This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Struthious_Bandersnatch/2010s_archive.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Struthious Bandersnatch. 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.
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Struthious Bandersnatch! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,820 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Hi there. Interesting stuff over there, isn't it... Just thought I'd give you a heads-up on what Ligurianbeauty is up to now - see edit on my talk page. Same passive-aggressive style, same habit of not signing comments, same agenda, except now it's meta-discussion. Smells like meatpuppetry on behalf of a politician's campaign staff to me (if not outright sockpuppetry, but I don't think it's worth wasting a CheckUser as of yet.) Thought you might be interested. See you! Moocha (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
Thank you. Yes, it does appear to me that one of the users was engaged in promotional activities and created sockpuppets. I tried to deal with similar problems in the past, but this earned me a serious topic ban. Now I do not really care. If you see an activist, let him keep his pet projects. Otherwise, he will be very angry. Sorry.Biophys (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Link to archive
You wrote, "I'm not clear on how to create links that survive the talk page getting archived, so if there's a way to do that I'd appreciate it if someone could give me a quick explanation"[1]
You cannot make such links, really; it's always a problem.
However, obviously that will be archived in a few days - so the link will fail; it'll then take the user to the top of AN, as would e.g. (random example of something that was on AN until a few days ago, but is now archived) WP:AN# Some one please close this AfD.
So - if the person realised that the section had vanished, they could look in the archive - in the case of AN, could use the handy search box at the top - if they put " Some one please close this AfD" in there, they'd get this, and find it.
So, the answer to your specific question; the best you could do is simply link to the currently-active talk page and section, ie;
(which, incidentally, also demonstrates why it is a good idea to use shorter section titles )
And when it gets archived, either a) hope people will be able to figure it out, or b) edit the link to update it.
Sorry, there's no magic answer. Various ideas have been purported from time-to-time, but dealing with that specific problem has not been resolved, to date.
Incidentally, the two characters around your signature, ie "❨" ("MEDIUM LEFT PARENTHESIS ORNAMENT"1) and "❩" (ditto, but "right") do not display on my screen. I suspect that is true for most readers; unless they've got some certain font installed. The "Ṩ" and "ℬ" works for me though. Chzz ► 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for those notes! And thank you for pointing that out about the Unicode characters in my sig; it was my expectation, years ago when I added it, that it wouldn't show up for many people, but I have always been content to let the rest of the world catch up to me. ;^) If I recall correctly, the free DejaVu fonts are one of the ones that contains those glyphs, if you want to be able to see them. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough; it's no big deal, really. To me, it looks like this. I just thought you might wanna change it to something that displays on more - e.g. ⟪this⟫. Chzz ► 01:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah; like I said, I'm content to let people fix their own computers or I suppose that they'll eventually upgrade to an operating system that has a more complete set of fonts. But thanks for the suggestion, though! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩01:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it is simple common courtesy to notify an editor if you have concerns with their editing before reporting them for administrator intervention, and furthermore to notify them if you choose to do so. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Strategy+business cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Henry Petzal
Struthious,
My name is Christopher Pryor. The name on my birth certificate is Christopher Petzal -- my father Arthur Petzal changed our last name when I was a baby. His father was Henry Petzal.
My father found the Wikipedia entry you wrote about my grandfather and passed it on to me. My grandfather would have been 105 this year, and his contemporaries are to my knowledge all passed on. He was not exactly someone you would have called a social butterfly, and we're curious to know who would have known him closely enough that they'd be motivated to take the time to write a Wikipedia entry about him.
If I may ask: how are you connected to my grandfather? Are you associated with the Mingei? What moved you to write an article about him?
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi. Thx for this image. I like it. It is made with Pattern Generator . Could you describe what parameters were used and how are changing ? ( maybe on image page) TIA. --Adam majewski (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I do think that initiating an AfD process for a topic with hundreds or thousands of Google News or Google Books hits (especially without even discussing those hits in the deletion rationale) is an egregious failure to perform due diligence and could pretty easily qualify as a frivolous use of the system, but it's definitely important that "frivolous or vexatious nominations" are a low-level bullet point in the guidelines for applicability. I wouldn't want to derail a discussion with a dispute over particulars concerning just how egregious a particular nomination is, so I will probably just use "Keep" more frequently in the future. --≜∮truthiousᛔandersnatch≜19:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
When there are as few as 100 GNews hits, it's fairly easily to evaluate their quality. When a large percentage are quoting spokespeople, rather than talking about the group, that's a bad sign. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Not that bad a sign - indeed, not a bad sign at all - when all we're looking for is coverage in reliable sources. The fact that however many dozen publications and journalists (and, y'know, the occasional Congresscritter) think it's important to report to the public the statements of the group's spokesperson, because he's the group's spokesperson, is indicative that they think the group is notable. At the very least the fact that so many sources see fit to comment on the topic of an article is a fact that should be noted in asserting that the article should be deleted for notability reasons. Look - it's not such a bad thing that you made this nomination without accounting for all those sources, but it's the sort of situation where you have to expect "seriously?"-type responses. I'm sure that you did it in good faith, in any case. --≜∮truthiousᛔandersnatch≜20:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Doghouse Diaries Deletion
Although the article has been deleted, I wasn't able to get any response for my last edit, which includes another reference from webmagazine, MakeUseOf. I agree some of these webmagazines I have never heard of, but that doesn't really qualify them to be unreliable sources. For example MakeUseOf, has a full editorial board, and not just from the magazine, but also from its wiki entry it seems like a reliable web magazine. In any case, this was my final comment, if because of this you change your mind, please let me know what I could do.
I have added yet another reference which puts doghouse diaries in the list of Top 8 web comics. This was in the web-magazineMakeUseOf, an independent media magazine, with an independent editorial board. MakeUseOf, Mashable and Gizmodo, each of them have covered Doghouse Diaries well enough to qualify it to be notable. The objection however could be as to whether the above sources are reliable or not. Here are my points why they could be considered reliable
They are not related to Doghouse Diaries, nor does it seem that they are trying to unfairly promote Doghouse Diaries.
They have editorial system, for which I refer to their corresponding wiki articles, for example the editorial for MakeUseOf is Editorial staff. Each one of them has an Editor-in-chief and so on.
The clarity of this discussion would be enhanced if the other wiki editors could cite the reason why they think the above references cannot be taken as reliable. Points like Mashable is a trivial source, is a trivial argument.Shashi B Jain (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that the MakeUseOf does look more established than the others, but a countervailing point is that, like I said top qualitative x lists of things aren't the sort of things that impress Wikipedians generally, and like the Mashable list this wasn't even a top list - this is "8 Awesome Webcomics You Don’t Want To Miss." Unfortunately, the battle was already lost at that point with so many delete votes, and as the odds looked bad to me that I could come up with a workable argument against that many other editors. So I'm sorry but I couldn't muster up the enthusiasm to plunge back into the argument. There are guidelines and policies out there which advise on the selection of reliable sources that might have contained some useful technicality but I didn't have the stamina to pore over them.
The problem, I'm sure you can see, is that the closing admin's outcome is supposed to be based on the consensus arrived on in the thread. You either have to be able to persuade editors who are on the fence or demonstrate that those in favor of deletion are using invalid arguments, and even in the latter case it's not guaranteed, some personal bias on the part of the closing admin or unwillingness to read deeply into the discussion and sources can result in a disfavorable conclusion.
If you really want to keep working on this, I think your best bet would be to bide your time and wait for better sources to appear out on the net, maybe even promote them being created on your own. Alternatively, you could stick with what you've got, polish up your content and come up with the most orthodox arguments you can to prove notability based upon the sources you've got (maybe find some evidence of the same sources establishing notability in other AfDs?) and then propose a deletion review and slog through the argument doing your best to persuade there.
Either way, if you didn't make a copy into user space you should get one by asking the closing admin to "Userfy" it for you. Then you've got it to work on for whatever your next step is. You might also move it into an Wikipedia:Article Incubator, essentially requesting help and attention from other editors who might speak favorably in future discussions.
Thanks for letting me know the options. I did realize that decisions on wiki are democratic in nature, rather than based on analysis of facts, seeing the idea behind the guidelines etc. I also agree that such a system is the best, maybe little political, egoistic and so on, but in absence of any better choice, I think it's the best. I could see there were some editors who were fixated by their choice, for example 'I was right when I nominated it for speedy deletion'. There was also lack of effort to help improve the article, which also I guess is fine as I could imagine editors are over worked. I think its lot easier to read wiki, than attempt to edit it, which on closer inspection looks like a replication of an immensely bureaucratic organization, like 'The Castle' by Kafka. But in all of this I thank you, as you were patient enough, and were ready to see through some of my arguments. Shashi B Jain (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I read your entry on my closed editor review, and wanted to pose a question - if we all, as you suggested, spent all our time on creating content, then who would enforce policies such as WP:N and WP:OR, and guidelines such as WP:SPAM and and WP:NOT? I understand what you said about deletion and that you have a low opinion of people who work in this area, but can't you at least entertain the idea that it is actually a critically important part of building this encyclopaedia? Lest we end up with a glorified 4chan.
Deletion is not easy. It may be quick, sometimes, just as content creation can be, and it may be easy on occasion, as content creation can be, but generally speaking it is not easy. It involves making difficult decisions and enduring hostile, often irrational opposition and criticism. To be completely honest, I don't find your blanket opposition to the idea of deletion helpful in an editor review. If you wish to criticise the manner in which I participate in the deletion process, as you did at the AfD, then please do; it is constructive. Simply telling everyone who participates in deletion, however, isn't going to make the process any more effective or efficient. If a demolition engineer asked you for feedback, you wouldn't tell him to become a better architect.
I don't consider myself a deletionist. It's true that I participate in a lot of deletion work but I would say my threshold for inclusion is lower than most. In addition, my content creations may be few, but they do exist. In future, if you wish to give me, or anyone else for that matter, negative feedback, I would prefer if you did it in a way which helped me to improve, rather than telling me in a round-about way to give up and get lost. If you have any helpful suggestions, I'm always open to them. Regards Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about having added to a closed review, I had misread the note on your talk page and thought that your editor review was due to be closed on the 26th of this month, rather than last month - I didn't realize that review pages don't get closure notices placed on them like AfDs do.
I didn't tell you to get lost, and explicitly said that I hadn't seen what I was describing in your editing history; to quote myself, "you ought to put a fair percentage of your time into creating content to Wikipedia standards if you are also going to be spending lots of effort evaluating and deleting the work of others." Fully conditional and not under any reading saying you must spend all your time creating content - by all means devote yourself to trimming policy-violating material out of the encyclopedia, but I personally think it's a bad thing when people who are focused on deleting others' work always have the time to improve an article or the encyclopedia overall by deleting a bunch of stuff, but never seem to have enough time to work similar improvements by preserving others' material and spending a few minutes or hours doing research and writing. The tendency in the project to judge editors' efforts by the number of edits the system has recorded reinforces bad habits like that, so I think it's important to say these things out loud at every opportunity.
If you would like me to make a further comment in the review re-emphasizing that this was advice responding to your stated goals and interests in the project rather than the result of a thorough evaluation of your editing history, I'd be entirely willing to.
Actually carrying out guidelines and policies via deletion is certainly important, but creating AfDs under false pretenses (or at least pretenses that can be seen as false if any effort is spent actually researching the topic, such as the AfD we interacted over where three sentences of information clearly not novel at all and published elsewhere were nominated as original research), then dropping the original nominating rationale when it is challenged and tossing out any alternative rationale that can be found is in my experience an indicator that the nominator has gone beyond concerns about policy and are in the realm of pursuing deletions to suit their own personal preferences about article length, importance of topics, and other frequently cosmetic things.
This is an extremely asymmetrical struggle because something that can take hours of effort in tracking down sources and composing prose can be deleted in the flick of the wrist. The policies are there for good reasons and it shouldn't be taken lightly when they or Wikipedia processes are being used as a smoke screen for some editors to just get their own way. It shouldn't be easy or painless to eliminate from the encyclopedia material that isn't violating policy and simply does not agree with some editor's taste. (Though unfortunately, for all but the most closely-watched articles, it usually is pretty easy and painless.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Per your argument that "it does not make any sense to illustrate the pronunciation that someone unfamiliar with a place name would guess", we shouldn't have the pronunciation here, since it's just "new" plus "hampshire" and thus trivial to guess. I actually don't have a problem with keeping the pronunciation, but we have a user edit warring over the wrong pronunciation (that of "noo hampshire"). Since it isn't really needed, I figured deletion was better than that ridiculous edit war. However, if you're willing to protect the general English pronunciation, in keeping with the thousands of other articles with pronunciations that follow WP:PRON (that is, as "new hampshire"), I'd be happy to revert myself. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, local accents do not affect the pronunciation of the state's name, as you put it in your edit summary. They are just the local pronunciation. Outsiders may or may not accommodate the local pronunciation, but either way that is what we put in our articles unless we specify differently. The contrary argument is like arguing that Paris is pronounced "pair-REE" or that Mexico is pronounced "MAY-hee-koh". — kwami (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
You obviously, completely intentionally refrained from mentioning anything about local pronunciation as you began participating in what you yourself refer to as an edit war over how to document the prounciation of the "New" syllable in these state names and you tried to segregate the discussion of this to my personal talk page rather than the article talk despite the fact that you'd previously tried to make the same changes to the New Hampshire article and been reverted for the same reasons, which I do not at all believe were unknown to you.
Splitting hairs about "miscorrection" and whether or not accents affect pronunciation are not measures that are going to convince me of good faith or professionalism on your part or that this has been anything other than an exercise in self-aggrandization and reveling in getting to push other people around by citing guidelines. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂17:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No, this is about consistency across the encyclopedia against people who want to create their own little walled gardens, where readers from other countries are not welcome. I don't care which nationalism you're pushing, none of it is appropriate. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, please. Correctly documenting how place names are pronounced is not any form of nationalism, in fact if anything trying to replace the actual pronunciation of place names with some Britain-centered "general" pronunciation that is undoubtedly not actually calculated from the average pronunciation of speakers of English in the 21st century as a global lingua franca is nationalism. Sorry, but that does nothing to justify or distract from your deceptive interaction with other editors.
It did not entirely escape my attention that you've made more than half of all of the edits in the last several years to the guideline that you've been trying to pass off as "consensus" without mentioning how much of it is your handiwork. Writing the rules yourself and then trying to insist they're the only standard your behavior can be judged with is just about the oldest trick in the book. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Demanding that other nations follow yours, as by pushing a pronunciation that is incorrect for them because it's correct for you, certainly is nationalistic. Britain-centered? Nationalist Brits complain that it's American-centered. It was a linguistically based *compromise*, designed so that it would be unambiguous for both GA and RP. But I'm sure some day you'll be able to convince those silly English to give up their accents and speak proper American. Maybe we can get them to give up the metric system too. — kwami (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, the fact that you are unable to even acknowledge that the actual way the inhabitants of a place pronounce that place's name is at the very least one correct pronunciation among several demonstrates how completely ridiculous your position is and that there's no way it actually is the consensus among Wikipedia editors.
It is indeed the case that the people living in India or England or Wales or Canada or Kenya or Singapore or New Zealand or Jamaica, and in the United States, should be followed in pronouncing the names of the places they live in because they are each authorities on those things. The fact that you're trying to portray it as making you a victim of some sort of imperialism and somehow overriding the way you want to speak English if those pronunciations are actually documented in Wikipedia articles is just further evidence of how replete with deception and misdirection your efforts to "correct" these articles have been. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂18:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Which several pronunciations? AFAICT, there is only one pronunciation, assuming you account for the accent of the speaker, which we explicitly do here on WP. We don't need to teach New Hampshirites their own accent, and we have no business telling others to adopt a New Hampshirite accent. The fact that you don't seem able to understand that, and attribute your lack of understanding to deception on my part, is just sad. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You present your own "correct" pronunciation and also refer to "a pronunciation that is incorrect". So there are at least two pronunciations according to the way that you yourself are using the term. You would appear to be having difficulty understanding yourself.
If documenting a way to pronounce a name were "telling others to adopt an accent" then you of course would be doing exactly the same thing you're claiming is so sad. But these other shenanigans - trying to pretend there's no difference between description and prescription so that you can further pretend that you are being victimized by nationalism because someone is disagreeing with you, or trying to trick people into thinking that your personal preferences are an unquestionable gestalt authority out of fear that your personal authority or command of the subject will be inadequate to get your way in the matter - pretty well trump any sadness that could be portrayed through a purported misunderstanding of linguistics so I can appreciate why you feel the necessity to scrape around and contrive a way to accuse others of a paucity of character. I don't think you're going to get the sort of acknowledgement you feel you need by coming back here to my talk page again and again, though. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂02:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course I'm not going to get any acknowledgement from you, since you have no interest in understanding the transcription used on WP. But I do find it amazing that you're accusing me of trying to "trick" people when I say that the word "new" in "New Hampshire" is pronounced "new". Not that we have a misunderstanding, no: that I've hatched an evil plot to change the name from "New Hampshire" to "New Hampshire". — kwami (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Shanxi Jerry Medical Instrument Company logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Shanxi Jerry Medical Instrument Company logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Conheim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JayJayWhat did I do?03:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the linked RFC discussion actually has the consequence of, or even represents consensus about, banning the use of Wikidata outside of infoboxes; it would be put into a policy if that were true. In any case, though, the concerns behind Magioladitis' edits to Thomas Dreier seem reasonable; thank you for explaining your rationale. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂18:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yea, documentation on how Wikidata things "should" work is sparse. Interwiki links are pretty well explained, but that is about the only thing. RFCs are how consensus gets decided, but I also agree with your rationale. The RFC is linked from Wikipedia:Wikidata and it "describes communal consensus". So, I wouldn't be adding wikidata links to the body of the article. I wish "they" would make up their mind and either use Wikidata or not, but not the endless holding pattern we are currently in. If Wikdata is to be used, have a bot put the Wikidata properties in Infoboxes and remove persondata. Sigh... Bgwhite (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, having worked on developing similar software myself it makes sense to me that it's slow going. I think that taking things slowly and seeing what happens as people experiment with integrating Wikidata and Wikipedia, especially with the advent of the visual editor option and templatedata and all that, is definitely the way to go. Until there's a more polished inclusion syntax I don't think there should be any en masse bot-driven embedding of inline Wikidata but simple use of the #property parser function to drop property values into a page from the corresponding Wikidata node is something it'll be pretty straightforward to do a find-and-replace on at some point in the future when there's an improved syntax or a specific policy. ▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂01:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The guidelines for the notability of books have changed since I created that article, such that presence in major libraries is no longer satisfies the criteria, so I do not object to it being deleted and I've said so on its talk page. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂20:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Pathological Society until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Struthious Bandersnatch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on New Hampshire Institute of Politics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://collegestudentforlife.blogspot.com/2015/03/saint-anselm-college.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk)20:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Struthious Bandersnatch. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Styles Bridges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thanks for reaching out about my recent edit, appreciate it. I restored the quote instead in a note format and placed it there at the end of that particular paragraph where he made that statement (in the Ideology section). To explain my reasoning for removing it in the first place - was because that reference was being used multiple times inline and usually when someone puts a quote in there like that, it's to support something specific they've said, as you noted, that "inflammatory statement". But the quote may not be needed to support the other instances where it's used inline. I hope this is satisfactory, please take a look and let me know. Thanks.Isaidnoway(talk)05:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Struthious Bandersnatch. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Business Journals, Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A&D Company logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SITH(talk)11:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Zhuhai Fornia logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.
If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here
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.
.png){kind=logo}
){kind=link}
