User talk:GRuban/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

March

... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for your help with images, namely Lydia Steier! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Althea Flynt.gif

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Meh; replaced by a different fair-use image. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

List of philanthropists

Greetings, GRuban! You kindly assisted with an edit request of mine at Talk:Michael J. Saylor regarding the Saylor Academy. I also have a request at Talk:List_of_philanthropists#New_addition. I will not be making edits to the article as a result of my conflict of interest. Would you be so kind as to review this request? Thanks in advance for your help!

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been the longest shortest month

I'm pretty sure March will be better. Few things - question 1st...do libraries (Boston Library, for one) allow people to take pictures inside the library? Now for a heads up...there are a few articles sitting in the wings that are pretty close to being ready for GAR. If you're not too busy (here or in RL) when the time comes, I hope you won't mind if I come back to recruit your input. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 05:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Elly Mayday

Hello! Your submission of Elly Mayday at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Raphaëlle Boitel

Hello! Your submission of Raphaëlle Boitel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Elly Mayday

On 28 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elly Mayday, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elly Mayday. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elly Mayday), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for her! - Just found the next one who died, - it's getting overwhelming. I wrote his article, back then, 2010 I believe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, Lee Vilenski, Yoninah, and Materialscientist: 34,666 page views! That qualifies for Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#All-time DYK page view leaders! (Yes, I may be a bit overly excited; no big deal to you DYK regulars, no doubt, but this is only my 9th.) --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Congrats!! Never had that! Good hook, good image, sad story. - I just "finished" the next who died, will nominate, had not even an article, shaking head in disbelief. Can you find an image, perhaps? Hans Günter Nöcker --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ps: when adding her to the stats do it both in March and in the all-time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope I did it right. --GRuban (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My highest is 10k, so this blows me out of the water. Great job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Yes, you did the statistics page correctly; just note that the date it ran is visible in the page stats, not in the DYK archive. The date given in the DYK archive is the midnight after it ran. A minor quirk in the system. Keep up the great work! Yoninah (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ewa Kurek

Thank you for your edit on Ewa Kurek. The current version, the one just restored is mostly defamatory, written in bad faith and for that reason not only heavily biased but simply incorrect. Ewa Kurek is the most most famous (mostly in Poland) Polish-Jewish historian and currently a target of Jewish political activists, especially ADF that openly act on Wikipedia. That's why my previous changes where brought to admin's attention. I am new to Wikipedia. Will check the format of the summary and resubmit my changes. Thanks for the invite to talk to you and for giving me the reason why you reverted the changes. Learning every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcheeks (talk • contribs) 13:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Basically we need to cite reliable sources for everything we write, that's described in Wikipedia:Verifiability. For a controversial figure, there might be sources saying A and others saying B, in which case we generally write both A and B, with citations as to who says what. --GRuban (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Raphaëlle Boitel

On 8 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Raphaëlle Boitel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Raphaëlle Boitel worked as a contortionist street performer at age eight to earn tuition for circus school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Raphaëlle Boitel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Raphaëlle Boitel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for another good one, mentioned in the opera DYK archives now. - See my talk for trust to be an admin (pictured), - last day of a friend's RfA. - Next singer: Jennifer Holloway who doesn't want to be in a box mezzo / soprano. If you can hear her, do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Paul Singer is not a philanthropist

Killing children in west africa is not my idea of a philanthropist, but if you want to support that its on you

https://issuu.com/coldtype/docs/0814.coldtype88.aug2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpjeepy (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Knock-knock

^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Who's there? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

IP. IP who? You should really use the toilet. ( ur edit summary) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User praise:Atsme

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User praise:Atsme, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I admit, I was sort of surprised that even worked. But it's not misinformation or a hoax or what ever else G3 applies to. It's a (hopefully) humorous filling in of a red link. --GRuban (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

, hillarious!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Marta Moreno image

Hi, obviously i have no control over what other wikis use and totally know you are trying to be helpful and add from wikidata, but it's just the wrong individual. I'll have a look at removing it from the central location. The subject of the article looks like this, and there is another notable person of the same name, but it's not her either. So no idea who that actually is. You are probably more familiar with wikidata than me, so if you prefer to disassociate the image from the subject rather than waiting for me to do it, please go ahead. Crowsus (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise how easy it was! Now done. Crowsus (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Relax

Erm, there's no need to redact my talk-page edits, which is usually only done in emergencies. I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not a racist and it's not a racist edit, so calm down. Suborder simian is the lowest common level of humans and Celebes crested macaques, is all; there's such as thing as being overly sensitive, come on now. Anyway I changed "simian" to "primate" altho that's a higher level and a larger grouping, but whatever, hoping that this is a satisfactory compromise. Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Satisfactory compromise, accept you didn't mean to be offensive. --GRuban (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem

Hi!, Nice to meet you, yes, I am yet getting involved in technical issues of Wikipedia, can you please delete that page? I've already done it correctly as seen on the DYK nominations page. Thanks! --LLcentury (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/InvisiblePeople.tv

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 14:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Where the heck is it?

I am working on a new article, but am having difficulty pinpointing a location. Every article about her birth says she was born in "Poczujkach w powiecie skwirskim, w ziemi kijowskiej" (Poczujkach in the Skvyra district, of the Kiev region). Clearly now in Ukraine, but at the time (1866) in the Russian Empire. I cannot find anything in Polish that remotely tells me where that village is but the Russian article on that district pointed me here, where I find in Romanov parish, Pochuiky village (Почуйки село), which seems the most likely candidate. (I looked at all the places in each parish and this one seems the only possibility linguistically, but of course, I could be way off base.) If I am correct on that, then this would seem to indicate that Pochuiky village, which used to be in the Romanov/Romanovskaya parish of Skvyra district the of Kiev province of the Russian Empire is now in the Popilnia Raion, Zhytomyr Oblast, of Ukraine. Does this seem like the logical location and what would be the proper spelling/terms to designate these geographic divisions? The conjugation of nouns as you know stumps me, and I am confused by the different translations I get for Волость, уезд, губерния. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you're writing about Józefa Joteyko! I can confirm you found the village correctly, Pochuiky. Our Ukrainian article on it, https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%83%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%B8#%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%97, specifically states that Тадеуш Йотейко (her brother, the composer https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Joteyko) was born there. We have English language articles about Волость, уезд, губерния, respectively Volost, Uezd, Gubernia or Governorate. They're different sizes of regions, where a volost < uezd < gubernia. You would probably be better off leaving them as those wikilinked terms. A volost was usually several villages, something like an English parish, while a Governorate was quite large, only 20 or so across the whole Russian Empire, many larger than smaller contemporary European countries.

Miscellaneous things I found in my researching your question that may be useful to you:

• Here is a page in English on her that might help a bit: https://books.google.com/books?id=m1RuBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false
• There is a primary school in Krakow named after her, https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/XI_Gimnazjum_i_Liceum_im._J%C3%B3zefy_Joteyko_w_Krakowie, and Wisława Szymborska seems to have gone there 1930-1935. http://www.szymborska.org.pl/clendar.html

Hope I helped. --GRuban (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You are awesome GRuban, that helps a lot. And yes, your sleuthing is correct, she is who I am writing about. Thank you for the additional sources. SusunW (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I finished her and will nominate it for GA as soon as I finish nailing down a couple of photos. In the meantime, I am working on a Bulgarian suffragette. The article was originally written in 2011 and titled as Jeni Bojilova-Pateva. I've written a slew of articles on Russians and other women from parts of the former USSR and think that it should actually be Zheni Bozhilova-Pateva. Both versions occur in English sources. What would your take on the transliteration of Жени Божилова-Патева? And thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@SusunW: Well, I'm not actually fluent in Bulgarian, just Russian. Now the languages are related - I have a fair to middling chance to read simple Bulgarian, and understand the meaning - but don't come to me for correct spelling or grammar or pronunciation. That said, though, we have an article about this! Romanization of Bulgarian. It says that the letter in question is transliterated "ж→ž/zh". Not "j", which is used for й, pronounced as the y in yellow. So, even though my own authority on this is limited, our article seems authoritative. In short, yes, it should be Zheni Bozhilova-Pateva. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. No matter what you may think, you are the expert, as even if you don't know, you know where to look, which is extremely helpful. Now how to figure out how to make a redirect the article and the article title a redirect ;) SusunW (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Awwww

...such a sweet sentiment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you initially intend to write "Oh, you sweet summer child"? --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Summer Rayne Oakes

Hello! Your submission of Summer Rayne Oakes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF bigwigs

Fram has a history of conflict with the WMF officials and their friends. Yes, it looks very much like a case of “some are more equal than others.” Basically, Fram could get away with being snarky until he snarled at the wrong editors. Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ding-ding 🛎 dong-dong 🔔

Anybody home? I need some guidance, please, sir. The painting, Hinks Bull Terrier “Clifton” 1901 - Firechief [1]. Is it a private painting or public domain and can we get a copy for the article, Staffordshire Bull Terrier? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Grr. I wish I could give a better answer, but I'm just going to say that if it is an important picture, I would risk it for a normal article, and face the possibility of losing the argument if the article comes up for FA. Which is not a great answer, I recognize. See, I can't find when the picture was "published", or who drew it. It was almost certainly drawn in in England. List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths#Table_of_copyright_durations_by_country says that in the UK, like in many countries, copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death, or, if the author is unknown, 70 years after publication. If we can establish either publication date or author death date, I'd say there is an excellent chance that one or both would be met, and most reasonable people would agree. The Wikimedia Commons default for images without either one of these is 120 years: under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-assumed, which means that in 2021 we'd be fine anyway. But it's only 2019. So a nitpicking FA reviewer could say we don't have that, but these don't usually venture outside their ivory tower. If it's really important for the article you can always try to use it under fair use, of course. If you do want to risk it, in trying to find either author or publication I did find a larger resolution of the image at https://retrieverman.net/page/198/?chocaid=397 and https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/1901-firechief.jpg. --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, GR - your efforts are much appreciated. I'm still trying to get the timelines straight on the different breeds, and nce that's done, I'll focus on the images. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert Notice at ARCA

	Notice Of All Notices
	GRuban, thank you for participating in my DS Alert proposal at ARCA. Your input did not go unnoticed. The resulting motion has been carried and enacted. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 14:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Drat it, do I need to put up a notice at the top of my talk page not to be notified about discussions about not being notified? You kids nowadays have no respect... --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Summer Rayne Oakes

On 23 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Summer Rayne Oakes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Summer Rayne Oakes has been called "the world's first eco-model" because she only models clothes made from organic or recycled materials? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Summer Rayne Oakes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Summer Rayne Oakes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Uhm...

Are you ready for RfA?? I just went over to your Commons page - you've been busy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Er - um - reasonably soon now (TM and R). Say a few days to weeks. I need to:

1. finish one article I've been working on for a bit that the subject('s dad) has actually sent me free images for;
   •  Done
2. and I really should do a few more WP:ANRFCs if that is going to be my main demo of "admin-like-stuff";
   •  Done, reasonably
3. and I need to find another friendly arb to talk to now that Newyorkbrad has retired;
   •  Done, kind of.
4. and I don't really want to run when 3 (yes 3) people are applying at the same time;
   • Mostly done: there are 2 applicants, but it looks like one is going to drop out or be wp:snow closed.

but you absolutely do have a point, it has been a while, and K and GW have stopped trying to kill each other, so I will get to it. Honest. Thanks for the ping. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

All right, I think I finished my list, updated User:GRuban/RfA. Let me go back to User talk:GRuban/RfA and ping everyone, maybe get some nominators, and go for today or tomorrow. --GRuban (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Swire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New America (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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alina Morse

Hello! Your submission of Alina Morse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SoWhy 07:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Alina Morse

On 28 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alina Morse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that teenage CEO Alina Morse's (pictured) sugar-free candy company had US$6 million in sales when she was thirteen years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alina Morse. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alina Morse), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Valued Picture Barnstar
		For your timely addition of the photo to María José Cristerna‎ while the DYK entry was still on the main page. This is one case where a picture was worth more than a thousand words. Nick Number (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I am so excited

I just created Tuesdee Testa, a female jockey who jumped right into the deep end in a raging current, and pursued her dreams. I never met her in person, but I have read about her and became familiar with her career as a result of mutual FB contacts. Can I lean on you for help again? I need a photo for her infobox - found this website for starters. I've been on and off the puter all day, jiggling between the dog and equine articles, and intend to resume Testa research today. Oh, and before I forget - are you going to WikiConference North America in Boston? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

So sorry. I don't think any of those images are free to reuse; they're newspaper photos from 1968 or 69, when she got famous, so odds are good there is a copyright notice somewhere on that newspaper, which, according to the Hirtle chart referenced by Template:PD-US means copyright should lapse 95 years after publication, so something like 2063. Unless you can get the newspaper to release them, which is not likely. My general go-to for such cases is US federal government images, which are public domain: if you can find there was a time Testa visited the White House and was photographed or videod, that would be a good target to look for, presidents tend to like photo-ops with famous people like that.[2][3] But I admit I've done a quick search for .gov site images and not had luck; but you can try the individual relevant presidential libraries, they don't all use .gov domains, might get lucky. Or if she ever released fan photos and you can find those for sale on eBay or Amazon, and there isn't a copyright notice on either front or the back of those, that often works for movie stars or their studios who tended to release fan photos like that. (Often sellers photograph the front and back of their photos just for this reason.) But the pics that I found on Amazon and eBay seem to be more copies of the newspaper photos. If you feel brave, or lucky, you could try using this one: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tuesdee-Jockey-Gallarush-Racetrack-Horses/dp/B077TXFP84 this is a front-and-back photo, no copyright notice either side, so we might try to claim it was published without copyright. However, it's a compilation of 3 photos from UPI, and I could imagine someone who doesn't like you making the argument that as it's not a fan photo that she had made herself and then published, whoever put the 3 together without a copyright notice might not have had the right to do that. Or you could track down her heirs or family or friends (or heirs of family and friends) and see if they have any photos they took themselves (or inherited), since you have actual contacts there, that might be the most likely course. That worked for me with this Modest Stein picture, posted by his grandson on Flickr under copyright, I asked if he would release it, and he agreed.

Probably not going to attend the Boston thing, even though it is local; I've got a family that I spend time with, and while they indulge my hobby occasionally in spare minutes, actually going to a conference that I pay money for might be a bit much. Why, are you planning to attend? --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The conference is the perfect opportunity to get your family involved - there will be museum trips, and all kinds of activities. I'm bringing cameras, and have every intention of making this a fun trip. Last year's Ohio conference was fun, but I didn't get to spend as much time there as I wanted because my daughter & granddaughter were showing horses at the Congress. Get your family involved, GRuban! As for little Ms Tuesdee, I will keep crawling the internet in hopes of finding something. It is such a hassle to try Fair Use. *sigh* Thank you for trying - it is much appreciated! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Sandra Lerner (Q7549)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sandra Lerner (Q7549). Since you had some involvement with the Sandra Lerner (Q7549) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

RFA

This one has gone south on you. I'd suggest a prompt withdrawal and trying again in a year or two. Best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think a withdrawal would be premature, seeing as the supports still vastly outnumber the opposes. Give it at least a day or two and see how things evolve. If support falls below 60%, then withdrawing starts to make a little more sense. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you getting abused this way. As someone who went through a brutal RfA I have some personal knowledge of how it feels. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you being subjected to "creepy, stalking/harassing" - "creepy" - "creeping, vigorous ninja-like following, and harassment are really fucking weird" & etc. (Amended comment per request.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Might I suggest, Ad Orientem, you lay off the sauce. Cassianto^Talk 11:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Abused"? What on Earth are you babbling on about? Cassianto^Talk 19:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Cass is right that it's not actually abuse; but the expression of sympathy is appreciated, however. Thank you both. --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't withdraw. I don't know how RfA feels ("never want to be one"), but know other feelings of frustration. I supported RexxS and Floq, and both are good admins. I supported Montanabw's, which failed, mostly because of one incident in which she was defending me, making me feel awful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

November

Cassia javanica, Torremolinos
... with thanks from QAI

You didn't listen to me, but gave us a withdrawal statement that made me cry - when I reached the words "good feelings". Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, please don't withdraw. You have been honest to a fault. It is sad that a misunderstanding that took place nearly 2 years ago has been blown out of proportion. If any editor has a concern they should take the time to do their homework and see for themselves. I am still a bit taken back that honest collaboration has been referred to in that manner but oh well, it happens. The editor I know is this one, and even after you were wrongfully taken to task, you stayed true to your principals and looked past it. <--- That is the kind of character I look for in an admin, GRuban. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you tell me what this has got to do with me? Cassianto^Talk 07:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, folks. I appreciate the support and the advice. I was aware it could be rough, I posted a picture of a firing line on User talk:GRuban/RfA, after all. I would not have applied if I didn't think I could take that, and would not have been a very good admin without a bit of thick skin. (It's the thick head that was always an issue!) The community is still deciding, I'll let them decide. I'm here to help the Wikipedia, and if they decide that's best done with the mop, I'll be honored, if not, will keep editing without. --GRuban (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    I'm not going to switch to oppose, but Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates does have two sections entitled "Rebuttals are dangerous", and unfortunately you're finding out the hard way why badgering your opposers is always a bad idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    This is worth bearing in mind - you have very respected active supporters, so it's better to leave discussion to them (and everyone else) and you now have a question which can be utilised in that fashion. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi GRuban. There is some confusion regarding your redaction of your comment on the content of the email. Some people are not aware that you have redacted the content. Per WP:REDACTED (a guideline not a policy, so it is not something you have to do, but something that is regarded as good practise) it is suggested that some indication be given when content is redacted. So, for example, instead of "..." you could have "[content redacted as a courtesy]". Because you have not broken any policy in talking about the content of the email, there will be differences of opinion on your action. I am not in favour of your having talked about the content, but I can see that it is a debatable point, and there will be people who disagree with me. However, we all do need transparency and to be talking about the same issue, and at the moment some people are not aware of the redaction, and so are seeing you merely mentioning the existence of the email, which is not the same issue as talking about the content of the email. Would you consider following WP:REDACTED and making people aware that you having removed some content from your statement on the email? SilkTork (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sure. Better? --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, that's fine. Thank you for doing that. SilkTork (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• RFA is Lord of the Flies writ large and there is blood spilled already and the frenzy is building. As I mentioned in the related thread on Wikipediocracy, sometimes one needs to have the discipline to fold a hand with pocket queens (to preserve the chip stack to play again) and that's really hard to have the discipline to do. I respect the decision to fight on in this RFA, but the trend line is unpromising and folding cards to get out of this hand still seems to me the best play. Good luck with it, no matter which course you decide upon. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Despite currently being a neutral I'd also like to say you definitely shouldn't resign (it's worth noting that controversial RfAs usually actually dip up in the last 24 hours), even if the support % drops further. I hope your thick skin can insulate you against a few of the opposes (and indeed, a neutral) which are particularly unpleasant - thankfully something I was spared even in my reasonably controversial RfA. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  The opposers are being honest, they've been hurt, they don't want to be hurt more. I'm not going to blame them for that. They don't believe in me, that's not a crime. I hope the community as a whole judges my work as a whole worthy. Again, I thank you all for your support. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  I wanted to be in that supporters camp, but in the end could not at this time. I tend to agree that withdrawing would be the good move. A later RfA would go over better after pulling out of this one because of the concerns raised – time for reflection and all that – instead of going to the bitter end. It's better to have more support and trust in a later run than perhaps barely enough to squeak by now, since admins tend to have trust levels in them erode a bit over time unless everything they do is studiously non-controversial. (And you may find, as I did, that after sitting on it for another year or so, you don't want the bit after all. Editorial roles, activities/focuses, and stress levels can change radically after adminship, and many very good content editors like yourself tend to get sucked into administrivia and away from content. I've seen it happen too many times.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• 'In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail)' . Things can change abruptly at RfA, and as long as the score is still in the green, it might just scrape through to a crat chat. My own RfA was contentious (due mainly to a couple of admins telling lies, one of whom has since been desysoped) and I was being advised to withdraw. However, it picked up near the end and I finally passed with what were flying colours in those days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC).
• +1 with Kudpung. Although I failed my first RfA with flying colors, that laid the foundation for me to reflect and improve (to be honest, there are instances when I still fail on those suggestions). Stay on. You've heard the opposing votes. Whatever be the outcome, let the feedback be learning and improving experiences. Lourdes 06:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I forgot to do you the courtesy of leaving a link to the Wikipediocracy thread on your RFA. HERE it is. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Among other things, for using the words "courtesy" and "Wikipediocracy" in the same sentence... --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'd feel obligated to research the old interaction in question before voting, and I don't have the time, so I'm not going to support (at least, not soon, I guess I still have almost 3 days). But (a) you seem to be handling this well, and (b) I disagree with Carrite that withdrawing now would help any future RFA. So if you can tolerate the unpleasantness, I'd stick it out to the end and see what happens. Not sure whether you deserve the opposition or not, but as a recent recipient of it, I can at least empathize. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

At this point it probably doesn't make a lot of difference. Bailing at 85/15 would have allowed a clean restart in twelve months. Carrite (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just wanted to note that your withdrawl is a class act top to bottom and English Wikipedia is lucky to have you as an editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• That was an articulate and classy withdrawal. Thanks for standing for RFA.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Came back to your RfA intending to move my overly harsh oppose to the neutral section and found it withdrawn with a wonderful message. One edit should basically never be a deal breaker, and I've learned a lot from some of your closes. I wish you all the best and hope you apply again in a year and I will happily support. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I have never understood why anyone would ever want to be an admin so I'm not going to say you should try again. If you want to, I'll support you as I have never found you to be other than helpful and civil. SusunW (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I just want to confirm - we've crossed edits I think - there was apparently some sockpuppet contributions to your RfA. Anyhow- we can still close it- I just wanted to confirm given the new development that your withdrawal stands. –xeno^talk 20:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Poor Eric. I am not blaming him - or anyone else, for that matter - for sinking my RfA. The withdrawal stands, and thanks for clerking it. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to serve, and more importantly, for your contributions to the project: I was particularly impressed by the "requested articles" work! –xeno^talk 21:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(It looks as if xeno inadvdertently deloeted my comment. some really strange edit conflict that removed my already posted cmt. Anyway here it is:

Withdrawal

Thanks for the email, George. I would have seen the withdrawal anyway. It's a shame to see your RfA tank, but lets not cry over spilt milk. Neither Lourdes nor I could have known what the major opposer was going to dish up - that kind of research would take literally hours, but shit happens and I'm sure you didn't realise that this skeleton was in your cupboard, and the inevitable pile-on ensued.

During the RfA you did all the right things the wrong way despite some solid advice, but that's the problem - you're a nice guy and the nice people in this life are always the ones who get hurt most. Until someone has the time and courage to propose a reform that will stick, RfA will remain the one venue that users are desperately hanging on to as the place where they can be as unfriendly as possible with (almost) total impunity, and just to put the record straight for anyone reading this and didn't notice, (Personal attack removed) Horncastle is a confirmed sock of none other than Eric Corbett.

There's an interesting thread on my talk page at the moment, not about your RfA, but about RfA in general, but it should probablly take place at WT:RfA where it would get more exposure. I'll list your RfA at WP:RFAADVICE among the other examples of RfAs that went wrong, it might help future candidates.

Anyways, don't get despondent, time can be a great healer and you should be able to consider a new run in about 12 months. Take care. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Really sorry to see you treated this way - I find it sickening to see editors who should know better baying for blood like a pack of wolves and ripping someone to shreds because of incidents in the past. Yes, you made an error of judgement, but as any good admin will agree, who hasn't? But sadly that's the nature of RFA nowadays. Please don't let it get to you - put it behind you, and try again in a few months. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For stepping up at RfA. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes Award

I think they would say yes if you tried again soon. Thanks for stepping up. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

+1

To all the supportive comments above. Your withdrawal statement is very mature and absolutely heartfelt. I'll be around for any assistance. Now is the time to get a couple of your articles up to GA, and if we have the sources, to FA. What do you say? Lourdes 03:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Last comment from me on this, I promise

Try again in approximately 18 months or two years if you think the tools are really necessary, George. Do remember, however, you don't need this sort of validation at all, ever if you're a content person. I ran the gauntlet at RFA once in a really special case. The process was a bit brutal, very uncomfortable, and extremely illuminating — but I knew I wasn't going to have a smooth sail going into it. You, on the other hand, probably felt ambushed with the sudden shrill charges and the lynch mob mentality that erupted. Don't worry too much about it, stuff happens. You've been around WP long enough to have seen it before. (I was trying to get you out of the way of it when I saw the situation unfolding..) The underlying incidents were pretty minor in the big scope of things — it struck me as a masterful job of political score-settling more than anything. Anyway, sorry things transpired the way they did. Run again or don't — but be sure to leave a decent length of time between now and your next run if you do, so that this nonsense becomes ancient history. Happy editing! —tim /// Carrite (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Give it time but run again. Never let one mistake define you! It also struck me as a 'masterful' job of political score-settling. Every good wish and blessing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw a future where GRuban rode a wave of sympathy-support counteracting the ineligible participants’ influence; the fact that GRuban still chose to withdraw is an immense credit to their character. –xeno^talk 15:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, xeno, that once the ineligible participants’ influence had dragged the score to even below the threshold of a 'crat chat, the 'crats wouldn't be able to do much about it. The 'crats would need to be visibly discounting ineligible votes long before that. I know, I know, it's a Catch 22, but food for thought. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You were a bright light in a dark room this week, GRuban. You're already an admin in my eyes. So if you tell me I'm blocked and can't edit for a day, I'll abide by it, even if you don't actually have access to the block button. – Levivich 17:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Your withdrawal statement is wonderful, and it makes me want to support you next time you run. --valereee (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Hey GRuban,

I know we never really have met, but I am sorry for opposing. It was nothing personal and all based on previous experience and judgement. I bet that you trying again in a year or so will go successful. I've been in your shoes and trust me, the pain of an unsuccessful RfA gets better with time. Keep on editing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

To deal with the wikistress you had to deal with on RfA.

DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I had voted neutral waiting for you to answer a question, and when I returned to see the response today, I saw it was withdrawn. I just wanted to let you know that I am happy with the response you gave and if the RfA had been open now, I would have moved to the support side. But I guess, I will now have to wait for few more months to be able to do that. Thank you for your contributions and hope to see you back on RfA again. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Great image!

Thank you today for adding a great image to a singer who impressed me! - Feel free to stalk my user page for singers nominated for DYK (look for "nom"). - In celebratary mood today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do try, but for some reason it's harder than it used to be. The video for this image was just added to Vimeo yesterday. --GRuban (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It decorates my talk nicely, thank you again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Kathrin Göring next, very attractive --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, can't find a free image. There are several for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Katrin_G%C3%B6ring-Eckardt, the politician, but I think she is a different person. --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, she is a different person ;) - I can't believe that we don't have a good one of Stephen Cleobury, - best would be one conducting the choir at the King's Chapel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I used the pic to decorate my talk: Der Ring in Minden finally appeared today, - my opera experience of the year. Part of the hook, "... to listen to the music at the end", would be a good motto ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Re-close a RfC

Hi, you closed this RfC a few months ago.[4] The two most elaborate 'oppose' votes in that thread have been confirmed to be sockpuppets: JBlackCoffee52 and UberVegan. And there are possibly more. Would you consider closing it differently than you did ("no consensus")? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Good question. I've never done that before, but it does seem like a reasonable thing to do. Just in case, though, let me ask the opinion of a few people that might know more about such things: probably the expert on RfC in general and a couple of Arbitrators of my acquaintance. @Cunard, GorillaWarfare, and Worm That Turned: as described above, the two most vocal "oppose" voices in an RfC I closed a few months ago were just blocked as sockpuppets of the same account. Would you agree it is a reasonable idea for me to re-close that RfC based on that? --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi GRuban. Thank you for the ping. In a previous sockpuppetry case, the closing admins of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattie B's Hot Chicken and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taziki's Mediterranean Café changed their closes from "delete" to "no consensus" because of sockpuppetry.

I recommend revising the RfC close if the sockpuppets had a material effect on the discussion: either the sockpuppets' participation tainted the RfC by possibly discouraging other editors from participating or disregarding the sockpuppet contributions would lead to a different consensus. One safe option for a closer is to revise the close from "no consensus owing to divided opinions" to "no consensus owing to the RfC being tainted by sockpuppetry; no prejudice against starting another RfC immediately". This way, another RfC can be held without the taint of sockpuppetry.

Cunard (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cunard and will add that WP:LABEL is very clear, which is what you used as the basis for your close. 2 Socks out of the count should not change the outcome - WP:PAGs come first, not iVote counts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the Arbitrators have better things to do; but Cunard has a good suggestion to reclose with no prejudice against starting another immediately. Will do that. Perhaps some of those who participated have changed their minds, or feel less strongly, or perhaps others who didn't participate at the time may want to weigh in. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 18:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Be well at Christmas

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello GRuban: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10