This is an archive of past discussions with User:Insertcleverphrasehere. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As an apparently new editor, so far only editing Talk:Energy Catalyzer , it would be wise for you to disclose any commonality of interest between you and Rossi, or any connection between you and other editors. Furthermore, if, by chance, you are working for someone paying you to edit Wikipedia, you are required by a recently-added provision in the WP:TOS, to identify your employer. — Arthur Rubin(talk)00:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
But I suggest you stand down now. Just let them do what they want to do. Stop editing the article in question for a while. I think the AnI scene can be partisan according to people throwing in for their favorites like the comments indicate. You don't have to respond to the what I would call annoying stuff there. There is a lot of baiting going on. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I suspect what you did doesn't seem to matter, its all who you know... Andy really DOES seem to be immune from prosecution for personal attacks. This incident will only make him more bold, I've made things worse. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I would edit out your comment below about asking for more information about 'what you did wrong'. Going plaintively as a supplicant is a nonstarter because,,,,,, not sure why, but obviously you made some good arguments and no one cared. Edit other articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with going elsewhere, however i would like to know what the admin who banned me thinks i did wrong, as, like you, I am unsure. and it hasn't been clearly pointed out. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
But therein you are hooked. As Kafka once said something like, there is no worse thing than implying guilt where one can not defend oneself,,, or something like that. In other words I would say remove you plea from below and consider what happened a arbitrary act of nature or like accidentally stepping on a nail. I think its better you throw in the towel and don't do anymore interrogatory things because they are not going to listen or care at this point. I have no interest in the article and have no dog in the show except connected with one over bearing person and knowing their way of operating. Cut your loss's I would say. If you are innocent then grin and bear it, but if you continue the argument after this it might be used against you somehow. Sound weird? Well it read weird also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If Insertcleverphrasehere violates the topic ban, he will be given escalating blocks, starting with 2 week blocks, with the one year topic ban being reset to the beginning of each such block.
If Insertcleverphrasehere socks to get around the topic ban (including clearly editing as an IP), he will be given escalating blocks, and the topic ban will become permanent.
If Insertcleverphrasehere edits appropriately for the next year, but continues the same disruptive behavior after the expiration of the topic ban, a formal request will be filed for an indefinite community ban against Insertcleverphrasehere at WP:ANI.
Insertcleverphrasehere is, strongly encouraged to obtain a mentor, ideally while the ban is still in place, so that Insertcleverphrasehere may be guided to editing that conforms with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Please note that these sanctions may be lifted only by formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agreed to abide by Admin decision on this matter and I stand by that, however, I also requested that I be told why, specifically: what edits, are construed as misconduct so that I can improve my actions. since you did not cite any reason for the above topic ban except 'as per discussion' (where no one referenced a single diffs related to article edits against me), I am left confused as to what actions of mine resulted in my topic ban and unable to review my actions and improve them in the future. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Forgive the intrusion, but I hope to offer some clarity here. I have had no involvement in this, but I have learned a bit of the way that this works. Basically, it appears that your fellow editors have pointed out a pattern of behavior that they believe interferes with the maintenance of the encyclopedia. What happened at ANI is that your complaint backfired (See WP:BOOMERANG) and a consensus was formed against that behavior. So, while it was not a specific individual edit that caused the topic ban, it was the consensus of editors who have interacted with your editing style that accommodating your methodology was counterproductive. No one will be able to provide you with specific diffs, nor do they need to. I would recommend that you read their comments on the ANI noticeboards, and take them to heart. Edit in other areas of the Encyclopedia for six months to show that you have learned from the experience, and appeal the ban at that time. Otherwise, wait the year and request then. It is unfortunate when this happens; I wish you well in the upcoming months, and much success in contributing to other areas! ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response ScrapIronIV, and for the clarity it provides me. While I have read and considered the comments on the ANI, I do feel that I was unfairly misrepresented by Andy's friends on the ANI noticeboard, if I had known how much influence he had on there, or how many times that even more serious offences of his had been overlooked, I never would have made the complaint, as in hindsight, its no surprise that I got Boomerranged as a result (also I'll note that Andy warned me about the possibility of the boomerang in question, so this result rests on my shoulders not his). Anyway, thanks for your clarity on the subject, much appreciated. I withdraw any request for further information regarding my topic ban from Coffee, and I'll get on with editing in other areas. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise - your contribution and the topic ban put some focus on this article - and the attempt to get rid of the unpleasent talk page ended up in merging e-cat into Andrea Rossi - which somewhat triggered the Streisand effect. So I would summarize it as heroic casualty. I did not dare to call for ARB (which is also not appropriate for a novice like me) nor to write with a fixed account because my assumption was that he has friends if he acts that way. Just to clarify(because I have seen Arthur Rubins comment) - I work for a hydropower company and not for the Military-Industrial-Complex as Arthur - and are not associated with Rossi. Just a privat physics geek interested in CF and other interesting banned disciplines. rgds.143.161.248.25 (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam Sailor was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joseph Sledge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! Insertcleverphrasehere,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -- SamSing!01:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.
The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.
The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
Hello! Insertcleverphrasehere,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Joseph Sledge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
I just wanted to thank you for your input in the Peak Oil article GA review; and for the Barnstar! You had some very useful comments. I also want you to know that I will be updating the page as developments arise. Best of luck with your work.Blandx (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I just went here from the creation move request, a very enWP specific discussion, I like your remarks. We haven't met at Peakoil, but I introduced a variety of content there and in the deWP. The Oil constant, a German insider joke should be of interest for you. Its a scientific joke used as well on hot fusion. It goes like that: Oil will and always has been on the verge of being depleted in the upcoming 30 years, since modern oil drilling started 1858 in Wietze. The Fusionskonstante tells us, that making money with hot fusion always has been feasible the upcoming 30 years, for any given present since 1950 ;) Glückauf! Polentarion Talk21:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Reminder - Energy Catalyzer and cold fusion articles are covered by discretionary sanctions
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You should remove the space between the opening of the span class and the start of your username (as I've done here) in your signature, or replace it with a nbsp, otherwise your little border thingy can be word wrapped across two lines. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉15:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Because of the length of my sig i couldn't fit the ( ) formatting, and copy pasting an nbsp in that location (or a normal space for that matter) results in one not being displayed as a weird quirk of HTML. The space you removed was actually a special character that has a nonstandard space width (the only way i could get it to display the space without the   formatting). Unfortunately, as you pointed out this space was not a non-breaking space. I have now replaced the space with a (U+2007FIGURE SPACE ( )), which is another type of non-standard-width non-breaking space. Let me know if the problem persists. Also... thanks. InsertCleverPhraseHere20:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what that means... perhaps you know more than me after all. But in all seriousness, I've got like a couple extra characters available for my sig, thats why I couldn't use formatting. my damn name is just too long and I wanted links to contributions, talk, and user pages. InsertCleverPhraseHere21:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
My sig hits the character limite as well :p Look at the code for mine, in your "span style" opening tag you can add a parameter "padding:0 3px;" that will add a few pixels of padding between the text and inside border (and tweak the numbers to see what works best for you). I'm far from an expert though. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Insertcleverphrasehere. A helpee came to the IRC help channel today asking about that draft. Were you saying the page was all good except for the disambiguation? If so, you could have just accepted it and disambiguated it yourself, rather than expecting the article creator to fix such a comparatively minor issue. Howicus(Did I mess up?)23:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Italic text== 04:25:19, 15 March 2016 review of submission by Mridulaarora ==
Hi There! Thanks for the message on the Fable page - I've added a couple of new high profile references - Rolling Stone and Popjustice. Hopefully it can be approved now. Thanks for helping out!
Yea sorry, forgot to untick the blank and speedy boxes... first copyright violation review, so I didn't realise that it did that, I do now. Anything I need to do to fix the mistake? InsertCleverPhraseHere10:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evynne Hollens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wicked. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You are correct. Much of that material was copy-pasted, but that's because it was the material my office wrote for the adjutant general position. I'm the State Historian for the Nevada National Guard and I work out of the Public Affairs Office in the Office of the Adjutant General in Carson City. If you would like me to re-word the description of the adjutant general position, I can. However, it's the description that has been written by my office and approved by he adjutant general.
It depends on whether you hold the copyright on the material or not, if you do you can release it to creative commons and its fine, if not it will need to be reworded. InsertCleverPhraseHere21:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Draft:The Promise Documentary 2016
Thanks for the review of the page. We will make a correction of the text by english native speaker, you have been right about translating from German language, so we will work again on the text. Third party references will be available within the next weeks when the movie world premiere will be announced - so far we can not provide any third party references. How long will the draft be safted for rework? Thank you very much for your patience and help addictivefilm (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2016 (CET)
I'm not sure how long drafts are kept around, but I think a draft is only deleted if it hasn't been edited in 6 months or something, so for your purposes don't worry, take your time. InsertCleverPhraseHere10:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Request on 12:42:50, 16 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Weist.michael
I was told by the help desk to add 1 more source. I added several. I'm not sure what the problem is. The refrences clearly show notibility based on the guidelines of Wiki. Every source added was a new, reliable, verifiable, independent news sources, such as The New York Times. Did you read the sources? There are SEVERAL additions, bringing the article up to standards of wiki.
The references are not "Significant Coverage" nor mostly are they "reliable sources", and most are also not "independent" see WP:VRS. None of the references qualify all of these criteria, therefore the article has no references that prove notability. Moreover, the draft shows pervasive POV issues. Sorry, not everyone deserves a wikipedia article. InsertCleverPhraseHere12:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Did you actually view the sources? How does the New York Times not quality? All the references are independent, and moreover, all are reputable. I can edit wording, I'm not worried about that. But it most definitely is significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weist.michael (talk • contribs) 12:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes these publications are reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage of Michael Weist, but rather only trivial passing mentions. Again, See: WP:VRS. Quote: "We need significant coverage. This helps show that a topic meets the notability guidelines. We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it."InsertCleverPhraseHere12:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It directly mentions his company, many of them are about his shows events, which provide evidence for Michael. There are passing of Michael's name, yes, such as in line-up listing or such, but in conjunction with the numerous other sources that were already there, it provides adequate information. He a member for The Recording Academy, you can't even do that unless you have been directly verified as a large contribution to the recording industry. There are multiply topics address Michael and his company, so thus, it provides everything needed. If you read through them, you will see nearly every sentence in the article has a source backing it up. I've been working on this article for months. What other information do you need? (frankly, it meets the standards. There's plenty of coverage. )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weist.michael (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Well first, i see no mention to the New York Times in any of the references, please point it out to me as I must be missing it. Secondly, you repeatedly say things like "in conjunction with the numerous other sources that were already there" when this statement is useless. None of the other sources satisfy all of the criteria of a very reliable source either. Most of the sources in this article wouldn't even be accepted as sources AT ALL, (for example ill just pick one at random: https://www.wannadolocal.com/nashville/events/party-with-the-viners-2-rgkBAA Yup this isn't a RS or an independent source, nor does it mention the subject). I don't feel like wasting my day running through them all and explaining why but almost all of the references would not be accepted in an article. What more do I say? Refer to WP:SNOW. InsertCleverPhraseHere13:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It is a source for one off Michael's clients, providing a citation for him and his company and his client. What exactly do you need to satisfy the request for article creation? Michael literally attends the Grammy award shows. Like I'm not sure how you don't see nobility. He was over 300k followers (which, accordingly to wiki bypasses the need for extra sources as an "active fanbase" proves nobility. There are several articles that mention Michael, his company, and his accomplishments, and all the ones cited are independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weist.michael (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
As I've said repeatedly, to satisfy the request for article creation we need multiple sources that each satisfy all three of the criteria for a very reliable source, that is: Significant coverage, in reliable sources, that are independent. If you have them present them. InsertCleverPhraseHere13:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Request on 15:07:33, 18 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ethanjkagan
I am Ethanjkagan and you reviewed one of my articles, SpreadsheetWEB. I wanted to ask you a few questions about this article, whereas i'm rather new here. I've been looking at similar pages and to be honest, all other pages look A LOT worse than what I wrote in that article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolver_One). This product doesn't have publicity all over the news, therefore I can't find too many sources. Most of what I wrote here, I wrote from personal experience from using this product for 3 years and my interactions with the developers. Please advise.
Hi, I'm just overwhelmed by all the things necessary to creat a simple album page here on Wikipedia. I merely want to make a page for this most recent album that is comparable and similar to the previous album's Wikipedia pages. Although I made a few very brief Wikipedia pages last year, it seems that the process is now more complicated/convuluted in comparison. I'm hoping there is just a simplified walkthrough or tutorial that I can use in order to creat a page for this individual album, of which there are plenty of valid online sources to choose from. Thank you for your time.
@Joseph2302: He might very well meet the criteria for the reasons that you have put forward. However, note that the article only has one independent source (BBC), generally to be accepted for submission articles need multiple reliable sources. Perhaps I should have left a message clarifying why I rejected the article for "not having enough reliable sources", although I thought that the automatic notice is rather clear about it. Am I missing something? I feel like my rejection was totally justified. The only other news sources I can find on him are a mention here: [[2]] and here:[[3]] which are merely passing mentions and not really 'significant coverage'. InsertCleverPhraseHere02:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a matter of personal preference, but even if something demonstrably satisfies one of the notability criterion, I feel like having at least 2 (better 3) significant independent reliable sources is necessary before I will accept an article at AfC. The AfC notability message clearly states that topics should both satisfy WP:GNGand have multiple high quality sources. InsertCleverPhraseHere12:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that articles like this are unlikely to be deleted if taken to AfD, but as an AfD reviewer myself, it is IMO way better if articles have a few good sources before accepted at AfC, as they are then far less likely be nominated for deletion and end up wasting a bunch of peoples time at AfD (which always has a pretty big workload anyway). InsertCleverPhraseHere12:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
DS alert
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
@Jytdog: I get you, I didn't realise that the Gamergate decision was so far broadened to include 'any gender related dispute or controversy'. I guess that means that the Feminism article and the Men's rights movement article should also be listed with the Gamergate discretionary sanctions (they currently are not tagged as such but perhaps they should be). Gender-dispute related vandals and trolls show up all the time at both articles anyway. InsertCleverPhraseHere12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Glad you get what I was saying. :) It would be great if you would note your understanding at the AfD and consider striking the "crowbar" comment. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Good work! I have accepted the article. One thing I would like to see though is a Ref to an obituary in the death section if you can find it, rather than relying on the guardian for this information. Other than that, top notch work! InsertCleverPhraseHere20:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
13-8 is not consensus especially with Strong oppose as well as Strong support, and given how long it has been open it doesn't seem that one is likely to develop. Given that the search numbers are not clear (especially when adding in 'muscat+wine'), I don't see how there is a strong policy argument that was put forth to support a move either. InsertCleverPhraseHere02:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I know I participated, but I'd regard 14-8 as a consensus to move, given the strength of the evidence. At least, it's not clear to me that there's a lack of consensus here. Respectfully, I ask that you reopen the RM.--Cúchullaint/c03:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully have to disagree, while I don't have a stake in this, little evidence listed in the move request enticed me either way. the page view statistics are a bit higher for the city, but the google statistics are not very clear, especially when additional searches (adding together wine+grapes etc) are put into perspective. To me, 14/8 is not consensus, it isn't even two thirds, and in the absence of a clear policy reason for a move, or clear evidence of primary topic, this RM is going nowhere toward convincing people from either side. Disambiguation is not a bad thing and the status quo is just fine. The page view statistics themselves indicate that readers are getting to their desired destination just fine (the dabs page views are very low). This is a good sign that nothing needs to change. InsertCleverPhraseHere08:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Something I'm dancing around is that non-admin closures are best reserved for cases where the consensus, or lack thereof, is clear. I think most of your closures have been spot on, but I don't think this one's as clear cut.--Cúchullaint/c14:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Due to your very polite request, I thought very seriously of reopening the RM, to the point of having the edit ready to go, but really the thing that changed my mind at the last minute is this: Consensus is not the result of a majority vote. Consensus is about being able to persuade people to shift their viewpoint and/or compromise. As far as I'm seeing with this RM, no one is willing to change sides on this, they are either familiar with the city, or familiar with the grape/wine and aren't willing to consider that the other one is primary, the compromise is to leave it at the dab page. When both strong oppose and strong support are present this becomes rather apparent. The statistics are not clearcut enough to have merit alone, so in the absence of any evidence that consensus is likely to form (this RM was open for 17 days), I have to say that one is not likely to ever develop. InsertCleverPhraseHere19:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I object to your non-admin closure of Self-balancing two-wheeled board, since no real consensus has been established. The current !vote count of 4-2 is closer to 4-3 if you include the final comment, which notes that any new change, if there was going to be one, should incorporate the word "hoverboard" and not the word "scooter." That certainly is not in support of this move. Even without it, 4-2, with two agreeing without comment, is not consensus. More importantly, this has been debated for months now. Once it was even admin closed as no consensus. But it was reopened on request, for a question. After being left stagnant for a month. Since being reopened, there needs to be adequate time for people to respond to these newest comments. But in no way is the current vote conclusive. So please re-open it and leave it to an admin to close: when it appears everyone has had a chance to weigh in and no further comments can reasonably be expected. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This RM has been open for two months now, as you may or may not know, there is a significant backlog over at the RM page. The closure of an RM is not based on vote counts, but on the strength of the arguments, as there does not seem to be a very strong argument for "hoverboard" or some derivation (previously having been rejected), as well as the current title being obtusely awful, the logical choice is to move the article. If a new, better, term surfaces that refers to the topic, another RM can be opened to consider it. So far however, no such term has been suggested, and as "Self-balancing scooter" is better than the current title the logical choice is again, to move it. This is a case of the proposed title being better than the current one, and a perfect title perhaps not having surfaced yet. Edit: also, of the two 'oppose' !votes, one was objecting to the caps error in the move request, and the other gave no reason for objection. InsertCleverPhraseHere08:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It actually hasn't been opened for two months. As I said, it was originally admin closed as no consensus just a couple weeks ago. And as we're judging arguments, you yourself just made the case for not adopting this proposal. The proposed title is not definitive. That's exactly the opposition view. So in a few months, we'll just be looking to change this title again. Which only adds more confusion unnecessarily. In fact, as I pointed out (perhaps you missed it) the industry has already created something called a "self-balancing scooter" and it's nothing like these devices. Again, just adding more confusion. And with no consensus. Regardless of the RM backlog, there's no rush to close now - surely no more than there was on April 5 - when it was reopened upon request after a month with no new comments. In this case, I'm asking for a reopen because the last comment was just yesterday. So it shouldn't be closed while people are still discussing it again.
But the presence of these new, identically named devices, also represents significant additional information not discussed in the RM, and that warrants, if anything, a reopen to relist. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Your link is to an eBay listing, hardly convincing evidence of a competing primary topic for the new article name.
In any case, as I said above, opposition seems to be only because of the caps issue, and no one in the entire discussion suggested that the current name was better than the proposed name, rather that there might be another name worth considering, eventually. In fact consensus seems to be that the current name of the article was very bad. Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't change the name because the proposed one is not good enough. However, everyone else (that wasn't objecting based on the caps issue) seems to agree that it is a better descriptive term for the article to sit at until the market makes its mind up about a generic term for these devices. InsertCleverPhraseHere09:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The eBay link is simply evidence of a new and emerging product which will be competing for this same name. It's a warning that this name will not be unique and using it will only add even more confusion to an already muddled situation. A name which, by the way, even you agree is not definitive. Wikipedia should be reflective of, and reactive to, the names used in the real world. Not proactive in making up names for things itself. But that's the case here. Your argument that no one is calling them "self balancing two-wheel boards" is just as accurate as the fact that no one on the street is calling them "self-balancing scooters" either. For better or worse, as the article itself points out, people are uniformly calling them "hoverboards" now. That's an undeniable fact. And any folks who are wringing their hands unnecessarily to find an alternative moniker right now, are just in denial over this fact. I happen to hate that word for them myself, because it's really not what they are, or what they do. But just like you, I don't control that. So you can leave this closure in place, as you're clearly determined to do. But we'll just be right back here in a few months (if not sooner) doing this all over again. You also did not address my concern that you closed the discussion while people were still weighing in. The last comment being less than 24 hours before your closure.
Finally, it was really interesting to read Cúchullain's comments in the section above, regarding your non-admin closure on Muscat, Oman - and your responses. Especially, since this individual was the admin who originally closed this RM, with no consensus - then reopened it only upon request. There you argued that 13-8 was not consensus. But here you're arguing that 4-2 (actually 4-3) is?
Given all this, are you really sure you can justify a non-admin closure less than a day after the last comment? On an RM that is as non-clear cut as this one is? Especially when the proposed new name, is one that everyone agrees, unanimously, isn't going to be either the best or final answer for what these things are called? The tenor of your responses in our discussion seem to suggest you really might be better suited expressing your opinions at the RM, rather than doing a supposedly impartial, non-admin close of it. You obviously have strong opinions and want to weigh in with them yourself. No harm in that. But given everything, I just don't see a compelling and/or objective rationale for this early close; and I believe policy and practices recommend against it. X4n6 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
"will be competing for this same name" is WP:Crystalball, like pretty much the definition of it. However, to get to the real point, I accepted the RM on the basis that all editors were in agreement (except you) that A: the move request had a caps issue that should be fixed, and B: that the new title was better than the old one. If you want to argue for changing the name to Hoverboard (scooter) or something similar, simply open up a new RM and ping all the commenters from the previous RM, this will be far cleaner than reopening the current RM when it has caps issues and most of the comments are not about the hoverboard name at all. In summary, nothing is accomplished by reopening the RM, and I don't see a good rationale for changing the verdict to "no consensus" (which is the only other option I would consider at this time). You can easily argue for your real point (the hoverboard name) with a new RM that isn't down at the bottom of the backlog (where editors are unlikely to find it). I would suggest opening a new RM if you are unsatisfied with the current title. InsertCleverPhraseHere00:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
A current eBay ad has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:CRYSTAL. That same name already exists currently. Not in the future. You would be incorrect if assuming that was the only place where the name is used to refer to this new device - as a simple search proves. But you also misstated and misinterpreted the actual discussion. Contrary to your characterization that "all editors were in agreement (except you) that A: the move request had a caps issue that should be fixed," the very last comment posted the day before your closure was: " If, as asserted in § Proposed edits above, the vast majority of the reliable sources in this article do use the term "hoverboard", that would be an argument for Hoverboard (scooter), per WP:COMMONNAME. I see that the term "Scooter" is very ambiguous, and there are several different types of "ground scooters." It's pretty clear that comment had nothing to do with "cap issues." You also misunderstood my point. I'm not interested in changing the name to "Hoverboard." I'm simply stating the obvious, which that editor also noted: is if any name change had to occur at this time (which it doesn't), "Hoverboard" is the only name that could be justified.
Regarding my comments at User_talk:Cuchullain#RM_at_Talk:Self-balancing_two-wheeled_board, once again you failed to accurately assess either my comments, or their context. I objected there as the RM was only reopened because someone decided they wanted to ask a question after the closure - when they had failed to ask that question in the OVER A MONTH prior when no new comments were made. But I object to your closure - in part - because it came JUST ONE DAY after the last comment. So try as you might, there is zero basis for comparison. Or conflating the two.
You were also incorrect when you said "now you argue that the discussion should continue based on one new comment?" Since reopening, there have actually been threenewcomments. And that even excludes the question which the reopen was based up - and the RM was closed before the question was answered.
So your accusation that my objections are because I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is transparent nonsense. We clearly disagree. But only because you have been unable to offer any objectively defensible reasons or explanations for this closure. Likely because you seem more invested in being an advocate in this discussion, rather than being an objective and disinterested party. But no need to respond further, as there's clearly no point in continuing here. I was required to bring my concerns to your attention on your talk page. I have explained them at length. So that has been accomplished. X4n6 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I've had enough aspersions against my personal integrity and judgement for one day, I'd appreciate it if you leave my talk page and keep the discussion on the move review page please. InsertCleverPhraseHere12:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Um, I don't think 13:7 in favour of the move, with both reasonable and unreasonable arguments from both sides, count as "no consensus". SSTflyer11:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
If you look above you'll see that this has been discussed already on this page. Please see the discussion above and my reasons for the close. InsertCleverPhraseHere19:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
11:56:03, 26 April 2016 review of submission by EstherMusic
Hi, many thanks for your feedback on my article about Ian Page. I wondered if you could give me some guidance on secondary sources.
Would an interview article be more appropriate as a secondary resource? Ian was interviewed for Limelight magazine last year. There is no online link to that article, though I have scans of it.
Gavin Dixon, 'Mozart (The other masterpieces)', Limelight, September 2015, p50-53.
Would either of those be suitable as secondary sources?
Another possibility is Opera magazine, who did an article in January 2015 on Ian Page and Mozart 250. Again, I have scans of the print but there is no online version.
Stephen Roe, 'Mozart year by year', Opera: The Worlds leading opera magazine, January 2015, p31-35
And of course there are endless newspaper and maagzine reviews of the concerts Ian has conducted but reading the guidelines I understand these are not suitable. I would really appreciate any guidance you could give on this.
Apologies for the very late reply, I have been in the wilderness taking part in running a week long rite of passage event and have been uncontactable. The two sources you have provided are useful for saying that Ian Page is performing Mozart 250, and would be considered high quality sources for a "Mozart 250" article. However, as they only give passing mentions of Ian Page, they are not "significant coverage", and so would not qualify as a high quality source on Ian Page. They can still be used in the article when talking about mozart 250 though.
As for the print article in Opera, it is perfectly acceptable to create a ref for a print only article, if you have a scan. Interview articles are generally considered sources only for direct quotes of the artist, and I am pretty sure they are otherwise considered a primary source (unless the interviewer also comments on the subject outside the interview questions). InsertCleverPhraseHere19:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Also-don't put up AFD's for articles that are only 14 minutes old, it also already had a BLP prod. Wgolf (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok sorry, I'm new to new page patrolling, but really it should go straight to AfD, I did a search and this guy doesn't seem notable at all. InsertCleverPhraseHere04:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Well AFD is often a last resort-don't ever put it up if the article is new either-just keep that in mind. (Unless if its a removed prod). Also the BLP prod was good enough for the article. Don't bite the newbies. Wgolf (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Your insertion of a refimprove tag on Allolee to Walltown was misguided for at least two/three reasons:
The article is clearly still being written. You need to leave a decent interval before defacing it.
The references are adaquate for the job being asked of them. I presume you have not followed any of the two refs or the two external links, nor explored the very comprehensive information they provide.
Although there will be other references, the major references for SSSIs are their citation and their designation of Defra's map. To suggest these are insufficient is incomprehensible. --Tagishsimon(talk)09:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The notice was not meant to imply that the given citations were not useful. Just to suggest that additional sources are needed to expand the article, apologies if the article is still being written, many articles are abandoned by their creators shortly after moving to the article space, and I can't be reasonably expected to know when an article is still being worked on, vs being considered complete enough by the content creator. I'll keep your suggestions in mind if I see other new SSSIs. No offence was meant. InsertCleverPhraseHere09:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
No offence taken, or, at least, it passed quickly. You need to recheck the usage of the template: "This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article. Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material, even if all the material is supported by a single citation." (my emphasis). Beyond some contextual information on the Whin Sill, all of the information in the article is supported by its refs. It follows that the use of the template is inappropriate. --Tagishsimon(talk)09:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi before you nominate an article for speedy deletion again and without checking is it just one off please allow editors time to accumulate associated data and sources in order to connect all the articles together as I said all these events were connected and included both mens and womens tournaments I have created a navigational template here: Template:Dewar Cup circuit that has 8 known tournaments and possibly more I have also added newspaper sources kindly don't just jump the gun next time thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Insertcleverphrasehere. I saw you tagged Stoer Vagnerov algoritam with A1 seven minutes after creation. There is a broad consensus to wait at least 10-15 minutes before tagging with A1 and A3. Another thing in this case is, that the article was in Serbian, and the text makes sense if you translate it, it's just a copy of sr:Stoer-Vagnerov algoritam. Now, the question is more, is this a hoax or is there some other reason for why I can't find sources on this algorithm? :) Anyway, author blanked, so I'm going to G7 tag it. Cheers, Sam SailorTalk!10:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick heads up that I'm contesting this PROD since the school includes a high school division. These are routinely more or less automatically kept at AfD. You are welcome to bring the piece to AfD if you disagree with this analysis of WP:OUTCOMES, but I hope that this was just an oversight by you and that you won't. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Life Flight (New Zealand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wellington Hospital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for patrolling new pages, but G2 test page was not the right tag there - that is for pages that were obviously not intended as articles. ("Is this right?" etc.) That one was a clear WP:CSD#G11blatant advertisement and I have deleted it as such. It's important to choose the right tag, to help newbie authors understand what they are doing wrong, so that maybe they do better next time. There is good advice for speedy taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I remember being confused if i should G11 it or not, but it seemed like someone had accidentally published it as a section of something else, but i see where you are coming from, thanks. InsertCleverPhraseHere20:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
05:12:34, 15 May 2016 review of submission by Rayarainbow
I submitted an article that had eight citations. They were reliable sources including magazines and books. The topic of the article is a deceased political figure in Israel. There is already a Hebrew wikipedia page published about this person, and it uses many of the same sources as the one I submitted. Yet, somebody declined my submission by claiming it did not have reliable sources. I feel the editor was discriminating against the subject of the article, since the stated reason of "lacking reliable sources" could not be true.
Yes, sorry, that was me, I should have removed the message at your talk page (I forgot that it was automated). I accidentally used the wrong criteria when declining the submission the first time. I reverted and corrected the review shortly afterward. I meant to say that it is improperly referenced because the inline citations need to be linked using the guidelines laid out at WP:INCITE. The references are notable enough, the citations just are in an improper format. Fix this up and the article should be good to go. InsertCleverPhraseHere11:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Project of new nategory grouping articles related to the State of Katanga
Hello, I would like to know if a category grouping articles related to the secessionist State of Katanga could be viable.
I created Draft:Category:State of Katanga and I wanted to know if it could be published.
I see that I missed the notice that they were promoted to Damallsvenskan on the team's article. The info box is possibly out of date for the team's article, as it seems to indicate that they play in a much lower tier. apologies, I'll remove the prod from the two articles. InsertCleverPhraseHere23:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The notifications are sent as a courtesy, to notify you that the articles in question have been proposed for deletion (as you started the articles). Each is for a separate article, so I'm not spamming (also the messages are automated when I use the twinkle tool to PROD an article) You have up to a week to fix the issues, or else remove the prod notifications, however, if you remove a prod without fixing the issue then the article will likely be taken to Articles for Deletion, so its not something I recommend. InsertCleverPhraseHere12:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
If you stop requesting deletions faster than 6-10 minutes it would be nice
As was stated in #Speedy tagging you seem to ignore common sense about interrupting other people edits with deletion requests.
This may and will distract people from Wikipedia. Ushkin N (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The time limit generally refers to A1 and A3 criteria as stated above. In the first case, it was for G11 (advertisement), for the second it was not a speedy tag, but a BIO PROD on a biography with no refs, as is required, and for the third I waited longer than 10 minutes. Next time add some content to your article before creating it? InsertCleverPhraseHere12:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Fauzia Ilyas doesn't have a speedy banner, it has a BLP prod. This is very different, as editors have up to a week to add sources to the article in question, whereas speedy tagged articles are generally deleted very quickly. Much like the PRODs I just placed on several of the articles you created that give insufficient context to the reader. You have up to a week to fix the issues, or else remove the prod, though I recommend fixing the issues before removing the prod, or else it will be taken to Articles for Deletion. InsertCleverPhraseHere12:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for reminding all of us what deletion normative and how quickly we should work while you placing labels just every 1/3 of your edit.
Do you think that deletions are priority than content expansion at Wikipedia? Because based on your 2 year edit history I would assume you spread this bullshit just everywhere. Ushkin N (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Because I am not an expert or very knowledgeable in the subject? I'm not entirely sure what the subject is, and that is the main problem. A wikipedia article should, at the very least, explain to the reader what the article is about (and any reader should be able to understand the context of the article, regardless of their level of expertise). Please read Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable as this should shed some light on this issue for you.
With regards to my editing style, and what a do here on wikipedia; yes, I do a lot of bureaucratic/organisational work along side quite a few others that help to insure that wikipedia does not descend into anarchy. I contribute to articles quite often, and have on occasion written a few articles as well. InsertCleverPhraseHere13:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes Wikipedia was created so that non-experts can requests everyone to follow WP: guidelines. Keep going!
You don't seem very willing to listen to the most basic of criticism or suggestion. Despite the high level of technical knowledge present in your articles, they currently don't even attempt to make themselves understandable to non-programmers (as a non-programmer myself I am actually highly qualified to offer this critique). I have clearly stated what is needed to bring the articles to acceptable levels, if you would rather insult me, well thats on you. InsertCleverPhraseHere15:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Have a look at Comparison_of_programming_languages_(string_functions), (in the category you linked above). The structure of this article, particularly the lede's layman explanations, are exactly what are lacking from the articles listed above. Without this information it simply becomes tables of technical information that is indecipherable to any non-expert. InsertCleverPhraseHere15:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
