User talk:Girth Summit/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Can you take a look please

This IP [1] seems to be uplaoding a school report about some young person, I'm not sure how to or whether to tag or revert this type of addition to wikipedia - the exact same information is at Draft:Japhael Abraham and the IP's user talk page. Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 14:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, thanks for brining this to my attention - that was very strange indeed. I deleted the talk page as a CSD U5, and asked an oversighter to deal with the article, since there was so much private information in there. Take a look at WP:OVERSIGHT for how to request this in future. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and information JW 1961 Talk 15:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi. I was wondering if you would be able to train me in the CVU ways please. I'm a fairly experienced editor but i'd honestly say it's probably been a couple of years since i needed to deal with a vandal and it's not an area i have much experience with. I'd like to help out in counter-vandalism and i'd be grateful if you could show me the ropes. I can see you're training someone at the moment, so i understand if you're too busy. Thanks Zindor (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Zindor, hi. From what I can see, you're account was created a couple of months ago, and you've made about 240 edits. You describe yourself as fairly experienced, and say that it's been a couple of years since you needed to deal with a vandal - I assume you used to edit under a different account? Please let me know the name of that account so that I can review your experience to date. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 11:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Close

Hello, seeing if you can close this. Snow keep and nominator just withdrew the nomination. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone else turned up to close it, thanks. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, hey. Yep, looks like it's been put to bed already. Just as an aside, it's probably not best to request a specific individual close a discussion. I mean, there was only one way that particular discussion was ever going to be closed, especially after the nom withdrew, but in a more borderline case you can guarantee that someone will say that the closer was canvassed and the close should be reviewed/overturned. I'm not saying that's what you were doing here - I don't think you'd have had any particular reason for singling me out as someone likely to agree with your position - just food for thought.

How are you doing by the way? I think I saw you mention a covid experience on a noticeboard recently. I know a few people who've had it, and lost a family member to it quite early on in the whole thing - it's a terrible thing if it hits you hard, I hope you're OK now, or at least recovering. Best wishes. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am good. Had four tests so far, 2 positive, June 16, and June 20 then a negative June 11 then a presumptive result June 15. Strange June 15 because I am feeling great. I felt bad for about three weeks, (did not really even edit). Body aches and mild headache, and low grade - 100 fever. I am on many pills for a kidney transplant and had a heart condition in March. So my doctor cut out most of my immune suppression and soon after my fever spiked to 104 and my body defeated it. I had the flu last year and it was significantly worse. However this was no walk in the park. Lightburst (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, doesn't sound like it was much fun, but I'm really glad you're out the other end of it now. Fingers crossed that we're able to keep some level of immunity for a while after having had it... GirthSummit _(blether) 12:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking questions

Hi, @Girth Summit:, hope you're fine. I want to tell you that I'm receiving CVUA training from Puddleglum2.0. I want to ask two questions from you.

1. I want to create an article titled "List of most-viewed Atif Aslam's music videos on YouTube" or "List of Atif Aslam's most-viewed music videos on YouTube" (Atif Aslam is a singer). I've sources for this list too. Can such an article would be acceptable.

1. I've uploaded some photos on commons, but they are deleted. See my commons talk page here. The photos I upload, aren't my work, but are cover photos of songs, albums, films and photos of artists. I don't know why they are deleted. I know it's my mistake, but not know where I made mistake due to which the photos were deleted.

Thank you. Best wishes. Empire AS ^Talk! 06:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS, hi. Regarding CVUA, I hope you're enjoying the course with PG2 - hopefully you won't encounter too many trolls, but you should be aware that it's a possibility. PG2 will, I'm sure, go through what to do in that situation with you, but remember the most important thing is not to engage with them in any way.

Atif Aslam has an article already I see, which has a discography section. I'm not sure what benefit there would be in an article about this most-viewed videos on YouTube - I'm not much of an expert in pop culture articles though, I tend to write about historic buildings and people - are there other, similar articles that you could use as a template?

Re the photos, it looks like they were deleted because of copyright concerns. I'm not a big expert on image copyright stuff, but my understanding is that commons doesn't have a 'fair use' rationale in the same way that EnWiki does - they don't host copyrighted material at all. Perhaps you should reach out to Ravensfire, who nominated them for deletion, to ask about that? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Yes, I'm enjoying my course with PG2. Since now, I haven't faced any type of trolls. I hope not to face any troll in future too. But if I faced, I would report the trolls to you, so that you can take an action. Thank you for your help. Best wishes. Empire AS ^Talk! 14:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do any more. This has been going on for months. I'm being tag-teamed and hounded from article to article by two editors who have made it clear that they don't want me editing on Wikipedia. Our viewpoints may differ, but I try to edit without bias and to use WP:NPOV in my wording. They revert every edit I make, delete reliable sources I use, slant any article that I'm editing to their point of view, constantly tag-team me and use WP:UNCIVIL and condescending tones. All of which I have had to put up with, but following me from article to article, even though these aren't articles they have ever edited before, is clearly WP:HOUNDING. One is Wikiditm, who opened the ANI against me last month that you said was a conduct dispute requiring no sanctions, and the other is Newimpartial, who bullied me so relentlessly in that ANI, to the point of overtly implying that I am like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill Jews (I am a Jew, by the way, so that was exceptionally offensive) and stated that because I said nothing about trans people being killed in a discussion that had nothing to do with that, it meant that I want trans people killed.

I finally let them bully me out of the Linehan RFC because I couldn't take it any more. I walked away, so they immediately followed me to a new article I wrote on gay rights activist and Pride co-founder Fred Sargeant, repeating the exact contentious edits they made on the Linehan article that have caused so much dispute. (Newimpartial only showed up in the Linehan article in the first place months ago after I disagreed with their editing on yet another page; they started reverting my edits on the Linehan article, where they had never been before, a day after that dispute). When I object, they profess innocence and claim they have just coincidentally suddenly taken an interest in the same page I happen to be editing.

In the case of the Sargent article, I gave in to Newimpartial, even though they were editing with incorrect sourcing repeatedly, and let them have 90% of the changes they made to the article, in an effort to make peace. Along comes Wikiditm and deletes the 10% I had managed to get in, including my reliable source, and replaces it with heavily biased language calling Sargent "transphobic", etc. in an effort to begin again the entire debate over calling Linehan "anti-transgender" and "transphobic", on yet another page.

They won't quit until they have bullied me off Wikipedia altogether and I don't know what to do. I'm sorry, I'm falling asleep now and have probably done this wrong and won't be back to check until tomorrow, but I had to ask for help because I am at wit's end. Defending myself in the ANI did no good, the RFC did no good, walking away does no good. If nothing else, can they at least be told to stop HOUNDING me around Wikipedia and reverting every reliably-sourced edit I make? Lilipo25 (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't "hounding", nor is it "bullying". I don't speak for any other editor, but Lilipo is a SPA and has been engaged in RIGHTGREATWRONGS POV crusading to whitewash criticism of people engaged in activism against Trans people. I have repeatedly tried to steer Lilipo towards not taking things personally, following WP norms and (yes) compromise, which seemed to have been bearing fruit recently, but when Wikidtm edited in an improved source and added a properly attributed reference to "transphobia" in the article text (as they subsequently explained on Talk), Lilipo's response was to revert, calling the addition (sourced from The Independent) "unsupported", without contributing to the Talk page discussion.

It is difficult to deal with SPAs, and I certainly don't always work at my very best in my attempts to do so. But some editors are so close to certain topics that they simply cannot work in them on WP without running into CIVIL issues, etc. While starting with broader interests, Lilipo's account has recently entirely limited itself to editing on gender identity debates and participants in those debates; it might be best for them to try some other topics, rather than accusing editors who work in these difficult areas of "hounding". Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I don't think your description of Lilipo25 as an SPA is fair, despite their recent editing interests, and I believe that she's editing in good faith. I don't want to get into a dispute about content on a user talk page, but I do note that the Independent article does not (from a quick skim through) actually say that the organisation in question is anti-trans or transphobic - sure, it's got a lurid headline, but it is reporting on other people making that accusation, not saying that the accusation is accurate. Do you think there is any further room for compromise in how that assertion should be worded, based on that? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do think there is further room for compromise, but not through the removal of The Independent as a source. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is really disappointing to see. I have approached you with infinite patience and civility, in the face of a level of antagonism which I think is unacceptable. Following the ANI, this antagonism has sadly not abated, and has now culminated in a very long serious of false accusations which really does seem to border on WP:PA. The overall thrust, that I have hounded you "from article to article" is false. I think there are only two articles on the entirety of wikipedia where we have in any way interacted. Further, the repeated use of "tag-teaming" clearly implies that I am colluding or communicating in some manner with Newimpartial, which again is false. The claim I "revert every edit you make" is false. Looking through my contribs, I couldn't actually find a single time I've reverted an edit you made, though it may well have happened. In contrast, here are two recent examples where you reverted my edits. Of course, this is fine. Every user has a right to do this, but this pattern of doing one thing and then accusing someone else of doing it is sadly much too prevalent. The claim that I "delete reliable sources you use" is false. If I find a better source for a claim, I will swap it out, and one time comes to memory when you had added four sources for a claim, which I trimmed down to the strongest two. I don't think there's been any occasion in which I have unjustifiably removed a source, but if so then that's really a discussion for the relevant page. The claim that I use uncivil or condescending tones is false. Again, I have been infinitely patient in the face of needless hostility. In a recent example I attempted as delicately and tactfully as I could to discourage you from canvassing, which risked harming the quality of discussion on an RfC I had started. Your response was disgraceful, and I think speaks for itself. In another recent example you called my deletion of 6 words in brackets an "egregiously biased edit," and accused me of making an edit which I hadn't made, along with accusing me of using a "tactic of pretending that you are simply difficult." A final recent example which I think is important to include is when you made a false accusation against me but then retracted it. This was very welcome. The accusation that I've "made clear I don't want you editing on wikipedia" is false. I've actually said the opposite on several occasions. I welcome your contributions, but feel much of the conduct is unacceptable. I did not open the ANI with a view to getting you banned or anything like that. Rather, I want to find a way that your contributions to wikipedia can be incorporated productively, without the antagonism and distress that has been caused. With a view to assuming good faith, I'm aware that a lot of what I've written here involves refuting everything that you've said, and so it's important to mention that I am not accusing you of lying. You have had interactions like this with many different editors at this point, accusing us all of mistreating you, and I think you sincerely believe that. In that light, I think the hostility is understandable, but I don't think that makes it excusable. A final point I want to mention is the conspiratorial aspect. I've now been accused of editing on behalf of Stonewall, of being a man (and part of a patriarchal scheme to push women off wikipedia), and now of somehow teaming up with newimpartial to mistreat you. None of these conspiracies are real, but the belief in them gives rise to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which can be really harmful to the site. I really hope this sort of behaviour stops - the nature of false accusations is that it takes you no time or effort to post several of them, but is incredibly effortful and time-consuming for me to respond to.Wikiditm (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to Newimpartial following me from article to article, but you did appear on the Sargeant page, where you have never edited before, to continue the same edit war that went on for months on the Linehan article over your characterization of the LGB Alliance. You edit war by simply deleting reliably-sourced information in order to make the changes you want in articles while discussions are ongoing or after a discussion has completed and a version agreed upon, reverting repeatedly and then dramatically declaring how deeply "disappointed" you are that I'm just so very difficult if I object. I didn't "canvas" on the Linehan RFC, either: you had tagged in only editors who agreed with you and the few of us who already knew about the RFC and had explicitly told you we were going to comment, while leaving out other editors of the article who did not agree with you. I tagged them in, as well, in a response to you but for some reason one of the 'pings' wouldn't go through so I posted a message on that user's Talk telling them I had pinged them and it wasn't going through. Your edit of the Linehan quote was egregiously biased. You removed the six words in a direct quote in which he said trans rights are human rights and claimed it was just to make the quote less "cumbersome", when all it did was make it seem like he was being anti-trans. As for Stonewall, you were repeatedly insisting that we could not include any description of the LGB Alliance that Stonewall disagrees with and removing sourced edits to keep their POV. I asked if you had a WP:COI with Stonewall and you went apoplectic in declaring how this victimized you (and never answered). Wikipedia policy explicitly state that there is nothing uncivil about asking if an editor has a COI.

You are anything but "welcoming" of my contributions, and whether or not you and Newimpartial are in private communication is not the point (and has never been alleged). You are in fact tag-teaming to keep articles biased against organizations and people who support the sex-based rights of women. I compromise and compromise to reach some kind of agreement with one of you, and when one is finally reached with, as on the Sargent article, the other one swoops in and undoes whatever scraps are left of my editing to make it 100% biased in favor of the transactivist viewpoint. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried my best in the last comment to cover as much of the accusations as possible, as calmly as possible, and this is the response. All the accusations here, that I have been edit warring, that I tag only editors who agree with me, that I insist we cannot include descriptions which Stonewall disagree with, that I have been dramatic, gone apoplectic, etc. All these allegations are false, and presented without any justification. Continually making false accusations about another editor is surely an issue. Even if you sincerely believe all of this, please focus on the content rather than the editor.Wikiditm (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You wrote a lengthy attack full of allegations against me and when I defend myself against them, you go to the "I try so hard to be calm and reasonable, and just look at her, talking back!" response yet again. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not "talking back" but making repeated false accusations against me. You have continued to do this, making further accusations on other pages too, claiming that I ignore discussions and admin directions and edit war, hound, and bias articles. All of which is false, none of which was presented with any evidence or justification (because there is none). This behaviour is totally unacceptable and needs to stop. I have absolutely no interest in starting another ANI, but if you continue this barrage of personal attacks then I will have to.Wikiditm (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm Go right ahead and start another ANI. I am not going to be bullied into submission by threats of ANIs from you, Wikiditm. I am more than tired of being threatened with nonsense like this, tag-teamed, and condescended to by you. Go start one and see if it gets you any further than the last one did. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidtm, Lilipo25 we're making progress at the article, by discussing things and working together. It's not easy, but it is a lot easier if we all simply stop commenting on each other. It would be best if we could continue doing that, and drop the other stuff. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this approach of "how about everyone does this" can only really go so far. Abuse needs to be stood up to. I absolutely agree to only focus on the words and not the person. This is all I have ever done. Even in response to the initial post in this thread, I responded to each thing that was said directly. I am not here to be a punching bag.Wikiditm (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, no, you're here to be a punching bag. Punching bags, by and large, don't punch back. But in your comments above, you do not restrict yourself to 'responding to each thing that was said' about your behaviour - a lot of it is criticism of someone else's behaviour. Then they criticise yours again, and you criticise them again, and the whole thing goes nowhere - you're each accusing each other of unacceptable behaviour, and it becomes difficult to get to the bottom of who, if anyone, is the originally injured party. This whole thread is a bunch of people criticising each other's behaviour, it's soaking up your time, and mine, and it's going nowhere. My honest advice to you would be to move on, mindful that it is always better to focus on content, rather than contributors. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope to be able to respond to this in more detail later, but for the time being I want to say that the line "you're here to be a punching bag" is a horrible thing to say to anyone. I'm aware that you maybe don't know I'm a survivor of abuse, but lots of people are, which is why it is better to be very careful over using language like that. It is not anyone's duty to be abused, and we shouldn't expect it, and we shouldn't stand for it. I am here to help build a wikipedia, not to be abused. That line is an incredibly distressing thing to read.Wikiditm (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more than clear to everyone from the context that that was a typo and Girth Summit meant to say "No, you are not here to be a punching bag". Lilipo25 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, ah, shit, that was a typo. It should have read 'you're not here to be a punching bag' - I redrafted that a couple of times, somehow cut the not off. Apologies for any offense, genuinely not my intent GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the typo would have had less impact if the idea behind it hadn't been in the rest of the response also. A "shut up and take it" approach to abuse is really harmful and immoral, and I beg you to reflect on that. I don't know how many times or to how many people you have given this "I think you should just move on" advise to, but it does nothing to stop abuse, and I've seen it embolden abusers. Over the course of the last few months, there have been many, many incidents of Lilipo abusing other members, and at every turn you have sought to present the situation as "six of one half a dozen of the other." On multiple occasions, you have even repeated false claims made by Lilipo against other members, including myself. From what I can see, you haven't on any occasion stood up to or put a stop to it. This is really immoral. Abuse leads women to leave a website. I am not going to be contributing after this, I just can't, and I've noticed that two of Lilipo's other victims have stopped contributing also. Defending abuse and abusers needs to stop, and by inactivity and encouraging victims to "just ignore it" you have repeatedly defended this abuse. Please, please listen and think about this.Wikiditm (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, I'm sorry you feel that way. I agree with you, in the general sense, that abuse has to be stopped, but I'm afraid that I simply can't see this particular case in the same way that you seem to, as a clear case of one person abusing others, rather than a more vexed situation where there are faults on both sides. I never interacted with any of you prior to your original ANI thread, so I came to this from a neutral perspective, and I honestly think that there are things that everyone could have done better, and that tensions were needlessly escalated to the point where multiple people were behaving problematically. In a situation like that, I cannot support sanctioning one person or side, and turning a blind eye to the other, and instead I sought to de-escalate tension and encourage constructive collaboration. If you want to discuss this in detail, I'd be willing to, but you're going to have to be specific about things like instances where I have repeated false claims about other people, because I'm not aware of having done that and I would certainly like to know what you are referring to. Best wishes GirthSummit _(blether) 08:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial reverted my edit again. The Independent is not a "better" source than The Telegraph, which Wikiditm and Newimpartial removed as a source. The Telegraph is a reliable source. This is the Graham Linehan page all over again and is nothing but retaliation for my editing there. Giving up in the RFC isn't enough for them, I have to be punished for disagreeing with them. I already compromised and gave in over and over, but it's never enough. And I am very, very tired of being slandered as an SPA. My 'recent edits' include the articles of authors, the article on the CILIP Carnegie medal, articles on the French and Indian War, gay rights activism, the Oscar Wilde Bookshop and more. Being dismissed as an SPA is false, and frankly, Newimpartial has no room at all to talk on that topic as their sole interest on Wikipedia is transactivism and RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusading against feminist POV in this controversy. Newimpartial has repeatedly been WP:UNCIVIL and this absolutely IS WP:HOUNDING. Neither Newimpartial nor Wikiditm ever edited the Fred Sargeant page before I challenged them in the Linehan RFC. Retaliating against me by following me to other pages I edit just to EDIT WAR is bullying. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I explained, in my edit summary and on the talk page, why The Independent is a better source than the Telegraph for this purpose, and that is the right place to discuss sources.

As far as your developing into a SPA, Lilipo, your last three months of activity on WP show something like a dozen edits that were unrelated to "gender critical" anti-trans activists, out of three hundred some. That counts as SPA AFAICT.

As far as your retaliatory accusation tht my sole interest on Wikipedia is transaction and RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusading against feminist POV in this controversy, I would say the following:

(1) my POV in this controversy agrees with most feminists and feminist organizations;

(2) I do not edit primarily from (much less to impose) any POV in these discussions, but try to include the best available sources and keep all statements in WP articles to NPOV;

(3) I edit in a number of other areas on WP, such as Conspiracy theory and White supremacy-related articles (including Fox News and OANN) during the last three months, and gaming-related areas (including deletion discussions) that have nothing to do with this controversy, over a much longer time frame.

So I wish Lilipo would stop making provably false and incendiary statements whenever they are feeling defensive; I still recall this discussion with Lilipo, in which - while I certainly expressed frustration on my part - Lilipo unleashed the longest series of unsubstantiated accusations to which I have ever been subject on WP. In that context, their accusations of slander and bullying on this occasion form a pattern that has much more to do with Lilipo than the specific situation here or the other editors with which they interact, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have BEEN discussing it on the Talk page, where Girth Summit explicitly told us to stop reverting and discuss to find a compromise. And you ignored that, continued to revert anyway, and just went ahead and rewrote the section to your liking.

You say frequently that your POV is the one "most feminists" have, which is unproven and simply meant to dismiss the POV of women and their allies and organizations which support women's sex-based rights.

I do hope you enjoyed combing through my contributions and counting exactly how many edits I make on various subjects and that you've found at least a few new places where you can continue HOUNDING me from article to article. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be snide, Lilipo. I have no interest in your editing, apart from your insertion of "gender-critical" POV and adjacent issues. Otherwise you can edit away as far as I am concerned.

Reliable sources have documented that most feminist organizations are trans-inclusionary; citing this fact (and I have provided the sources for it elsewhere on WP) is not "simply meant to dismiss the POV of women and their allies and organizations which support women's sex-based rights". Most feminist women and their organizations are allied with trans and LGBTQ people in the pursuit of women's rights; it is a small minority (and mostly in the UK) that take trans-exclusionary positions and pursue sex-based as opposed to gender-based mobilization. This is simply reality, and none of your IDONTHEARTHAT rhetoric on the "other side" will change reality. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Mind intervening

Hello Girth, I entered into a conversation with this user about CSD. I just added a CSD tag for an article without any content, because it didnt have any. The user has now started attacking how i use my username and other stuff. I only wanted to solve the issue but he may be going overboard. Thanks Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris, I'll need to look at the context - what was the article? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, this, he had previously moved it to draft and it seemed like it was recreated but had nothing in it so I tagged it for for CSD under A3. He then reverts it and indicates a R2. That was not the problem, after reversion indicates in the edit summary as vandalism, so I approach him and redirect him to WP:VANDALISM, to see what is and what is not vandalism. I just wanted to reconcile and maybe clarify. He then turns into Battleground Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris, OK - I can see what happened. I think that there are things that both of you could have done better there - I'll drop a note at their talk page outlining my take on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Okay. Thank you :) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Hello Girth, just to notify you that i am through with the exam, sorry for taking a long time, apparently i have been caught up with really nasty situations in real life. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Bolali

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Cahk, yep, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No one's responding to AIV...?

Hi, I noticed you on the active admins list page, which I looked for since others and I have been reverting one vandal for around 40 minutes non-stop, with no response from AIV. Take a look at the history for Planetarium Manager, its becoming seriously tedious and annoying to deal with, hope you can do something. Thanks! GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

GN-z11, wow - that must have been tedious, thanks for keeping on top of it - afraid I was away from my screen there for a bit, I see someone has dealt with it now. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Might be interested

Recreated here Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris, thanks. It's not as obviously spammy as the previous version - I might decline your G11, but draftify it until they can come up with some independent sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review request

Hello. John Milburn recently did a peer review for the article on the Biblioteca Marciana (WP: Peer_review/Biblioteca_Marciana/archive1) and suggested that I contact you for further guidance prior to nominating the page for FAC. The article is currently a Good Article.

The Biblioteca Marciana is one of Venice's foremost monuments with a long history, an imposing building, and lavish art. My goal is to have the article promoted to FA and then nominate it for TFA on 25 March 2021 when Venice will celebrate its 1600th anniversary from the date of its legendary foundation on 25 March 421. The Marciana Library is ideally suited to commemorate the event since it is the only institution founded by the Venetian government that survives and continues to function today. I would like the article to present and cover all of the relevant information in a clear and meaningful manner, both for casual and advanced readers, and would appreciate any guidance and/or suggestions to further improve the article and make it a thorough source for information about the library.Venicescapes (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, hi - thanks for reaching out. I just took a skim through the article, it's fascinating, and those drawings are fantastic - are they really your own work, how did you create them?! I'll try to find some time to read it closely, and also to read through the Peer Review discussion as well. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for whatever time you can dedicate and for your willingness to review the article. The images were scanned from old texts and then elaborated in Corel Paint ... a great deal of copying, cutting, moving, colouring, and pasting. I felt they were needed to explain some of the architectural aspects.Venicescapes (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings from Venice. I hope all is well. I’ve made some more progress on preparing the article on the Biblioteca Marciana for FAC. Since this is my first experience with the nomination process … for me a little daunting … I would be very grateful for whatever suggestions/observations/corrections you might have. If none, please let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes, I'm really sorry to have left you hanging for so long about this. It's been at the back of my mind to take a proper look at it, but I'm afraid that real life has got in the way a bit, alongside some on-wiki stuff, and I haven't had mental space to devote to reading through such a long, and already excellent, article to look for things I might want to improve about it. I will try to find time in the coming days to take a look at it, but don't wait for me - if other people are telling you the article is ready, it probably is! GirthSummit _(blether) 12:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem. I realize that this is a courtesy and that real life also needs a little attention. Thank you for your time.Venicescapes (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, I just wanted to bring you up to date and let you know that I nominated the article on the Biblioteca Marciana for FA. Fingers crossed.Venicescapes (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, hello again. So, I've twice now promised to read through the article, and twice let you down - apologies! I will definitely look through as part of the FAC process, and make some comments on the nomination - I hope to be able to support, from what I've read so far it was an excellent article. Good luck! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Ai Ridoy

Hi Girth Summit, you gave this user a warning about re-creating their promotional user page some weeks ago, they have re-created with similar content twice in the last couple of days, perhaps you might take a look and see if any more than just CSD U5 each time is required. Thanks JW 1961 Talk 12:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, agreed - blocked as not here. The only edits they've made since creating the account are to add their social media accounts to their userpage - they don't seem to have any interest in actually building an encyclopedia. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that might be the case alright JW 1961 Talk 17:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please help me

I was patrolling RC when I discovered an IP making a change to Missing in action, they randomly changed numbers in the article. I was about to revert when I looked at the history and saw the entire history was covered by IP edits changing numbers, I'm not sure which is the last good version anymore. Sincerely,CompassOwl (talk to me!) 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

CompassOwl, if in doubt, check the sources yourself. I think that person editing through that IP was acting in good faith to update the figures in the article - I don't understand why you reverted them. Note that they were updating the 'access date' field in the reference at the same time as updating the dates and numbers in the body of the text - that's an indication that they're being careful. From a spot check, the IP's numbers match those in the sources - I think they were doing good work to update the numbers in our article with the numbers currently presented at those sources. Sure, they should have used some edit summaries, but you should really look at things like that more carefully before slapping someone with a Level 4 warning. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, can you revert my changes then? I can't because of 3RR. CompassOwl (talk to me!) 17:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

CompassOwl, self-reverts are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR (see the first bullet point of 3RRNO). GirthSummit _(blether) 17:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There's another problem, since one of my reverts was yesterday, and the IP made some other changes in between, so I would have to revert to the version before my first revert which would involve reverting the IP's changes again. Also, thanks for helping me, I wasn't being very careful and screwed up, I will try to be more careful in the future. CompassOwl (talk to me!) 17:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

CompassOwl, well, you could try putting a message on the IP's talk page, apologising for the reverts and inviting them to reinstate - explain that you'd do it yourself, but some intervening edits complicated the history and you don't want to make it any worse. Maybe remove your own warning template while you're at it? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I already removed the warning and apologized, I'll ask them to reinstate the edits. A thing that bothers me though is that the IP has already been warned two times. CompassOwl (talk to me!) 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

CompassOwl, have you looked at whether those warnings were justified? I see that one of the people who left one of them is themselves already blocked. People are sometimes to quick to revert and warn IP editors (although, in this case, the IP isn't helping themselves by failing to use edit summaries). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at them, one of them was made in GF switching the images from right to left the other didn't specify which edit was it. I have another help request: Is this an inappropriate username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CompassOwl (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

They are already blocked. CompassOwl (talk to me!) 18:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ezra Miller

While tossing up whether I should (per BLP) protect Ezra Miller after commenting at talk and reverting an IP just now, I decided it would be simpler to ask you to consider whether you think protection is appropriate in this case. I noticed your name in the protection log so I'm hoping you won't mind having another look. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, hi - I've applied ECP for two weeks for the repeated BLP violations. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks also for the useful comment on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Dunbar (1650)

The article Battle of Dunbar (1650) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Dunbar (1650) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Counter vandalism academy

I want to admit in your counter vandalism unit academy, If you are interested, thanksMinimoto (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Generally, an editor needs to have 200 mainspace edits before enrolling in the CVUA, but it's up to Girth Summit. Sincerely, CompassOwl (talk to me!) 12:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting for your reply Minimoto (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Kakima minimoto, hi, and sorry for the slow response - I've been travelling, and not had much time to look at this. Your account is very new, and I do think it might be a bit early to dive straight into countervandalism work. Can I suggest that you take a look at WP:ADVENTURE, which will help you learn more about editing in general, and come back in a few weeks if you're still interested? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi Girth Summit. Could you compare the deleted page User:Fixnix/sandbox to the page User:FreshGRC/sandbox? I have a hunch that these two accounts are related; if not outright WP:SOCKs then perhaps WP:MEATs. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

These are both names of companies and products: https://www.fixnix.co/freshgrc.html --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - word for word identical. I've deleted and blocked for socking. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Typo?

At ANI you wrote:

"I think that it would inevitably be exceedingly difficult to avoid editing, unconsciously perhaps, with a RGW attitude, and it would perhaps be unusually difficult to see editors who are coming from a different viewpoint as being 'enemies', rather than collaborators."

I think you meant to say

"it would perhaps be unusually difficult to see editors who are coming from a different viewpoint as being collaborators, rather than 'enemies'."

Very helpful post, BTW.

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, thanks - quite right, amended GirthSummit _(blether) 12:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Acupuncture article

I saw that you responded to my request to edit the page on Acupuncture. I read the edit request thread and all of the comments. This article remains incredible biased against acupuncture. Wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL. Using words like pseudoscience and quackery in the first paragraph are not neutral. Regardless of your opinion of acupuncture, this biased language goes against Wikipedia standards. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies of the clinical benefits of acupuncture available on PubMed. I can provide links, but if I'm not allowed to edit the page and you are just going to hold to your opinion that it's quackery, tell me why I should waste my time? You are a scientist, so you know that some studies are inconclusive. There are studies out there that are going to show inconclusive results with acupuncture, and there are studies that are going to show indisputable benefits. This is true for a lot of different research topics and Western medical treatments. If you are looking for a study that supports your opinion, you can find it. And I can provide studies to the contrary. Do you understand that U.S. acupuncture programs are 4 years post-graduate education, some with a doctorate degree? It's a rigorous discipline with strict licensing standards, and used widely in hospitals in China. At the very least, if you don't personally believe in the benefits of Chinese medicine, you can still present the information in an unbiased way. It's extremely unfair for people with a clear bias against Chinese medicine to determine what the Western world gets to see when they look up this page. I'm sure the page on acupuncture in China looks very different than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresmyjesusfish (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wheresmyjesusfish, hi, and thanks for reaching out. Can I ask which of our policies and guidelines have you actually read, which brought you to these conclusions? Please be specific, both as to policy, and as to the sources that you are talking about. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 21:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the policies. The one I'm talking about is Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy. Using the words "psuedoscience" and "quackery" to describe Chinese Medicine is not neutral. You can't make an argument that it is. I have spoken with other acupuncturists who have tried to edit the acupuncture page to be more neutral in the past, and they all said the same thing. The person who is editing this page has made it their mission to discredit Chinese Medicine. Anytime someone edits the page with a more neutral and unbiased view of Chinese Medicine, this guy comes along and changes it back. I don't know if that's you or someone else. It's a losing game, and whoever is doing this is damaging our profession. If acupuncture were quackery, why does the government of China use it as its primary healthcare system for the entire country? Do you really think the communist government of China would spend that much money every year on a system of medicine that was "quackery?" Yes, Chinese Medicine was developed before we had ways to study things according to a Western point of view. But to say that it doesn't work based on those guidelines is racist and incorrect. Plenty of studies have shown the pharmacological actions of Chinese herbs to be in line with how the herbs were used traditionally. Plenty of studies have indisputably proven that acupuncture does in fact work. Just because you don't understand something, or because it doesn't fit within the Western (white) framework of how you view the world, doesn't mean it doesn't work. This is a very narrow worldview. And especially unfair if it's coming from someone who has control over what the world gets to see about acupuncture on Wikipedia. I don't know why you keep insisting that it's not a scientific discipline. There are so many scientific, peer-reviewed studies proving the efficacy of Chinese Medicine. PubMed has plenty of them. But you, or whomever is editing the page to be biased, is not going to care what evidence I present. I could spend days editing the page, sourcing, footnoting, fact-checking, and all my work would be for naught, because it would just be re-edited later by the biased person. You're making this a question of your opinion over fact. And that is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines (NPOV). This is just not OK.Wheresmyjesusfish (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wheresmyjesusfish, I'm afraid that I can't accept your description of the situation as being accurate. Our NPOV policy requires us to describe things in the same terms as the best secondary reliable sources - in this case, from mainstream science. The only thing that people would have to do to change the article would be to demonstrate that mainstream science doesn't see acupuncture as pseudoscientific quackery. You keep alluding to sources, but you have yet to mention any. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Note of appreciation

Thank you for making the effort here to structure your response in a fashion that (despite our being a bit of a ways apart on the actual content issues) not only helped to make my perspective feel respected and valued, but also re-centered discussion on constructive debate on the actual subject matter of the content. Under any circumstances, this manner of courtesy is something I both appreciate and respect immensely, and it was especially welcome in that context. Best wishes until our next shared discussion. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 03:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Snow Rise, you're welcome. FWIW, I thought the preceding reply to you was seriously below par. TLDR is occasionally appropriate when someone is going off on rambling, incoherent rants, but you put together a logical and coherent argument that couldn't have been expressed in a couple of pithy sentences. Nobody is obliged to respond to it, but if they choose to they should have the courtesy to spend a couple of minutes of reading and thinking first. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that as well: I wouldn't have put it any differently myself. I think I would have found that comment a little on the passive-aggressive and inappropriate side whatever the context, but I found it especially problematic with regard to the fact that it was an RfC's proponent addressing a respondent who happened to be !voting against their preferred approach: I really think if one believes an issue is important enough to RfC and call for volunteer attention and effort, they ought to have a pretty high threshold for engagement on the topic and the feedback they receive thereafter--regardless of the position endorsed. But as you say, even once having chosen to exercise their discretion in not reading the response, there was really no productive purpose in responding to it at all, particularly in that manner. But I'll leave it at that and be grateful that the distraction was limited to a couple of posts. Thanks again, and take care. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 10:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind

I don't mind that you pointed out an older, since modified and later deleted, version of the userpage. In fact I almost posted a "to be fair..." comment as well, but decided not to, after Ed6767's persuasive message to drop the matter. However, I would have appreciated if you didn't imply that the older version was something worse than an air command flag still in present use (as to the extent that the current version is "infinitely better"). As a matter of fact, Ivanvector also took an issue with the plane picture itself, and there was a RfC to remove it from the article I had created: Talk:1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash. All of this doesn't really matter or warrant a reply from you, but since people apparently follow this kind of stuff and you commented two minutes after the thread had been closed, with two pings, just wanted to respond. FYI @Levivich:. @Mr rnddude: It was a Fokker D.XXI :-) --Pudeo (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, thanks, and apologies if you thought I was trying to imply something that wasn't there. If you'd care to describe the userbox we're talking about in your own words for the benefit of others that were pinged, I'd be happy for you to do so. If not, happy to let this lie. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and on the timing, I was using Reply Link, and composing my reply when the closure happened. Apparently it ignores closures, and I was a hit embarrassed when the page reloaded and I saw that the discussion was already closed, so apologies for that too. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem about the post mortem. It was an image of that air command flag and the caption detailed my interests in aviation in military history. It noted that the swastika, curiously, is still in in active use by the air force — or something along those lines. Have a nice week. --Pudeo (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Some interesting reading on this: 2018: "Why Finland still uses the swastika", and from last month: "Finland's air force quietly drops swastika symbol". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2020

Delivered August 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

18:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

CVUA request

Hello, Girth! I'm Golden, I'd like to learn about how to counter vandalism properly with your help. I know it says you have zero student slots open currently, but whenever you have a slot open, I'd like to be your student. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, hi. I'll take a look through your contribution history over the next few days and get back to you. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I've taken a look, and I'd be happy to take you through the course once one of my current students gets finished. I'll set the page up and ping you when it's ready. Thanks for your interest in working to keep vandalism off Wikipedia. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much! I'll look forward to your ping. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevance

You removed a section on Institutional racism claiming it is irrelevant to the topic. Please explain how a government policy that lasted for 7 years before being ended by the European high courts decision (that prisoners have a right to know the length of their sentence) is NOT racism perpetrated by laws later deemed to have an excessive effect on minorities; (it is already proven that minorities suffer higher incarceration rates above their percentage of the population in England and wales). From where I sit, what the brits did here in creating open ended laws in terms of sentencing is equal to what they allowed the Navy to do when there was a shortage of volunteers, the policy of Impressment. Both took men away from family, home and freedom involuntarily, and many did not return to the life they had before. The only difference is the IPP sentences were legal, and thus Institutional Racism. Please return the section or edit it, removing it is contested. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

CaptJayRuffins, this discussion should take place on the article talk page, not here - I'll move your comment there and respond to it. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi, @Girth Summit:, Few minutes back i linked an external article in the dishwasher page which you removed. I know i may have made a mistake thats why you removed that link.i m new to wikipedia. Sir for my better understanding can you please help me under that what type of articles i can link to wikipedia so that it can help the readers of wikipedia. I know there are soo many guidelines of wikipedia but i need a human interaction to understand so please can you tell me in few words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modakrm (talk • contribs)

Modakrm hi, thanks for reaching out. There are, indeed, many guidelines, I appreciate that it can be confusing. I'll put a welcome template on your userpage that has links to some of the more important ones. I removed the one that you added because it seems to be a random reviews site - see EL for more information on external links, and see RS for information on how to identify reliable sources. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Religion in Cameroon

Kindly do something about User:Familyleave. He has been vandalizing Cameroon and Religion in Cameroon articles for some time now and recently deleted the entire article without anyone reverting his changes. Regards Epelerenon (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

He/she has started POV pushing again on Cameroon article too. I can't revert the edits in a single go. Epelerenon (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Epelerenon, I've warned them to start using the talk page. Let me know if they keep this up without engaging on talk. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi Girth Summit!

Quick question. You were very helpful in mediating the ANI on Shadybabs yesterday. As of yet we haven't received a reply from them. What is the procedure from here?. My worry is that they will take a break, wipe their talk page, and not acknowledge anything happened. Many thanks in advance Alexandre8 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexandre8, hi. To be honest, given that they've had a block for the edit warring, I'm not going to relitigate that. I don't think that the level of disruption they've caused merits a site ban, and they've had warnings from both me and El C about their conduct. They haven't edited since they last commented, but if they return and start up in the same vein again, let one of us know and we'll deal with it. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok many thanks for the help! Alexandre8 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

person of color

That's an example of usage, rather than a that supports the assertion

can I can a copyedit of that? skakEL 14:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Skakkle, fill your boots! It's missing the word source, my apologies. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

but I do understand the gist. what would qualify as "supports the assertion"? skakEL 14:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Skakkle, a source that said "Chinese Americans are sometimes referred to as people of colour" would be fine, or a source that said "People of colour is a phrase commonly used to refer to Chinese Americans", or some sort of phrasing like that - that would be directly supporting the assertion. Unless I'm missing something, your source used the phrase 'person of colour' about a Chinese American person - that's an example of the phrase being used in that way, but it's not making a statement that supports the statement we want to make. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Skakkle Hi - were you trying to tell me something there? I don't want to make a big deal about those edits, I just didn't want you to spend ages trying to find similar examples for all those different ethnicities listed when really what we want is a source talking about (rather than using) the phrase. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I was trying to tag someone else to view this page. I'mma try again. skakEL 14:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Skakkle, you can just PING them from here, if you like? See how I've typed your username here inside the curly brackets - you can do the same with their username, and provided you remember to sign, they will be notified. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Johnby Hall

On 6 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Johnby Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Johnby Hall, a 16th-century manor house built around a medieval tower, is now a bed and breakfast? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Johnby Hall. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Johnby Hall), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Continue our conversation

I also found an abstract from International Journal of Cardiology that has wikipedia links. Yeah, I agree its not good for Springer publishing and Routledge to publish books that cite wikipedia, as both are academic publishers.

If it is ok with you, I thought maybe we can discuss stuff here? You seem to have been around for longer and I hope talking here can help us understand each other better.

First you indicated that Darwish's book was published by a respectable Thomas Nelson (publisher). TN might be a respectable publisher for Christian perspectives, but would you also consider its works reliable in general, say to be used in the article on evolution? I would think not because its area of expertise is Christianity, not science. In the same vein, I'd argue being an expert on Christianity doesn't make one an expert on Islam related topics.

Secondly, I argued Darwish is WP:QUESTIONABLE because she holds "extremist" views because many sources (including SPLC) have called her of being "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Arab".

Do you think I'm misinterpreting policy in both cases? If so, I would like to understand how. Thanks for your time!VR _talk 16:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, hmm. Perhaps I was a little hasty when I described the as a respectable publisher. They look like that on the face of it, but I agree that it's a bit dubious. The first sentence of their own company profile is Thomas Nelson is a world leading publisher and provider of Christian content. Give me a bit of time to do some more digging/thinking. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw your last comment at RSN. I still have some questions. I understand academic publishers are respectable, but how do you determine a respectable non-academic publisher? Hemiauchenia pointed out non-academic publishers are more interested in popularity and less in accuracy and scholarship.

And secondly, was my thought process correct in terms of arguing Darwish is WP:QUESTIONABLE because of her extremist views? Did I misinterpret policy? VR _talk 18:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, Q1 - all publishers are interested in popularity! Academic ones are commercial entities like any other publisher, they need their stuff to sell. However, they don't want the reputation of their publications to suffer leading to a lack of sales, so they do have an interest in trying to maintain their accuracy. Most regular publishing houses are OK to use, providing the author is writing about something they know about. Here's an example - the Pevsner Architectural Guides used to be published by Penguin. Now the exact same books are reprinted and published by Yale University Press. They haven't become any more, or less, reliable as a result - but the book series has a reputation for quality and accuracy, and the authors know a thing or two about buildings.

Q2: I don't have a view on that. Our article doesn't call her an extremist, it calls her an activist. Can you provide a link to what the SPLC say about her? As an aside, please be aware that WP:BLP policies apply on all pages, including talk pages. Be careful about applying a WP:LABEL to people without robust sources. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Q1, so in the case of Pevsner their reliability came from 1) authors recognized as experts, 2) the books having lots of good reviews, used as textbooks in colleges etc, (I'm assuming that how one determines "reputation"). In that case Penguin neither contributed nor detracted from their reliability, right? That means if a book published by Penguin doesn't have a recognized author and hasn't received any reviews (good or bad), then it would not be considered reliable? OTOH if the same book with an unrecognized author and no reviews gets published by YUP it would be considered reliable?

Ok, I'm sorry if I accidentally violated BLP, I'll be careful and simply quote SPLC's website. An article on SPLC's website called American Freedom Alliance gathering in L.A. showcases leading voices of the anti-Muslim movement says

Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian-born anti-Arab activist on the anti-Muslim circuit, is often touted as an “expert” on Islam.

Another article on their website also said

The event began with anti-Muslim activist Nonie Darwish, head of Former Muslims United (FMU). The group is a project of Pamela’s Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), one of the most known anti-Muslim figures in America and one of the signatories of Biedermann's letter.

VR _talk 18:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, it seems like she's a fairly one-sided figure. If I recall the meat of the discussion though, we're using her for an assertion of fact, not opinion or analysis. If I remember correctly, the assertion that this is supporting is that Khomeini wrote that it was OK for adults to use children for sexual gratification provided there was no penetration. From the discussion at RSN, it doesn't look like there's any real disagreement that he said/wrote that, so we shouldn't be too worried about using a biased source. What's the real concern here - do you think that Khomeini didn't say that? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit actually, my main concern is whether she can be used as a reliable source on Islam related topics, and I'd rather get a firm conclusion on the topic as opposed to coming back to the board in a week with different content sourced to her. See this addition at Al-Azhar University as just as example. Also reliability isn't just used for accuracy, it is also used for WP:DUE. If something that is true but never discussed in any reliable sources, then it shouldn't be on wikipedia, right?

I actually don't know if Khomeini said that. But suppose I believe that someone said something. Could I use un-reliable sources to add it to wikipedia? I would think not. I think its best to first conclude whether Darwish is a reliable source on Islamic jurisprudence or Iran. If anyone has other sources they can present them at Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Even if it is shown that this particular quote by Darwish is supported by reliable sources (and thus far it has not been), it wouldn't automatically mean Darwish is a recognized expert on Islam or Iran, right?VR _talk 13:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, the thing is that we very rarely deem a source reliable or unreliable in such binary terms - in most circumstances, we discuss whether a particular source is reliable for a particular assertion. This comes up a lot with regard to newspapers. Papers like the Times or Guardian in the UK, or the NYT or Washington Post in the US, are seen as being generally reliable for news; they wouldn't be reliable, however, for biomedical assertions, or for assertions of fact about science - for that, we'd look for relevant scholarly work, which is far more likely to have been rigorously checked, and written by someone who knows what they're talking about. Only when a source has repeatedly been shown to print fabrications or misleading information to we label it inherently unreliable, and deprecate it.

On the question of whether the content is due weight, given that this is a section about Women and child rights (there's a section title that could do with some attention...), I'd say that if he did say that, it's due. Is it your contention that the author has, or might have, completely fabricated his having said that? Have you searched for more reliable sources that could be used to support it? Do you speak Farsi, could you check Iranian sources? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm only asking if Darwish is reliable for the field of Islamic jurisprudence. She may still be reliable on Christian topics due to her publisher Thomas Nelson. Why shouldn't wikipedia's coverage of Islamic jurisprudence be subject to the same standards as science where we require scholarly work? There is no shortage of scholarly works on Islamic jurisprudence (or Khomeini). I skimmed Darwish's book, she makes a lot of assertions about Islamic jurisprudence, many are misleading.

Back to Q2, would you agree with me that Darwish's views have been regarded as "extremist" by SPLC, therefore WP:QUESTIONABLE applies? See this other quote by Darwish too.

Regarding Khomeini, I have a number of contentions: Darwish may have fabricated part of the quote, omitted important qualifying information, or simply misunderstood Khomeini. In Islamic jurisprudence, clerics are asked if a certain action is forbidden. If they can't find a prohibition against the action in texts (Quran etc) they say "no". That doesn't mean they "approve" the action. Saying "Khomeini could not find any scriptural prohibition against sex with babies" is a lot different than "Khomeini approved of sex with babies." If this was published by a WP:RS I'd be way more confident that they did their homework. Islamic jurisprudence is a complex field. I looked over Darwish's book and found many misleading statements. I don't speak Farsi or Arabic (the original work is in Arabic).

Regarding WP:DUE, does it not require a viewpoint to be published in a WP:RS? Am I missing something? Also, regarding the section "Women and children's rights", Khomeini had been roundly criticized for his use of child soldiers, so there is plenty of material critical of him for that section from reliable sources. VR _talk 14:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, the honest answer to this is that I don't know enough about the subject matter to express a clear view on that. I wouldn't trust her analysis of sources, and probably wouldn't see an opinion she had expressed about Islamic jurisprudence as being due for inclusion, but looks on the face of it like an assertion of fact - either he said that, or he didn't. I do take your point about the context though, and agree that proclaiming that something is not prohibited by scripture is not the same as saying that one approves of it - that's quite a persuasive point, in my view. I'd suggest looking for more sources covering the material, and seeing whether you can find anything from a more objective source that discusses it in context. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit thanks for your quick reply. Regarding my proposal to make wikipedia's coverage of Islamic jurisprudence be based mostly on scholarship, where can I take this discussion to get more input? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam or somewhere else?

Regarding Darwish, can we conclude she is not a reliable source on this, and reliable sources are needed for the material in question? That would (assuming others agree) allow the discussion to move from WP:RSN to Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini, where we can discuss not just sources but wording etc. I feel the discussion on RSN has become less about Darwish and more about Khomeini and I'm not sure if that's the right place for that.VR _talk 15:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, as I said, I don't feel personally well-placed to make that determination, and since I have commented in the discussion at RSN I am not in a position to close it. You could indeed leave a message at a relevant WikiProject talk page, but you should be careful to make your post neutral in order to avoid concerns about canvassing. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, I appreciate it! Also, you asked me if I spoke Farsi, and I don't, but I know some wikipedians who do, and I have asked one for translations on Shi'ite writings in the past (see this). If I asked them for their opinion in a neutrally worded message, would that violate WP:CANVASS? VR _talk 16:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, no, I think it would be OK, provided you're asking them because of their language skills rather than because you think they are likely to agree with your position. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

deletion of page created by me

Dear Sir,

Thanks for looking with serious concern at the page I created.

With due respect, I created a page Era Tak, and respectively Iwasin the process tomakeit perfect with refrences. since Iamnew to wiki as a contributor, learning the process and policies of wikipedia as well.kindly reconsider deletion of the the page and allow me to make it perfect.

Please guide and encourage me to become a regular and sincere contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.dinesh charan (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Dr.dinesh charan, hi, and thanks for reaching out. So, I deleted the page because there was a discussion about the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Era Tak, which concluded that the subject is not notable according to our guidelines. I did not personally evaluate the article, I reviewed the deletion discussion and determined that, with four people arguing that the sourcing did not establish the subject's notability, and nobody taking the opposing view, there was consensus to delete.

Can you tell me specifically what grounds you have for believing that the subject is notable, according to our guidelines? It might be helpful for you to review WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR first. I you can tell me what criteria you think she passes, and show me two or three really solid sources that establish that to be the case, I'll be happy to turn the deleted article into a draft that you can work on and submit to AfC. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway

The article Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

deletion of the page created by me : Era Tak

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your prompt reply; I sincerely appreciate your concern and time.

With due respect, If you go through yourself the latest version of profile on Wikipedia (recently deleted), its citation and references given, you will believe that she is a multi talented artist who writes, paints and direct films, with more than half a dozen books from prominent Indian publishers and many popular single credited audio series from international audio company to her credit. She has directed short films which are selected /awarded in International film festivals. She is a well known painter, whose work is exhibited and included in the prestigious art galleries of India and abroad.

In my humble yet strong opinion, She adequately qualifies the all basic criteria to have a profile on Wikipedia.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.dinesh charan (talk • contribs) 06:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dr.dinesh charan, hi - sorry for the slow response, I just noticed that you'd added this. Did you read the guidelines I gave you? Please be specific about which criteria you think the subject passes, and which reliable sources support that. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

CVUA

Can I enroll? Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Wiki User the 2nd, hi, thanks for offering to help out with counter vandalism. Something that I always do when an editor asks to enrol on the course is to look through their contribution history, to see whether I think they'd be a good fit for doing counter vandalism work, which requires a high level of care and judgment to do well. I confess that a few things I see in your editing that give me pause. First, I see that you've only made about 250 edits, with only around 40 of them in article space. I also noticed that almost all of your first account's edits had to be oversighted, with their edit summaries redacted - I don't know why that was, but it must have been quite seriously problematic. Then I see some hard-to-interpret comments on other people's user pages, such as this one, and this one. Basically, I'm not sure that you really understand well enough how things work here just yet, and that getting into counter vandalism would not be the right move for you right now. Can I suggest that you try going through the Wikipedia Adventure to learn more about editing, and perhaps then spend a bit of time finding information in good sources that could be used to expand some articles a bit, then come back in a few months if you're still interested in enrolling in the course? Sorry to be negative, I really am trying to act in your best interests here. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rusco Tower

Hello! Your submission of Rusco Tower 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Amkgp 💬 16:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the hook is 220 characters long crossing the outside limit as per WP:DYKHOOK ~ Amkgp 💬 17:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rusco Tower

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rusco Tower you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rusco Tower

The article Rusco Tower you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rusco Tower for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rusco Tower

The article Rusco Tower you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rusco Tower for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Corseyard Farm

On 22 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Corseyard Farm, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the early 20th century near Kirkandrews in Scotland, a herd of twelve cows lived in their own palace? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Corseyard Farm. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Corseyard Farm), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

CVUA notice

Hey Girth, I'm writing to let you know that I won't be able to complete CVUA tasks for the next week as I have a very important exam on 13th. Hope it's okay. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, no worries - you should definitely keep your focus on that exam, the course can wait until you're ready. Good luck with the studying and the exam! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Girth Summit, just notifying you that I'm back and active on Wikipedia again. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 06:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Drdpw WP:HA

Drdpw's WP:harassment has gotten worse since I came back from my self imposed break. User is determined to prevent me from making any edits or participating in any way to the Wiki Project U.S. politics. I do not know the reason for this treatment, but please help me. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, hi, and apologies for the late reply - I've been travelling for a few days, but still not sure how I missed this message. Can you point me at a specific page or pages to review so I can understand what's been going on? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 22:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The most recent issue is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States, but it's just an ongoing thing. I already agreed to not edit the page for Dick Cheney, Edith Wilson, and George H.W. Bush in an attempt to appease the user. It doesn't end. I am not allowed to make even the smallest edit on any U.S. politics page without this user reverting what I do until they bump up against 3RR. I took the self imposed break because I couldn't deal with the harassment while my new meds were stabilizing. I hoped it would just stop when I came back to English Wiki, but that appears to have been wishful thinking. If you would like more examples, I can dig up at least a year of links to this ongoing behavior. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sleyece. So, what I see on Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States is a single instance of them taking a different point of view as you. I can't say that it's not part of a campaign of harassment, but there's nothing there to suggest that it is part of such a campaign. So, I then went over to Dick Cheney, and looked at the history. Going back as far as February I don't see any edits from you, and I was only able to find a single thread where your name came up in the article's talk page archive, from 2016, which didn't involve the person you've accused of harassment. I then looked at Talk:George_H._W._Bush, and I find one discussion that involved the two of you, but it looked like a simple disagreement on whether to include something in an infobox. There was some disruptive editing there, but it didn't come from the editor you've accused - it was from Gnome de Plume and DeliNK, who were both sock puppet accounts of the now-blocked former admin Edgar181, inappropriately voting twice in the same discussion - very sorry that you got caught up in that.

I think that basically, from what I've seen so far, I'm not seeing any harassment of you - I haven't seen anywhere that they've told you not to edit, or attacked you in any way, all I'm seeing is an editor with similar interests to you who sometimes disagrees with you. If there's stuff I'm not seeing, please show me diffs, especially of the edit warring you mentioned ('reverting until they bump up against 3RR'). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's the most recent example of the user bumping 3RR, then stopping to technically avoid a violation. For context, this is only one example of many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office&oldid=952957815 -- Sleyece (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, so, that shows me two people engaging in a bit of mild edit warring with each other. If you really think that there is an issue with harassment you are going to need to put together all the diffs to demonstrate it - it wouldn't be fair of me to simply take your word that it's been on-going for ages, you're going to need to make a case, perhaps at AN/I, where uninvolved editors can examine it. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get AN/I involved. I'm not trying get the other editor in trouble, I just want to be left alone. If you're not willing to help, then I'll just leave it for now. This behavior will only get worse, so I'll bide my time on a more serious attack against me. In the meantime, I'm declaring that any agreement I had with the user is null and void since they have shown no interest in holding up their end of it. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that need's context. I had previously agreed with the user to not edit the article on George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Edith Wilson, in exchange for not being chased across the rest of U.S. politics wiki. I've upheld my end of that until this point. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, I am willing to help, but I can't without a full understanding of the situation. If you want to put together a collection of diffs, I'd be happy to take a look over them, but you must surely see that I can't simply take one editor's word for it that another editor has been harassing them, and you can't expect me to look through the entire histories of multiple pages to look for the evidence myself. Show me what you're talking about, so that I can form a view. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, give me a day or two to get you all of those links. I have 12 hour shift the next two days, and It's going to take me some time to sift through months of edits for everything relevant. I'll get back to you again probably on Friday. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, no worries - take as much time as you need. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, after a thourough review of my contribution history, I couldn't find any examples of the user getting close to 3RR without me also doing the same. At this time, I don't think you need to do anything. I will simply go to the talk page if the user reverts the edits in the future. If that doesn't fix the situation, I'll let you know. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, I think that this is a good decision. Just go ahead with editing the articles that you want to edit, you're not banned from any as far as I can see, and if anyone disagrees with you then talk to them about it instead of reverting. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi, I Want to join WP:CVUA..can you advise me...??-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  14:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Padavalamkuttanpilla, hi, thanks for offering to help out with counter vandalism. I can see that you've had your account for a while now, and you've already made quite a lot of contributions to article space, which is great. Unfortunately, I'm not sure when I'm next going to be able to take on a new trainee - I'm currently on holiday, and the new school term will be starting soon which is likely to make me quite busy in real life. Have you approached one of the other trainers to see if they have capacity, or whether they could add you to their 'waiting lists'? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Hello Girth, it’s been a while now since I finished my CVUA (maybe a month or so). I am through with my NPP schooling and I passed, thanks for your kind advice on my TP that day. I wanted to be of value and help out at CVUA if I have some free time. Since you were my first trainer and mentor on Wikipedia, I wanted to get your opinion if I am ready to become a trial trainer at CVUA. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris, if you'd like to help out in that way, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't - you've probably got a similar amount of experience to what I had when I first volunteered as a trainer. You are welcome to use the material in my CVUA page to help you put together your curriculum. Let me know if you need any help getting started, or if you want a second opinion on anything that comes up. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Macpherson Grant

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 27, 2020. 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/September 27, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thanks for letting me know - I'm very excited. This is my first featured article, I'm not sure what's involved in editing the text that will appear on the main page - I hereby invite SusunW, who wrote a goodly amount of the article, and Gog the Mild, who offered much advice, to poke their respective noses in and either tell me what I'm meant to do, or do it themselves. Much love all round! GirthSummit _(blether) 23:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's entirely up to you. Dank has written many blurbs and does a good job. The more knowledgeable eyes that run over it the better though.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: Dank or someone else has written the main page text (the "blurb"). However, we don't know the subject matter like you do. It's happened that we've made mistakes that have had to be corrected on main page day. To hopefully stop that from happening, we hope the principal editors will look over the blurb. You can edit the blurb directly or you can comment on the talk page. If you edit it directly, try not to make it longer or shorter by more than a few characters because we have a very specific amount of room on the main page. If you are content with the blurb, you don't have to do anything. It is a kick seeing an article one has worked hard on getting to be TFA, I remember how excited I was. I printed out the main page. Congratulations! You did really good work on an important topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, thanks for explaining. From a quick look at what Dank has written it looks good to me, but I'll give it a close read and amend if I think it necessary. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Hope all is well on your side of the pond. I did what you did and made only a few minor changes to what Dank wrote. Congrats! SusunW (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Messaging

Just checking you don't have it set up, correct? Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious (probably am). - Seasider53 (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Seasider53, I'm afraid that I don't know what you're referring to here. What messaging do you mean? I recently reviewed you article Kilbride Bridge, and added a bit of content to it, but I can't see any messages from you that I've missed. I recognise that you're currently blocked, and hope that that will be resolved shortly - as soon as you're back in the saddle, let me know how I can help. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 01:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Court jester

How can one not appreciate the innocence we see in some of our colleagues ? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme ;) GirthSummit _(blether) 13:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit revert

Hi, Girth Summit, hope you're fine. As of now, I haven't faced any trolls. However, the user I reported is continuously making sockpuppets and getting blocked. The reason I came there is that I made an edit in which I fixed refs by equalizing spaces in them and arranging the format of all refs in the same way. See [2] However a user reverted my edit saying that it made no changes in appearance of article, so reverted it. See [3] But I think that there are lot of edits on Wikipedia that don't affect articles' appearance but are constructive and think my edit is also in same category. Thank you. Tears. Empire AS ^Talk! 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS, hi. So, I should probably acknowledge an interest here - the user in question is very well known to me, we've collaborated before on a number of articles together, and we are currently taking an article that we wrote together through FAC - so, I can't pretend to be in a position to offer you uninvolved advice on this. If you'd like my thoughts anyway though, here they are:

To get an article to FA status, you usually go through several stages of review, culminating in the FAC review where perhaps half a dozen experienced editors will go through the article carefully evaluating it against our policies and guidelines. It's a lengthy, painstaking process, and once you've invested the time necessary to do it, it's common to keep an eye on edits to the article in order to maintain it and ensure that people don't make negative changes and degrade the quality of the article. What you did certainly wasn't negative - but, on the other hand, if it didn't affect the appearance of the article in any way, you might argue that it wasn't really a substantive improvement, but edits like that still require time to check and validate. People might get slightly irritated at having to review edits that don't really improve the article.

Don't be upset about it - it's no criticism of you that someone disagrees with you, I often get reverted and have to consider whether I care enough about an issue to start a discussion on the talk page. In this case, I don't think it's worth worrying about. My advice to you in general would be not to make edits that don't affect the way an article is displayed to articles which have been reviewed to that level already - if it was a big deal, it would have been picked up already, and there are plenty of other tasks that always need doing around here which you'd be better spending your time on. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not worried about revert. But the problem is that some refs there were in tidy form, while some were in vertical form. I changed the latter into tidy form to make this order consistent. Therefore, it was constructive that refs have same order of arrangement. Tears. Empire AS ^Talk! 11:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS, sure, I appreciate that, and I don't think your edit was unconstructive in any way - I just mean that if it doesn't affect what the reader sees, changing stuff just adds to the burden of maintaining the article which, as you will see by looking at its history, was receiving quite a lot of vandalism (until I protected it ;)) while it's on the main page. WP:FAOWN is worth looking at as well. I thought you were upset by the interaction because of your sign-off ('tears') - if you're not worried, I'd just move on if I were you. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I can understand. I was just clarifying that why did that happen. But now, I understood. I wasn't upset on your interaction and I'm no more worried. Regarding the word 'tears', I use it at the end of my comments on talk pages for a while as a (I don't know what that is called which is used at the end). But I use it. Here, these were the tears of reason. You would have listened to tears of happiness and sadness but today you listened tears of question. 😁😂 Tears. Empire AS ^Talk! 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway

On 27 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kirkandrews in Dumfries and Galloway used to host an annual fair, dedicated to St Lawrence, that a 17th-century minister complained was full of drink, debauchery, and "great lewdness"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kirkandrews, Dumfries and Galloway), 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) 00:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Violence article

Hey, Girth. Any thoughts on this matter noted at Talk:Violence? You're good with social topics such as this. Violence is also a medical topic, though. Significantly so. I contacted all of the WikiProjects at the top of the talk page, but only a few people have weighed in so far. And one of those people -- the IP -- was already involved. Because of what I stated in my comment in that section, I'm looking to just jump into an RfC. That's certainly more appealing to me than debating the IP hours on end.

If you reply, there's no need to ping me. I'll check back. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again!

I've found my way back to Wikipedia again, and having got my talk page in a tangle with some sockpuppetry, I realise I really ought to complete my CVUA training. I don't suppose you've got any time to help me resharpen my skills and finish the course? (P.S. I see you've been given the tools, congratulations! You're an excellent editor and I'm glad to see your contributions have been recognised by the community)  viljo  ^talk 20:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Viljo, hey - good to see you again! Glad you're planning to get back into CV work - you were good at it. Feel free to pick up where you left off on the training page and ping me from there, or tell me if there's anything you want to go back over. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Is a username of TJ Kaczynski disruptive per se?

Hi Girth,

I noticed User:TJ Kaczynski while doing recent changes patrolling. Is this username a problem? --Slashme (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Slashme, can you explain what might be wring with it? It means nothing to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a reference to Ted Kaczynski. --Slashme (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Slashme, ah, understood. I don't know much about that person, but I would suggest that you make a report at UAA, mentioning the unabomber in your report - more clued-up admins will consider it. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, They're also a sock of a recently blocked user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Information_Masters. Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, it turns out it's a moot point now: indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Thanks for the advice, I'll now know for next time. --Slashme (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dang it - beat my reply by seconds! Tens of seconds, but seconds still! Ravensfire (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ravensfire, Slashme thanks both - seems like a done deal. Keep up the good work... GirthSummit _(blether) 21:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Username

Hi, Girth Summit, I'm here for an opinion. My username is 'Empire AS', you know. But I think many users think that it's name of any organization, company, state or any other project, and I'm not an individual. However, I also don't want to change my username. Would it cause any problem for me? Tears. Empire AS ^Talk! 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Girth Summit:, I'm waiting for your reply. Thanx. Empire AS ^Talk! 06:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS, if it doesn't represent an organisation, there's no reason why you would be required to change it; if you get fed up of people asking you about it though, you can change it if you want to by making a request at WP:UNC. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I'm an individual, not any organization. No user has asked me to change it and I don't really want to change it. I was just worried that whether it would cause problems like block or not? Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS there's no reason it would lead to a block, if you don't want to change it there's no reason why you should. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thank you. I also asked the Gog the Mild about my revert of Battle of crecy and now I'm fully satisfied about that edit. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Girth Summit! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Geograph / Commons, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria. I've started a formal RfC to try to resolve the dispute on what time series databases should be included in the article on them. As someone who's commented in discussions related to this in the past I'm notifying you as a courtesy. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

State religion.

Sir, in India, hinduism is major religion. There are pro hindu laws in India such as ban on cow slaughter. Now, Israel is a secular country. Then why is Israel mentioned in Judaism section on the state religion page. If there is mention of Israel, there should also be mention of India. Anonymous Bond (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous Bond this should be discussed on the article talk page, not an individual user's talk page. I'll move your comment, and reply to it, over there. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

16 Prince Street, Peterhead

The above article has been up for deletion for a few days. Once again strikes the lack of sources on Scottish buildings. If you have any input, chime in. - Seasider53 (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Seasider53, done. I've got the Aberdeenshire North and Moray book to hand - it gives the building its own entry. I don't have the RIAS guide to the region (I've got Moray, but Peterhead is covered by the Banff and Buchan volume, which I don't have), and there are two books in the HES listing's bibliography which one could use. If you like writing about buildings, I'd strongly recommend getting your hands on a copy of the relevant Pevsner guide for the area - they're not cheap to buy new, but you can often pick them up second hand, and they're a great resource both to establish notability and develop content. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the Banff and Buchan one by Charles McKean? Just checking I'm seeing the right one. - Seasider53 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Seasider53, yes, that's the right one. The RIAS ones are quite a bit cheaper than the Pevsner/Buildings of Scotland series, but they're not as comprehensive. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I take it it is correct form to have the article title be the current address of the building, rather than its name when it was notable, if it has had multiple uses since? I haven't been corrected yet, but things change quickly on the Wiki. - Seasider53 (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Seasider53, the policy that covers article titles is WP:AT. The relevant bit of this here is WP:COMMONNAME, which basically tells us to name an article whatever the most widely recognised name for the thing it describes is. Looking at the sources, they all call the building something slightly different, but the common element in the HES Portal, Canmore and the Aberdeenshire Council is "16 Prince Street". Pevsner calls it something different (I don't recall what, I'd have to check), but if 3 out of 4 sources use the address as the name I don't think that would be a controversial choice for the article title. Just to be on the safe side, I've set up a redirect from Chuckney School, so anyone searching for that will find the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Seasider53 Just checked the Pevsner book, it calls it "Former PARISH SCHOOL", mentioning Prince Street but not the number. Taking the four sources overall, I think your choice of article title is the best option, since it's the only thing which is used in as many as three out of four mentions - plus, the listing document on the HES Portal is the closest thing to an 'official' name, so I'd suggest we just stick with that. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Banff and Buchan book is en route to me. Good deal; last one, too. - Seasider53 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Seasider53, nice! I'll drop you a line if I end up writing about a building in that area. Charles McKean was a good guy - my partner is a historian, she knew him, very engaging writer. Hope you get good use out of the book! GirthSummit _(blether) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

		Award for Rescuing an Article from Impending Doom
		Well not really doom, the odds were against me, but with the work you must have put into finding that source in the middle of a pandemic, you more than earned an award. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  10:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks TimothyBlue - that was a very gracious withdrawal, much appreciated. It's tricky with buildings like that - often the only on-line sources are the listing document, Canmore and potentially a local council database, but I've yet to come across a Category B listed building that doesn't have multiple off-line sources, you just need to know where to look. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse ping list

Hello GS, I remember reading somewhere that you are/were an OTRS volunteer; that was probably before your RFA. Is that still the case? And would you be interested in being listed at User:Usedtobecool/Tea, a list intended for use by regular teahouse hosts to make sure no query gets archived unanswered. You are free to add yourself to the list in whichever areas you could help out with if you are interested. I am also looking for recommendations on who else to reach out to, especially for the rows with <=1 editor currently listed. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, hi - I think this is a great initiative, and would love to be able to help out. However, I'm not well placed at present to help with OTRS. I am technically an OTRS volunteer, in that I applied for and was given access a while back, but I'm afraid that when I tried to get my head into it I found the interface very confusing. It's been on my to-do list to learn how to use it properly for over a year, and a couple of people have kindly offered to help me with that, but so far I haven't quite found the time. Feel free to put me down for the admin help and/or the AfC categories though, I think I could contribute usefully in those areas. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool! Will do. Thanks! Could you suggest a few regulars who do have enough experience with OTRS (UTRS too, if you can), so I can reach out to them? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, looking at the overlap between Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts and OTRS Personnel, you could try reaching out to AntiCompositeNumber and/or Dreamy Jazz to see whether either of them would be interested. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the UTRS side of things; you could try speaking to Deepfriedokra, I know he's involved in UTRS. I can't speak for whether any of these folks have the time or inclination, naturally. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Dunbar (1650)

On 3 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Dunbar (1650), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that having routed their Scottish opponents at the Battle of Dunbar 370 years ago today, the cavalry of the English New Model Army sang the 117th Psalm? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Dunbar (1650). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Dunbar (1650)), 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) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Reuben Bredenhof

Does Wikimedia admit the citing of one's own writings as done (in no sneaky way, but openly, honestly) by Reuben Bredenhof in Rich man and Lazarus and later edits? You will know. I don't. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Bealtainemí, in general terms, WP:SELFCITE allows for scholars citing their own work, but one is supposed to do it judiciously, and not give the impression of attempting to WP:CITESPAM. You shouldn't, for example, put the author's subjective interpretation into Wikipedia's voice, it's usually safer to attribute such views to the author. It may be more prudent for edits like that to be suggested as edit requests, rather than made directly by the scholar, if there is any doubt about the motive. I haven't yet searched for scholarly reviews of these particular books to come to a view as to how much weight we should give them, if any, but I'll try to find some time to look into this in more detail. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/197.89.19.68

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

USEr:DonQuixote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:201:5f00:ec26:8007:abd5:de92 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2020

Delivered August 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

22:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your cheerfully collaborative efforts on Battle of Dunbar (1650), and especially for your judicious application of your toe to my bottom. It has been great fun.Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Rusco Tower

On 7 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rusco Tower, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when his widowed mother remarried, James Gordon seized Rusco Tower and imprisoned her there to ensure that she did not make it over to her new husband, whom he later killed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rusco Tower. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rusco Tower), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Templates and vandalism

I will keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for your note. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Me-123567-Me, no worries. Onel is a new page reviewer - as am I, albeit a far less prolific and experienced one than they are - their action was routine maintenance of our content. You may disagree with their judgment - it's absolutely your right to do so - but do that through actual dialogue, not by dropping a template designed for people who get their kicks by adding obscenities to articles and that sort of thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Next time please reply on my talk page. You did start this discussion and I clearly state on my talk page I prefer people to reply to my messages there. Thanks. :) Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Me-123567-Me, erm, this is the first time I've ever had a request like this. I'd have been happy to talk at your page; you brought it here, so I replied here. If you expected me to then go read your talk page to see whether you had any particular instructions on what I should do next, I think that's an unreasonable expectation. If you talk to me on my talk, I will reply on my talk, like literally every single other editor I've ever interacted with. If the location of the message is more important to you than its content, then I guess I'm done offering you advice. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Help talk:Citation Style 1 on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Permission request

According to Database reports my account is eligible for Autopatrolled permission please check agin--Looplips (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Looplips, as I explained at PERM, I did check. The report you refer to says that you may be eligible, not that you are. It's generated by a bot, which simply looks at the number of articles created rather than assessing their quality, which I have done. I don't mean to downgrade the value of your contributions - it's better that we have a stub than no article at all - but the bulk of your creations are nearly identical single-sentence stubs. We look for much more than that before assigning the Autopatrolled perm. Don't worry though - this will not affect your experience at all, it only affects whether your creations are queued for review by other people. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Looplips, another piece of advice is that when you want a new user permission to only ask for one at a time. I came here expecting this to be about your request for NPR only to see it about a different request altogether. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, anyway i'm not interested in permissions and i just tried

Looplips Can I ask you please not to request user rights that you're not really interested in? It takes time to investigate an account and respond to a request - we're all volunteers, if you're asking for things you don't really want or need, you risk wasting other people's time. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 15:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to reach a consensus with you

Dear members of Wikipedia or long term volunteers,

Please never never never bring the misleading part back to the article again before you have got permission from the TOP MANAGER at Wikipedia Company and Wikimedia Foundation. I have reached a consensus with the Wikipedia company and Wikimedia Foundation to remove the misleading part from the article.

The misleading part of the article demeaned my loved one's image. People misunderstood my loved one due to the misleading information in the misleading part.

This misleading part had been leading overwhelming stress on me. I cannot live my normal living life before I have removed it.

Please respect my feeling!!! Please respect your TOP MANAGER'S decision!!! I will super appreciate your understanding !!! Thank you!!!KathleenKathleen12345 (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

KathleenKathleen12345, as I advised you on your talk page, the place to suggest a charge is on the article's talk page, not on multiple users' talk pages. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your help. User Page Question.

Jbrayseven (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I do better? Is this blatant vandalism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.79.228.130#THis_edit In the section, I saw my first problem edit. Am I missing any templates that can be used?

Hi 4thfile4thrank, the edit you refer to was unsourced, POV, and in disparaging a particular group of people with an insulting name it probably crosses the line into sheer vandalism. You can use Twinkle to give automated templated warnings, it's much easier than doing it by hand - I would have given a Level 1 vandalism warning to that editor. It's better not to engage with vandals directly, impersonal templates are better. Please ensure you have read WP:VANDALISM thoroughly, it's important not to accuse people who are simply misguided or inexperienced with vandals. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 06:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with TCM edditing

Hello I am still trying to get my head around Wiki, I do apologize if I have caused any trouble. With my eddits I have left good explanation to reason, but have had nothing in return. The article has the same "pseudoscience" links multiple times leading to the same destination. The section that I removed was, I felt repeated information from the Critique section including links to pseudoscience, it read's as follows "It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2]" it is my opinion that we also need to include from the same article that Traditional Chinese medicine has been added to global diagnostic compendium by WHO and what that means for TCM. Also move the Critique section to the bottom of the page maybe just under notes, as I have said that it is in line with the lay out of other Wikipedia articles. all these changes will make the article flow allot better for the reader. once again I hope that I can continue adding to the Wikipedia experience for the public. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, as has been explained at the article talk page, the lead is there to summarise the content in the body of the article - see MOS:LEAD. It is inevitably repetitive, since it is just a summary of the key points. WP:PSCI requires that, when a subject is considered pseudoscientific, that information is presented prominently - it needs to be both in the body, and in the lead. I hope that makes sense. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources also includes that TCM has been included in the global diagnostic compendium by the WHO so we should precede this before the reactionary comment from Nature Magazine, right Shenqijing (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, I don't know what sources you're referring to, or what 'Nature magazine' is - if you're talking about the journal Nature, one of the leading scientific journals in the world, I'd be interested to know what grounds you have for calling it reactionary. Either way, this discussion needs to take place on the article talk page, not on my talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also I should mention that the link to pseudoscientific appears three times in the same article and the Critique section is unusual place for a Wikipedia article. Can you have a look please. Shenqijing (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, please take this to the article talk page - user talk pages are not an appropriate place to discuss changes to articles. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the article https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01726-1 Shenqijing (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Subtitle Traditional therapies have been included in a global diagnostic compendium. That comes with risks. That is a reactive statement to the World health organisations decision. That is what I mean. Shenqijing (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, why are you continuing to post this stuff here? Take it to the article talk page, don't post again here unless you have general questions about editing that don't relate to a particular page. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That is fine, you asked me why I felt that the Nature Magazines article was reactionary and I have supplied you the article and their reaction to the World health organisations decision. I hope that this clears it up for you.One last question does Nature Magazine have more Standing than the World Health Organisation, A person with your education, I would expect that you would say no. Thankyou for your time. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, I made some observations about not knowing what you were referring to, but I repeatedly asked you to take anything specific to that article to it's talk. I will respond to your question about Nature (not 'Nature Magazine') versus the WHO, since that is general. Simply, you're asking the wrong question - one is an international health organisation, the other is a leading scientific journal, they aren't directly comparable, and Wikipedia has no reason to take a position on which has more standing. What you should be asking is what sort of source to use when talking about the WHO's decisions. How we operate is to base our content mainly on reliable secondary sources, rather than on primary sources. In that sense, I would expect any editor writing about a decision that the WHO made to base our content primarily on the best secondary sources, such as articles in Nature or similar journals, rather than on primary sources, such as something published by the WHO. I hope that makes sense on the general point - I'll try to look in on the discussion on the specifics at the article talk. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou I have moved on, the same article from Nature Magazine clearly states that WHO included this modality into its compendium. For a more balanced article this should have been included also. Three links to Pseudoscience within 200 words says it all for intention of this page. You need to use your powers to caution the edditors of this page. Thankyou for your time and help. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Poorly worded

Right so that article as it stands reads better. The talk page is full of people being bullied by the editors. The inclusion that I made is fair and balanced and what is left is not. The lead does not flow. You still have not answered why the article had in the space of 200 words links to Pseudoscience and you say what I have included doesn't read well. I have taken it to talk. I have included my references and also links to Internal wiki pages, I did not include three links to the same subject Eurocentric. This is not derogatory, as it is what it is but maybe if I said it in succession maybe it could be seen to be. Shenqijing (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Compliance for TCM

I am new to Wikipedia, you are a trainer, so what is not right with my eddits and how do I fix them to be included. As I have stopped reverting eddits and added good relivent content for the reader, I think that this is a over reach . Shenqijing (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, you realise that you just made your 4th revert on that page, after being reminded about edit warring? I'm not going to block you myself or report you for it, but you really need to understand that what you are doing is unacceptable. I'll try to swing by talk and explain fully the problems with the content you were adding, but you really need to stop reverting there immediately. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not made a Revert I have added a link to Chinese food therapy, that is within Wiki guidlines is it not. Shenqijing (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, it was a revert, and it is not within the guidelines. This is from EW: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Your reinsertion of that link undid my removal of it - it counts as a revert, it's your fourth on the article, you are in breach of 3RR and could be blocked for it. I wouldn't block you myself as it was my edit you reverted, but the only reason I'm not asking someone else to do it is because that specific link isn't one I was concerned about, and because I am trying to extend you the maximum amount of good faith - but seriously, you need to read those links I've given you, you need to understand that your behaviour is unacceptable. Wait for discussion on the talk page to conclude before making any more changes that undo anything that anybody else has done. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not accept the that you are showing to other editors on this page. The page does not read well at all and as i have pointed out that you still will not acknowledge the obvious naritave on this page by descision on the three links to Pseudoscience. That doesn't happens on no other Wikipedia page. When finally a sensible edit is made to bring Ballance it is deleted. The addition I would add is the subject of the Nature Magazines article and not the comment that has been deemed more important. If it is about critical thinking then this rational is seriously comming up wanting. The Addition of a link to another page is adding to the wiki experience for the reader and is in no way or should not be a violation of a public source platform. I look forward to a fair resolution to this situation in the near future conversations. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

William Fraser (architect)

FYI, a Canmore reference "failed verification". Don't know if you can be of assistance. - Seasider53 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Seasider53, hmm. I see that some of the content was supported by the Canmore site, but not all of it - I don't see anything about TB there. Perhaps reinsert the content, sticking only to what is directly supported by the source, and drop a note on the talk page pinging the editor who reverted you asking if they're happy with that? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I might leave it since a lot of edits on there were done, seemingly, by one of Fraser's relatives. They were mostly well-sourced. - Seasider53 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Seasider53, I've gone ahead and reinstated most of it - the details that didn't appear to be supported were the cause of death (TB), the burial at sea, and the point about Fraser being commissioned to design it in 1897 - I've reworded a bit. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)