, but I think is still disrespectful. I'd like you to go over it, sort of an unofficial peer rewiew, if I can interest you. (GAN is open, in case you - or someone watching - have more time.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I would love to. I should have some time today. It's difficult to find a solution to the problem you mention about naming! --Laser brain (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Just see what I did, and change if you think so. Of course she can be called Clara as a child prodigy, but later on, using "she" more often, saying "the couple" (suggestion by Jmar67 who copyedited), and saying chumann after her husband died seems more appropriate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

If you wish to continue discussing Eric Corbett and his work, you can now freely do so here. Due to the quantity and quality of his work, there will be many times when he and his work needs to be re-evaluated, discussed. I intend this page to remain active as long as Eric’s own page is protected and/ or censored. I shall moderate the page, but other than archiving when necessary I will only remove comments which are abusive or insulting. Anything goes, Eric was an undeniably controversial figure who drew differing opinions, but so long as the language is acceptable and polite, I will let all comments stand. Giano (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Featured Article Medal

Image	Description
	You've probably gotten some of these Featured Article Medals for your writing. This one is for your work as a coord, with my thanks for your devotion, competence and good sense. It's awardable to people who have helped with three or more FAs ... so I think you and Ian qualify (awarded jointly). - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Quite right too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I am your lord and saviour

Your block of I am your lord and saviour hit four apparently unrelated users (which I checked using the Editor Interaction Analyser. The specific users were KNHaw, Nuke87654, GeoffCapp, and Carrite. This is really surprising to me. I've never seen four users hit by a single autoblock before. --Yamla (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Loopy30 to the list affected by the autoblock. --Yamla (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yamla, and my account as well. Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yamla: I've never seen this, either. I wonder if there is some IP sharing going on with certain VPN technology? I can only guess. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Fascinating. For a while, I was worried everyone was going to hit the autoblock due perhaps to a bug in the software somewhere. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Second nom?

Hi Andy, I hope all is well. I currently have this at FAC (it's been running for three weeks and has seven supports plus image and source reviews cleared). Would you mind if I added a second nom? No worries if you'd rather I wait for a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Sure, that would be fine. Hope all is well! --Laser brain (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Great stuff - thanks very much. Yeah, all is good here thanks! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Bloody good news!

You have at least one supporter for this. - SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Tentatively agreed, although I feel like you're gonna' trade one set of abuse (FAC) for another :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 03:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Congratulations. Cassianto^Talk 12:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Way to go

Dearest Laser, good luck to the most deserving Arb candidate. I look forward to seeing you do more of what you already do so well in so many ways; it is hard to imagine a better fit or more qualified person, and I suspect you will find the work most rewarding. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Laser. I was very glad to see your name on the list. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC).

Seconded/thirded/whatever indeed.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Enes bi (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

YGM from Ling, sorry I inadvertently caused a misunderstanding

• YGM from Ling, sorry I inadvertently caused a misunderstanding ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Have you had a chance to verify Paul Greenough's identity?  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As you have edited since...

maybe you have missed it. I left a follow up question at your Q&A. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: I'm on the road for a couple days and hope to catch up on any unanswered questions tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Another follow-up question

Hi Andy. I have a follow-up question for you that is now up on your candidate question page for the 2019 ACE. It relates to your first edit at WP (Jan. 23, 2008) and whether you had other previous accounts at WP. Please do attend to it, it is important. Thank you. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• I additionally note that you failed to answer questions asked of you during your May 2009 RFA. Please do not make the mistake of thinking this is a viable strategy for an Arbcom candidacy. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tim, I'm sure you didn't mean to sound a bit aggressive in this post, but it does look a bit like that to a (talk page stalker) like me. I know you to be fair-minded and not rude, so I presume you didn't see the 'tone' as you were typing. (BTW, my first edits do not look too much like a newcomers either: I edited intermittently for a couple of years as an IP, so I had some familiarity with certain areas.) We used to a page about not assuming prior knowledge of WP is evidence of a previous account, but I'm blowed if I can find it now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

(watching) @SchroCat: Presumably WP:DBQ, and specifically §E1. ——SN54129 18:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

And Tim, your edits to your guide keep pinging me to remind me how much you keeping wanting to "just say no" to me. I can assure you, from the bottom of my heart, once was enough, thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You can turn off notifications, it's pretty simple, I think. I don't use watch lists myself, don't know for sure. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to turn notifications off Tim, but thanks for the advice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: I've been on the road and will catch up on any unanswered questions tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: You'll no doubt notice soon that I withdrew my candidacy over concerns about my time commitment. While I find the wording of your questions to me unnecessarily abrasive, especially after the collegial email exchange we had, I'll answer for your edification. I don't have prior or alternate accounts. I edited as an IP for a while and after attending a Wikipedia workshop at a local university, attempted to get involved in content assessment and found my comments not to be taken seriously coming from an IP. So I decided to register for an account. As to your "Do you feel you were adequately vetted" question, is there a term for a question where no answer is going to satisfy the person who asked it? If there is, it's one of those questions so I'm not going to bother answering it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the question is really "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  :) ——SN54129

FFIW, I edited as an ip for about 6 months before I used my account. By then, I had avidly read many meta discussion pages, and was aware of most of the players, including the then good, bad and ugly. That was back in 2006; when wiki was a new, shiny thing we were all trying to figure out. I don't appreciate Carrite's, smug, conceited approach here, which smacks of self defeating "well I'm so cleaver", and is why we cant have nice things. Have seen this before, in his ill thought out, ill informed, shoot the messenger, vendetta against Fram's RFA. Carrite; you seem motivated by unearned hubris. Ceoil (talk)

Thank you for dropping out, it was the correct decision. Sorry if the tone was excessively harsh, but the clock was ticking until voting began and there was no indication that you were going to venture back to answer any further questions. One must admit that the precedent of "winning by ignoring" was set with a 125-0 result in May 2009. All the best. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong, again, Carrite, in that assessment. You strike me as a "watch them fall", operator these days, though you have put no skin in the game. For prosperity and shame, man. The ultimate pundit on the bench, without the neck to stick out. "One must"; such unearned pomposity, give me a break. Ceoil (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• What Ceoil said; conspiracizing because someone didn't answer an optional question is particularly douchebaggy. FWIW, between 2006–08 the course of events LB describes wasn't in the least unusual; IP editing didn't have the stigma it has now, and it wasn't in the least unusual for someone to be active for quite some time before eventually creating an account because they wanted to edit a semiprotected page, because they felt they weren't being taken as seriously as logged-in editors, or because they were interested in enough pages to warrant creating a watchlist. (It was even more common for someone, even when they had an account, not always to bother logging in unless there was a specific reason to.) To be honest in recent years you're starting to give the impression that you've spent so long hanging around with the more paranoid elements off-wiki that you're beginning to assume that whenever anything happens on Wikipedia, it must be the result of a conspiracy. If you're accusing LB of being a Poetsock or similar (which I assume is what you're trying to insinuate), then say so. ‑ Iridescent 08:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ending a message that was based on an unfounded conspiracy with “all the best” is just rich. Laser, really sorry to see Arbcom lose its best candidate. It was good of you to step up when there was a void; I can only come up with six candidates to support now, so there’s still a void. Wikipedia as usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sandy, ending attack posts with “all the best” is the arsehole red flag that keeps on giving, and indicates that the poster believes their own bullshit, and is confident they are fooling all others. It works slight better with some Americans than Europeans, FFIW. Ceoil (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

When I'm trying to shine someone on, I sign "xoxo." All the best, Very truly yours, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You might might have to try harder Carrite to fool some people and perhaps someday yo'll argue on substance (rather than on the five quid betting book that seems to be your measure). Ceoil (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see

G'day Andy, sorry to see your withdrawal. FWIW, I reckon you would have made a good Arb, and we need content-focussed people on the committee. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy, I just noticed your withdrawal. You were my first pick; I was thrilled to see your name on the list. As long as I've known you (a decade or so), I've been impressed with your cool, level-headedness, your fairness, your clue, the way you and all the FAC coords I've ever known go about your business, quietly and without complaint, adding to value the project each and every day with zero drama. In my view you're the perfect candidate for the committee. I've not logged in for a few days or a week and haven't looked at the candidate questions so have no idea what happened here, but whatever caused your withdrawal, I'm sorry it happened. We need unity and we need strong candidates or there will be more problems down the road. Anyway, enough words, I just wanted to leave you a note. I never thank you enough, anyway, for all you do. So thanks for all your work and thanks for being willing to step up. I'm sure I'll be seeing you around. Victoria (tk) 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Also gutted to see this: you were my first choice too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm really saddened to see this. As Victoria has said above, you were easily the best candidate up for nomination. It's a dark day for the future of this failing project and is another nail in its coffin. Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I just want to add that I'm sorry you won't have time to go ahead with your candidacy, and I thank you for having offered your services in the first place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You could find someone else to be FAC coord, if you really want to be an arb. But if your taste for the office evolved from yes to no, then that's an entirely different matter. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Victoriaearle and others, thanks for the kind words. It really was just some introspection about the time commitment. A friend emailed me and expressed in a more polite manner that answering the candidate questions in a timely fashion is important. I realized that I live in a world where unless a building is burning down, there's nothing that can't wait for me to go to a beer festival for two days. Carrite has nothing to do with it, and if I couldn't handle an inquiry like his on my talk page, I couldn't very well claim to have a suitable disposition for a arbitrator either. --Laser brain (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No one who knows you, or has watched you for years through the daily grind at FAC, would think that some snarky questions or bad-faith assumptions could chase you off. Nonetheless, I felt that with you, NYB and Cas on board, the crazy could be kept at bay on Arbcom, and I wasn’t too worried about who else was elected. Now the picture looks less optimistic. So, sorry to see you withdraw, but never doubted your reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You were one of my top picks as one of the most qualified to be on ArbCom. :( Ah well, I really can't blame you for backing off, especially since I'm far too chickenshit to ever sign up for that thankless job. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Awww, this really is a shame. I would've been more than happy to support your nomination, especially considering those outstanding mediation skills of yours that I've only just now discovered... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I would've loved to see Andy on Arbcom but I admire him for taking the decision to pull out if he has doubts about the time commitment -- it can't have been an easy call. Maybe next year, huh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• +1 - Sorry to see you withdraw, You would've had my 100% support and had you became an Arb I'm sure you would've made a great one at that. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

On having a second article at FAC

Dear Laser brain, I understand that it is normally impossible to present two articles at FAC concurrently, however Ian Rose indicated in a recent review [3] that this is possible if [the first article is] clearly getting close to promotion (i.e. it's had its source review, and several reviewers have indicated support for promotion) then you can ask a coord for leave to nominate another article. I believe this is the case currently with Userkaf which has already received 3 supports and a source review and is now in the Older Nominations section at FAC. Thus, I was wondering if it would be acceptable that I submit Sahure at FAC now ?Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: That is fine. Good luck! --Laser brain (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)