User talk:Czar/2017 Sept–Dec

This page is a selective, manual archive of my talk page. I saved non-notifications that someone may want to access in the future. To find something I haven't archived, try an external search.

The Irishman (2018 film)

Hello, please move Draft:The Irishman (upcoming film) → The Irishman (2018 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 04:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi Czar -- could you do a histmerge of The Irishman (2018 film) and The Irishman (2019 film)? Thanks. NathanielTheBold (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, moved the main article ("2018") to the proper title, but it didn't make sense to histmerge as the older version has recent and parallel history, and better to keep continuity with the main draft's history. Moved the conflicting/undrafted article to "(upcoming film)" instead, if it has anything you'd like to merge/attribute. czar 05:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. NathanielTheBold (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Boy Erased (film)

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Boy Erased (film) → Boy Erased (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 04:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for your advice about reliable sources. I added Destructoid's review to the Farpoit article because it came up in the search bar you recommended.The Editor 155 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Happytime Murders

Hello! Please move Draft:The Happytime Murders → The Happytime Murders — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 18:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to WPVG Batch2

Hi Czar,

We made some changes and improvement in our system, and generated a second batch of recommendations for WPVG. We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.

Extended content

Username Why we recommend this editor First Edit Date Total Edits in ENWP Recent Activity Level Invite Survey Ijackman (talk · contribs) Ijackman just joined Wikipedia and made the first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Sean Plott. 2017-9-14 5 New Editor invite survey Funnyguy18 (talk · contribs) Funnyguy18 just joined Wikipedia and made the first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Metroid. 2017-9-15 1 New Editor invite survey Exwum (talk · contribs) Exwum just joined Wikipedia and made the first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Asphalt 8: Airborne. 2017-9-13 1 New Editor invite survey Funkymonkeybear (talk · contribs) Funkymonkeybear just joined Wikipedia and made the first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Mark Seibert. 2017-9-11 1 New Editor invite survey Gleb95 (talk · contribs) Gleb95 made 24 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2009-8-9 598 Active invite survey Epistolarius (talk · contribs) Epistolarius made 133 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2010-2-5 296 Active invite survey Wario-Man (talk · contribs) Wario-Man made 14 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2012-8-31 10967 Active invite survey 93 (talk · contribs) 93 made 43 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. 2012-8-22 4970 Very Active invite survey Lemaroto (talk · contribs) Lemaroto edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Lemaroto and you project member Anthonymous (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2013-2-12 10108 Very Active invite survey BigGreener (talk · contribs) BigGreener edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, BigGreener and you project member Reach Out to the Truth (talk · contribs) edited 4 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2017-6-26 360 Very Active invite survey MrMarmite (talk · contribs) MrMarmite edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, MrMarmite and you project member Super Badnik (talk · contribs) edited 8 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. 2006-6-7 7680 Active invite survey

Bobo.03 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Czar, Thank you for your help on our study! It's been two batches of recommendations. I have read each of your feedback carefully, and tried to make improvements (some of detailed information, such the type of edits, is hard to identify). I wonder what's your overall thoughts about this recommendation system, and how's your interactions with those editors so far? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Bobo.03 § WPVG editor recommendation

Google books

Hello. I've been wondering. Is it okay to use scans from Google Books for references or do them break copyright violations. I have often seen them used in article so I'm not sure if it's acceptable or not. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Tintor2, yep, courts ruled it legal. GB usually only provides short page previews, though really old texts (in the public domain) will show in full. I don't link when GB only shows "snippets", as that's generally not enough context for more than a brief quote. Scans provided by unofficial sources are generally copyright infringement—being as the copyright holder likely didn't sanction the release—but the Internet Archive is (or did at least was once) exempt from the DMCA for out-of-print documentation, so no one has protested those links. czar 16:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the help at the AFD. I haven't been editing too long and it takes a lot to get my head around all of the processes for each scenario. Again, thanks Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anarcho-authoritarian, de nada and welcome! Reach out if I can be helpful with anything else czar 07:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Backseat (film)

Hello czar! Please do a histmerge of Draft:Backseat (film) → Backseat (film) — And the article was created by copying from the draft. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 20:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 05:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody (film) and other

Hello again! Please do a histmerge of Draft:Bohemian Rhapsody (film) → Bohemian Rhapsody (film) too. Best way would be to remove the first edit from the article, which I made on August 22 creating a redirect, and then merge all edits from the draft to the article history. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Another one is to move Draft:The Equalizer 2 → The Equalizer 2 - Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and please do the histmerges of Draft:Bohemian Rhapsody (film) → Bohemian Rhapsody (film) and then Draft:The Purge 4 → The Purge: The Island — Thanks again. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ yep, was taking a look when you were posting czar 16:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You are the man (or woman), czar! Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs to improve a mess

Hello again! I need you again with the histmerges. Please remove the first two "redirect" edits from Avatar 3 and merge Draft:Avatar 3 into it, then only the first "redirect" edit from Avatar 4 and merge Draft:Avatar 4 into it, and in the last I need you to remove the first two "redirect" edits again from Avatar 5 and merge Draft:Avatar 5. I know it's lengthy but it has t be done soon, editors will be rushing to these articles now as the filming has begun on all films simultaneously. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done. I don't understand why editors are bypassing these drafts. Are there no edit notices (above the edit box) when they're editing over the redirect? (Wikipedia:Editnotice says you could add them yourself if you get the template editor user right.) czar 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I don't understand too. There had been an editnotice especially for drafts, but was deleted after a long discussion. Thanks by the way. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, can you point me to the discussion? I'm curious czar 18:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually I don't remember where it took place but I'll try to find it soon. User talk:Bgwhite was the one who created that editnotice, he was the one who done page moves and histmerges for me in those times. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pages which are redlinked with a draft equivalent show an edit notice. I do not believe redirects do also. --Izno (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, I knew that the edit notice appears when editing redlinks (Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main) but wondered why we aren't encouraging redirects (e.g., a draft is in incubation and the title currently redirects elsewhere) to also have (manual?) edit notices, hence why I'm curious about the discussion to delete such a template czar 19:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi czar. I write to inform you that there is an edit war on Music tracker. Apparently, two editors have broken the 3RR, but since i'm not the one doing it, do i still have to report them at WP:AN/3? Hakken (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hakken, thanks. Doled out some warnings, which will result in blocks if the revert war continues in lieu of the talk page discussion. In the future, feel free to send the edit war warnings yourself with WP:Twinkle (as long as you're not involved) and if admin action is needed, bring it to AN/3 or an online/willing admin czar 21:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. Hakken (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

ATLA

Hi Czar,

I recently added a critical response section to Avatar: The Last Airbender that I'm working on to restore its FA status. I don't have much experience with writing reception sections and I would like to ask if I could receive help or commentary on the talk page (if you wish). -- 1989 15:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Catalan general strike

Can I ask why you believe https://www.marxist.com/catalonia-committees-in-defence-of-the-referendum-are-spreading.htm and https://www.marxist.com/catalonia-prepares-for-mass-strike.htm to be unreliable sources? If it's the political standpoint of the publication then this confuses me as marxists.org and libcom.org are of a similar perspective but are often cited on Wikipedia, many thanks LibrePrincess (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@LibrePrincess, Libcom.org is unreliable too—both should almost always be removed on sight. Wikipedia judges reliability by the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Websites composed of contributions from individuals without editorial oversight are the definition of unreliability. Source partisanship is secondary—once reliability is assured, only neutrality issues remain in balancing the angle against other sources. But there are plenty of reliable, secondary sources on the strike, including newspaper and magazine sources that balance partisan angles for us, so not to worry. I'm in the middle of rewriting/expanding the article and will post soon czar 21:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Diamond Tooth Lil

Hey, I saw you moved the Diamond Tooth Lil draft into your userspace, but I had put a note in the Allen thread today about wanting dibs on that draft (it was at the bottom so probably got missed). I was wondering if you'd be particularly averse to letting me have a crack at the article? I forgot to move it to my own userspace after posting and hadn't had a chance to get back to the article earlier. No big deal if you're set on it but I figured there couldn't be harm in asking. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Premeditated Chaos, didn't see that note—feel free to work on it or move it for solo work, if you prefer czar 07:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a poke at it in your userspace. Thanks :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The Golden Passport

Hello. Thank you for creating The Golden Passport. Are you planning to expand it? I just saw that the dean responded to it.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s, probably not any time soon--go for it (Ideally we'd have a better source for the Dean's response than the student paper though) czar 21:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to focus on the main buildings now. (See Spangler Center.) Not sure I'll read the book.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2

Been long since I haven't worked in a video game article but I tried expanding Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2, while following other good reception sections. Of course the prose is terrible since English is not my native langugage but do you see other issues in the article that could be improved? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, let's take to talk page: #Reception section czar 05:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2 § Reception section

Speedy deletion of Thaiwan?

Hello Czar, I am reaching out to you as your the one who closed this deletion discussion. As it happened it seems the author recreated Thaiwan less than an hour after the AFD was closed on 13 September. Should this article be eligible for speedy deletion, and if so when can it be deleted? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Inter&anthro, that consensus was against the disambiguation page but not necessarily against a redirect. In any event, it wouldn't qualify for "G4" speedy. The phrase appears to be a plausible typo to redirect—the same typo/transliteration is made in a few Google Books hits—but if you could take it to redirects for discussion if you can argue one of these reasons to delete a redirect. In that case, I'd send a courtesy ping to the editors who recently participated. czar 04:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If Beale Street Could Talk

Hi Czar--Could you move Draft: If Beale Street Could Talk (film) to If Beale Street Could Talk (film)? Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, ✓ done czar 23:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing pings

Note to talk page watchers: WP didn't send me notifications for multiple mentions/pings earlier this week, so you might want to try me again if you're waiting on something. czar 02:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Venom (2018 film)

Hello czar! There have been an incident. Please take a look at the histories of 1 and 2. Shirt58 moved the draft to the mainspace but don't know how all the history has been deleted. Could you be able to UNDELETE it? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ fixed czar 16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks man. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin! and Czar: Argh. Sorry about that - entirely my fault. Thanks for your patience and help. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Sutcliffe article

Hello Czar, thanks for your note on Mark Sutcliffe (author, broadcaster, entrepreneur). I'm having a hard time understanding the cause for deletion. There were two articles: Mark Sutcliffe (Ottawa) and Mark Sutcliffe (author). The latter was created by another author and was slated for deletion before I edited it with new content. I thought I could potentially save the article by adding content that I had originally used for Mark Sutcliffe (Ottawa). The content follows wiki guidelines. Now I can;t use the content for any article, which is frustrating. Could you please verify that the deleted article was in fact reviewed accordingly and please let me know why. Thank you. Struttinmystuff (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC) User talk: struttinmystuff

Hi @Struttinmystuff, yes, the article you recreated at Mark Sutcliffe (author, broadcaster, entrepreneur) was a direct duplicate of what you previously wrote at Mark Sutcliffe (Ottawa). Once an article is discussed, as it was in June, we stick with that consensus unless there are reasons or sourcing to do otherwise. In short, we only create separate articles on topics that have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (the link explains more granular detail). Consensus was that Sutcliffe didn't have enough such sources to write an article, but if you have more sources from reliable magazines and newspapers (not local papers, not hobbyist blogs, not affiliated sources) that the discussants happened to miss, you can share them. Also, if you have a conflict of interest (see link), our community requires that you declare any affiliation with the subject, e.g., on the subject's talk page. czar 17:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pull quotes

I've no intention to start an edit war, so I'll refrain from further changes to Blast Corps. I just wanted to note that, in general, consensus is against using pull quotes in article space. See RfCs to avoid pull quotes entirely and to remove tacit support for pull quotes (among others). --Xanzzibar (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite what the discussions say. (1) I'm surprised these weren't listed as centralized discussions, so thanks for the links. (2) Both discussions fully leave pull quote usage to editor discretion. (3) The second discussion belies the first, where there is widespread opposition. The point of the massively underattended second discussion was to remove documentation and thus discourage use through obscurity. Most editors don't care about that, hence why it was only attended by MoS mandarins. But if they come for the pull quote itself, then a las barricadas czar 21:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A pull quote quotes the text already present in the article. Your quotation is not a pull quote because it is not already quoting such text. --Izno (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In magazine publishing, yes, but WP borrows the term to refer to the same set of templates, which we more often use for illustrative/inset quotes than magazine-style repetition of the text. (See the last thread before #Close on the first discussion.) But call it what you want—the main point is to distinguish from mid-paragraph, full-width block quotes. czar 03:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Overwatch team pages on Wikipedia

Hello there. I made a bunch of Wikipedia pages for teams participating in the Overwatch League. They were all deleted under the pretense that nothing is known about them (untrue about literally all of them, though some don't have rosters revealed for example) and that the information can be present in the main OWL page. The latter is completely inconsistent with any and all professional competition pages on Wikipedia (see: NFL, NHL, NBA, or for games specifically LCS, LCK, etc.) where information about the teams, especially in terms of rosters and specific results, are on their own pages. The pages I had created were bare bones, however they were not incorrect and they contained information not present throughout the rest of Wikipedia, and it made no sense to provide all of that information on the OWL article. So I guess what I'm saying is I disagree with your decision that these teams are not independently notable enough to warrant a page of their own and ask you to reconsider.

Not sure how to end entries on users' talk pages, so cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiliPench (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@PhiliPench, they were redirected (not deleted) because they're sourced solely to primary sources, mainly press releases. We only keep separate articles on topics that have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, which that link explains in greater depth, but when publications of repute start covering the team, then you know it's time for separate articles. Wikipedia doesn't predict whether topics will be notable in the future--we can only look at whether it has coverage now. As for this specific case, Dallas Fuel has a history as a team and is sourced accordingly. The others don't. Please revert your edits and work on the topic summary style within the parent article until it's appropriate to spin out the content. czar 23:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Czar, not sure if I'm pinging the right way, but before removing my pages I'd like to respond to your point, each of these teams has received a large degree of independent and what I would imagine is considered reliable coverage. The London team has received coverage in PCGamer, VentureBeat, the Telegraph, and many others. Seoul Dynasty has been covered by ESPN, VentureBeat, the Daily Mail of all places, pretty much all esports-focused websites, and tons of Korean media. The Houston Outlaws and Shanghai Dragons have had similar results, and all four have the obvious boost of local media going on as well.
Then there's for example the Vegas Golden Knights, who had a detailed page many months before their first game, and many months before their roster's announcement. Of course, VGK are a far bigger deal, but the same rules should apply. And speaking of inconsistency, the Dallas Fuel organization has history through Envy's Overwatch roster. The same can be said for Cloud9. The same can be said for the LA Valiant. And obviously the Houston Outlaws and the Seoul Dynasty all have their rosters revealed, with coaches and managers included. I simply haven't yet had the time to expand them to a size at least somewhat closer to the Dallas Fuel page, but there is material enough to do so. There is neither a lack of coverage nor a lack of information to build foundational Wikipedia pages for these OWL teams, in my opinion, and now that I've mostly gotten my "evidence" across I would like to ask again that you reconsider. Of course, it's your decision to make, and whatever it ends up being I'm not planning on being an ass and undoing removals repeatedly. But I hope my thought process seems sensible and logical enough to not remove pages that I don't think need to be removed, especially seeing as how underdeveloped many other esport team pages are in comparison, even with years of history, and how inconsistent I think such a removal would be. Still not sure how to sign off either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiliPench (talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @PhiliPench, you can start by providing those links. Ideally, you could paraphrase them in the existing League article's Teams section. When that section begins to weigh disproportionately within the article, no one will object to splitting the content out. Let me know if you need a hand. Also, while most of the publications you mentioned above are good, avoid the Daily Mail. You can find a list of reliable publications at WP:VG/RS and search with the custom Google search. (By the way, you can use four tildes to sign your posts.) czar 00:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, @Czar. Thanks for the tips and all, once I get enough free time I'll do that and hopefully build enough information to warrant separate pages then. Also, I know to avoid the Daily Mail, no worries (that's why I had that "of all places" there), just gave them as an example of some degree of mainstream coverage (which they are, unfortunately, a part of). PhiliPench (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

First Man

Hi Czar--could you do a histmerge of First Man (film) and Draft:First Man (film)? Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, ✓ done czar 05:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Blast Corps TFA for December 22, 2017

This is to let you know that the Blast Corps article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 22, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 22, 2017.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow "The game's puzzle game mechanics". - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow the change either: "The small development team consisted mainly of recent graduates and was inspired by the puzzle elements of Donkey Kong". I think the problem is that "was inspired by" can mean 4 or 5 different things; try using a different wording. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

New user suggesting being a former admin

Hi Czar,

Question: is it okay for a new user to say that they're a former admin, when there's no proof that they've ever been one? I'm talking about this user page. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Floq has blocked them for incompetence. ;) -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Soetermans, in addition to the abstract advice at ANI, I'd ask whether it's a matter of disruption. If the editor is making good edits, it's likely that the editor would clarify the unsubstantiated claim upon request. But if done to intimidate, the claim is disruptive. If there is no proof in the user's logs, the claim alludes to having prior accounts, which would need to be declared. Either way, it plays out through common sense discussion, and ANI is usually the quickest way to get action when personal intervention fails. czar 16:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Null edits

Hi, this was not a null edit; nor was this. A true WP:NULLEDIT does not show in page history, your contributions, my watchlist, etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't before seen results from simply re-saving the page, but I'll try it and see if it has the same effect as the dummy edit. czar 21:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edson Chagas

The article Edson Chagas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edson Chagas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Weinstein effect

Hello. While I do appreciate your work on the Weinstein effect article, I'm concerned about some links which might be considered easter egg links even though specifics aren't needed for general readers in some articles. Rather than get involved in an edit war, I thought I would discuss the matter here. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably would be better suited for the article's talk page for posterity. I wouldn't consider those Easter egg links because they link precisely to what they describe. For the sake of the prose, though, and especially in an article that can easily become a barrage of names, it's important to preserve the overarching point for a general reader rather than a list of specifics. The name of Weinstein's company, the CEO of Uber (unrelated event) would be examples of specifics not vital to the point. Note that the Easter egg link examples refer to jarring surprises, links without any textual context czar 07:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then. I've now opened up a discussion which can be found at Talk:Weinstein effect#Easter egg links. Maybe we can get some opinions from third-party editors. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline alpha demo is ready for testing

Hello,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hi Czar. Was wondering if you would mind watching User talk:Rhinen#Non-free image use to see how this editor responds. I been through this before with this person here over a different file subsequently re-added to one of the articles it was removed from by an IP, which might just have been a coincidence. Of course, the logos (and corresponding the non-free use rationales) added this time around were likely done in good faith, but this is not the first time this editor has been asked to be a little more careful when it comes to non-free content use and they should've known enough to check to see if the files had been removed by an administrator for a WP:NFCCP-based reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, on my watchlist but give me a heads up if the tendentious editing persists czar 18:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. No further action will hopefully be needed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Reception for video games

You'll no doubt have seen the ping from the Meteos FAC; I've commented there, and your comments would be welcome too. It's been good to see that WP:RECEPTION is starting to get cited for advice on improving these, but you and I do get pinged a fair amount for the diagnosis, and often for the repair work as well. Specifically for video games, do you think there would be any value in offering some kind of class? I know this sets us up as the experts, and others may disagree with that, but let's put that aside for the moment. If someone is nominating video game articles at FAC, and is having trouble with reception sections, we could work with them to show how to fix it -- not doing it ourselves but showing what the steps are, rather like the worked examples in RECEPTION. The end result could be another worked example -- and if we're lucky, an expanding group of editors who can spread the word on how to write these sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, class as in tutorial? I consider your examples at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections already sufficient in demonstrating the difference between "X said Y" and syncretic flow (as long as editors read it...) I'm hesitant to self-appoint as an authority on (or arbiter of) good Reception sections, especially while I refine my own craft and have several old FAs that serve as counter-examples, but I'd be happy to contribute if you have something specific in mind. At the very least, it might make sense to compile a list of recent, decent media reception sections for FAC noms to consider as a baseline. But as I've posted elsewhere, while I try to comment when a FAC's Reception prose appears weak, I'm afraid to be sucked into reviews with the intent to make prose minimally "good enough" rather than "brilliant". As my own editing availability diminishes, I see the trade-off: it's virtuous to share the little that one knows, but not out of proportion with the nom's interest, which is usually much smaller than I anticipate. When I have a single hour to spare, it tends to go further with one of my own projects than in giving advice largely not taken prescriptively and not to heart. czar 17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I meant tutorial: trying to expand the pool of editors who can identify and fix these problems. I agree about self-appointing as an authority but I think the issue is not going to be addressed at FACs for video game reviews until there are actual oppose votes there on the basis of RECEPTION. I also agree that we don't need more worked examples; we need people to understand the issue; and, like you, I prefer to spend time on my own writing when I can. But I hate to see articles get promoted when I think they have significant flaws.

I'll think some more about it; perhaps a post at WT:FAC would stimulate a bit more discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Czar a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Slightlymad 06:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Vangelis

Hi. I write to inform you that the Vangelis article has content that is not accurate. According to a source cited in the article, The Encyclopedia of Film Composers, the Greek composer went to a music school, however Vangelis himself and the studio where he worked at, Nemo Studios, denied this claim and other comments that stated that he had taken piano lessons when he was a kid in some interviews,[1][2] some of which were compilated in a 1994 book titled Vangelis: The Unknown Man according to Amazon reviewers. I would gladly correct this info, but since i'm not a native english speaker and there is a conflict between different sources, i'm not sure what to do and whether i'm adequate for editing this page. With your experience as a Wikipedia editor and admin, i ask you, what do we do in this case? Hakken (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hakken, interesting. You'll want to use the most authoritative source, and if none exist, you would present the information alongside itself, e.g., "Sources conflict as to whether Vangelis attended music school" or, "While source X says he attended music school, source Y refutes it." Having looked at your sources, I'd go back to the encyclopedia source, which is the only refuting reference, and follow its bibliography for the Vangelis entry to see whether another source can confirm the claim. Otherwise, I'd prioritize a fact-checked secondary source over encyclopedias, which have reputations for being written by broad rather than topical experts. I also wouldn't trust that book, personally, based on the untrustworthy appearance of its publisher. czar 22:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:The thing is that the encyclopedia is cited numerous times in the article but, as far as i know, only conflicts with what Vangelis said in the aforementioned interviews. For instance, when asked which reports were true, the ones that claimed that he received piano lessons or the ones that stated that he's self-taught, Vangelis said "The second one, actually. I started very early, around three years old. My parents tried to push me to go to the music school, but they failed. It was just an attempt." And in a The Telegraph article, he confirmed this statement saying "I was lucky not to go because music schools close doors rather than open them," a quote that's currently in the article and that refutes what's being said in the article and enclycopedia. However, removing the encyclopedia wouldn't be an option since doing so would cause some lines to be unreferenced. That said, do we neglect what the author himself says or rely on a source whose content may not be exact? I'm not sure what to do. It doesn't help that my knowledge of English is limited and that there are no major editors working on the page, most of the edits are done by IPs, so there is no way to establish consensus on how to address this question. If you can edit the page using your experience or come up with a way to attract editors to fix those claims, i would be very grateful. Hakken (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hakken, took a stab at a rephrase, reflective of the source and proportionate weight. And left a note on the talk page. Feel free to ping me there if I can be of further assistance. czar 15:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

References

Hi, on page The Black Atlantic, I don't understand the list of references. I did once add an inline citations tag because those aren't references for content in the article but you removed it. I'm trying to work out what it's all about as it's not something I've seen before. thanks Rayman60 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rayman60, it is a bibliography of general references. If preferable, you can title the section "Further reading" since the refs are not all in-use in the article. Articles don't necessarily need inline citations (see WP:GENREF), especially if the only line in the article is a one-sentence lede, as that basic info (subject of the book) could be confirmed in any of the sources. czar 03:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

FAQ about Resource Request

Hi. At WP:RX, are the only requestable resources books, newspapers and journals, not media files like audio commentaries from DVDs? I had to ask before I file a request there. Regards, Slightlymad 06:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad, RX tries to share resources for scholarship within the bounds of fair use and respect to copyright holders, hence why most requests are short scans and brief articles rather than whole volumes. Non-text media also has practical issues: harder to extract/send, and often terrible to reference, especially if the DVD audio commentary is difficult to find and verify. This said, such is the nature of archival work—often better to have obscure refs than no refs at all, but best when a reputable author instead writes a highly available, secondary source under a reputable publisher for us to cite instead. czar 15:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Weinstein effect for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weinstein effect is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weinstein effect 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Overwatch seasonal events

User:Czar/drafts/Overwatch seasonal events - I have fleshed out all the remaining sections, expanded all to proper citations and used list-definitions for them, and otherwise have this cleanup up, up to date. It's not perfect, there's certainly more potential for individual event reception, but we're not missing sources save for one CN about seasonal achievements. I think this is ready to move into mainspace, but as it is your draft to start, I'll let you make the choice if it's ready. --Masem (t) 20:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Masem, appreciate the courtesy but mi draft es tu draft. Definitely ready for mainspace & others—✓ done czar 10:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

File:SegaGenesis-Sonic+Knuckles-locked-on-to-Sonic3.jpg listed for discussion

Hi Czar,

I noticed you're the admin who deleted an image I uploaded that demonstrated how two Sega Genesis cartridges (Sonic Knuckles and Sonic 3) locked together. I believe the deletion was in error and would like to reach a satisfactory agreement with you on it. Locking together is an unusual feature and was particularly noteworthy in such a high profile game as Sonic. As such, it is fair use for an encyclopedia to have such an image for the purposes of discussing the locking feature. If you have suggestions for how I can take a picture that would more clearly not violate copyrights in the future, I'm open to them. What would have kept you from deleting it? Do I need to have better justification for Fair Use in the photo's description? Do I need to photoshop out the entire label or just part of it? (I could put a black bar over Sonic's eyes so no one would recognize him. ;-) Just kidding.) Looking forward to hearing from you. Ben (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hackerb9, I hear you in that the interlocking cartridges is novel and worth displaying if there is an acceptable license. The issue with File:Sega Genesis- Sonic & Knuckles locked on to Sonic3.jpg (as mentioned in the discussion) is that the photo's focus wasn't on the interlocking cartridges but their copyrighted cartridge artwork. The photograph would be acceptable for Wikipedia if the artwork was blacked out and the photographer (copyright holder) were to release the file under a free license (if you're the photographer, would just need to say so). When the copyrighted artwork isn't blacked out, Wikipedia is very stringent about fair use. This all said, the article already has a photo of the cartridge lock mechanism, so not sure the photo in question would be helpful. Perhaps a new photo could improve upon the existing illustration by showing how the cartridges lock into each other and into the console. Haven't looked on Commons if something like that already exists, though. czar 16:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Bear with me (video game)

Hello,

could you please remove the "sysop" protection on Bear with me (video game), since the game has now enough coverage to warrant an article. (reviews, etc.)

Much appreciated,

Kiksam (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kiksam, I'm not sure that it does. What sources, and are they reliable? (See WP:VG/RS for vetted sources rather than random blogs/reviews.) You're welcome to work on the draft in draftspace at Draft:Bear with Me and a reviewer will accept the draft if the sources are adequate. czar 15:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There are a considerable number of sources on Metacritic. Specifically, http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/bear-with-me-episode-1 , http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/bear-with-me , http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/bear-with-me-episode-two , http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/bear-with-me-episode-three As for other sources see: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/07/21/bear-with-me/#more-384347 , http://www.pcgamer.com/bear-with-me-a-noir-teddy-bear-adventure-concludes-in-october/ , http://www.netokracija.com/druga-epizoda-bear-with-me-130781 etc. Kiksam (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's the draft: Draft:Bear with MeKiksam (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kiksam, I had seen those sources but the red flag is that the Metacritic almost exclusively aggregates unreliable or minor reviewers for the game, indicating that it received only minor press. The news sources cited are routine press and repackaged press releases, indicating that the game has not received notable distinction from other games covered in the same outlets. Perhaps it will receive wider coverage in the future now that the full series has been released. czar 16:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This: https://adventuregamers.com/news/view/29069 and https://www.hardcoregamer.com/2016/07/16/episodic-noir-adventure-game-bear-with-me-comes-out-on-august-8/217135/ Does distinction really equate notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiksam (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

In the games press, where press releases are repackaged all day long, yes, it's hard to write an article that does justice to a game if the only sources are low-quality reviews and brief announcement news stories. You're welcome to add an {{AFC draft}} tag (see documentation) to put it through review, if you'd like. czar 16:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert Paul Wolff

Hello Czar,

your October 2 2017‎, 17:45 edit of the article on philosopher Robert Paul Wolff appears to have been referenced here:

http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.de/2017/12/what-is-truth-asked-jesting-pilate.html

I understand that the edit's objective was to deal with the tag asking for missing citations that had existed in previous versions of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Paul_Wolff&action=history

You provided some further references yourself, then proceded to delete most of the article's unsourced content. Wouldn't it be feasible to revert to the October 2, 17:40 version of the article as a basis for further improvement? After all, the post above seems to indicate that Wolff didn't object to the content of the deleted version.

Cheers, Collini (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Collini, thanks for the note. One of Wikipedia's core principles is verifiability, meaning that its contents are sourced to reliable, secondary sources. Since Wikipedia is written by the crowd, it derives its expertise from the quality of the sources it cites rather than the authority of its actual prose. In this case, I added secondary sources (reviews) for many of RPW's books but removed the unsourced information on principle without regard to whether the biography's subject liked the content. If you have reliable, secondary sources from reputable publishers, feel free to restore the text with relevant footnotes or pass the sources along and I'll try to find the time to add the sources myself. czar 16:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

Czar, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

TFA

Thank you for Blast Corps, "a game of creative destruction, to universal acclaim, with one million copies sold"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hi Czar, I hope you have a lovely Christmas and I'm wishing you all the best for the New Year. Thank you for your advice and assistance this year. Best wishes, SarahSV ^(talk) 22:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Signpost

Hello Czar. As I begin drafting an interview for The Rambling Man, would you like to tell me what sort of questions you would prefer to be asked, as you voiced discontent at my interview of Brianboulton. The questions I have for now are at User:Eddie891/sandbox/signpost/interview4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie891 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eddie891, if I recall correctly, I meant that there was opportunity to go further into the craft of writing and bibliography with someone who had written so many FAs, not an indictment on your piece. I'm less familiar with TRM (and featured lists, if that's mostly what TRM does) so wouldn't be interested in the same questions. Is there a summary of TRM's work somewhere? czar 21:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I did not mean to come off so mean, but I merely was wondering what kind of questions you would have liked to have seen additionally. I am new to interviewing, and as such, I am trying to find out how I can improve. TRM is an administrator, but what I would focus on in an interview is their craft of writing FL's. which TRM is one of the top contributors of. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

From TRM themselves: "Well WP:WBFLN, WP:WBFAN for FLs and FAs, I have asked before about GANs and I know I have around 200 of those, but there seems no way of getting a definitive list. I think I have about 60 DYKs too, as well as a couple of four awards and two featured topics. Summary of other contribs? 180k+ edits, former sysop, former 'crat, former FL director, current FL delegate, ardent (hardcore) ERRORS contributor, DYKQ set reviewer, daily OTD reviewer. That's about it I think. " Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I was interested more in a summary of the content rather than the accolades, so as to identify interesting topic areas for probing. For example, which featured topics, which "four awards", themes throughout the 60 DYKs czar 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Peer Review

Hello,

Would you be willing to peer review List of Tau Kappa Epsilon brothers for feedback on becoming a featured list? You can see other details in the entry on the peer review page. Thank you for your consideration. Jmnbqb (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

- Thank you for the review!

Thanks, and best wishes for the coming year

Hi Czar,

Thanks for taking the time to reply at my deletion review. With my mistakes this year, I hope to make amends in 2018. Hope you have a good New Years. Kind regards, soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)