User talk:ONUnicorn/archived talk 10

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Children's Village (New York), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endowment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Tabon Caves

My postings and photographs of Tabon Caves has already been a subject of a wiki dispute. It is certainly not original research to take a photograph of an object nor same it appears or seems to look like. It is up to viewer to see for themselves. I live near the caves and have over a thousand photos within the caves. The campaign of Western centric cave lovers against Tabon Caves and Niaah Caves is surprising active. Come to the Philippines to see for yourself before deleting photos of the caves. Everything I do is reviewed by the National Museum of the Philippines. They consider my photographs and my ability to find what others cannot see "amazing". One thing I make certain to do is only show photos of cave areas that cannot be touched by visitors. I have been given access to the closed areas of the caves but do not show or even hint of far more incresible things in these caves to help keep out unwanted elements like those that destroyed Niaah Cave paintings. Contact Larry Prill at the Quezon Museum. You must remember this is a poor nation and a rarely visited cave. However that doesnt mean the images do not exist. Go ahead and file another dispute if you like. Philip MaisePbmaise (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A photograph like this one, where you have drawn a yellow square around what you believe to be a man-carved skull, and appended a caption saying, "Apparent skull carved in rock above main entrance" requires a citation to a published source indicating that that is a man-made feature.

@Pbmaise: You are correct that it is not original research to take a photograph of an object; and I was hoping to leave at least a few of your photographs, but I believe I ended up removing them all. :( What I would say, is that a photograph like the one at right is not helpful without a source describing that as a man-made feature. Has the National Museum of the Philippines published any of your work? If so, we can cite that as it is a published source. (It doesn't have to be available on-line; it just has to exist.) Is there anything in writing in an reliable source that indicates these features are or may be man-made, or is it just your opinion?

Believe me, I don't want to "campaign against Tabon Caves" or whitewash the history of mankind in the caves. Sourced material still in the article makes it clear that people were actively using the cave some 50,000 years ago. However, just because people were in the cave doesn't mean that every dark blotch on the wall is man-made. Pareidolia can easily make people see elephants and what-not in naturally occurring geologic features. Wikipedia needs to stick to what the sources say about what is and is not man-made. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 12:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see someone has published material on some of your findings. Do you have photos showing the "The Great Sphinx of Palawan"? That article does a credible job of explaining why you think it's man made and what experience and qualifications you have to make that determination. That is what I was looking for, and wanting you to provide for your assertions to remain in the article. Published material indicating who did the research and what their qualifications are. That's what separates the opinion of a Wikipedia editor (by definition OR, which must be excluded from the article) from the opinion of respected authorities, which Wikipedia can include so long as it is cited. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at what I did here. Notice that I discussed your findings, including the cave paintings, and even stuck one of your pictures back in. Please note that I cited published sources saying that you said XY and Z. That is the difference between Original research and appropriate edits. Ideally I'd prefer academic sources to the two newspaper-type sources I used, but since you haven't ever answered questions about if your findings have been published or not, I'll take what I can get. Please note also that I'm not referring to you as "American tourist Philip Maise", because what authority does a tourist have to say what a dark blotch on a cave wall is? However, "a chemical engineer" with "experience with excavation" and "course work in history, philosophy and art" who is "build[ing] a college of Tabonology" has more credibility. Do you now understand why what was in the article before was OR? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

References

DYK for Isaac Stearns

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead writing award

	Lead Writing Award
	To ONUnicorn, for some nice work on the lead of Burial. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Children's Village (New York)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a merger proposal rgdg LeBaron group/Ch1stborn

...Here: Talk:Church_of_the_Firstborn_of_the_Fulness_of_Times#Merger_proposal.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ONUnicorn. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Phineas Stearns

Hey, ONUnicorn. Do you think I could start an article on Phineas Stearns based on this source: http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/phineas-stearns ?

I'm not seeing much else, so I'm unsure if he is sufficiently notable based on his participation in the Boston Tea Party. Thanks! Kirk Leonard (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kirk Leonard: Sorry it took me so long to respond, I got unexpectedly busy a few weeks ago and probably won't be around much until late July. Congratulations on getting Phineas Stearns through AFC! It looks good. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries. I know how that is when things keep you so busy you can barely find time for anything else. Kirk Leonard (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Browning Hill) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Browning Hill, ONUnicorn!

Wikipedia editor NearEMPTiness just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for writing and uploading this article. It looks as if it covers the topic in a comprehensive manner. I am not sure about the UFO sightings, but if they had been identified they wouldn't be UFOs anymore but IFOs.

To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Best of luck in the months ahead

I noticed that you mentioned over at the Core Contest that you will be taking the bar exam this summer. I just wanted to stop by to offer a few words of encouragement -- it's an incredibly challenging exam, but with hard work and discipline, I am sure you will do an excellent job! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement, it's appreciated! :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Huanted places

You recently edited, List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States. Can I trouble you for assistance on the Paranormal tourism article over on Wikivoyage? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Summarising/Analysing Arbcom decisions

As you've been studying for Bar exams you've almost certainly been reading the sort of legal textbooks that go into very precise details of exactly what a particular decision actually said, and what it was later interpreted to say.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to make a slightly serious analysis (in the same vien) of some of the more prominent Arbcom cases on the basis that the Arbcom is a good working example of a semi-formalised 'dispute-resolution' process, even if it's not a legal body like a formal arbitration panel would be. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Possibly; what exactly would you be looking for in the analysis? Are you looking for an analysis about the results of arbcom decisions in the specific situations? Or looking at trends in what types of "remedies" arbcom produces? Something else? Personally I find the way arbcom works, with each commentor having their own section and no threaded discussion, and discussions taking place over multiple subpages to be confusing and difficult to follow and I kind of suspect it is that way intentionally. It might be interesting to do a semi-in-depth analysis to try to see what is working and what isn't. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of how the decisions were arrived at from the 'facts' of the case, and what the decisions decided the Wikipedia policy direction in future (i.e after the decision). A number of Arbcom cases also implemented specific General and Discretionary Sanctions, and it would be useful to have some basis to compare any future decisions, even though Arbcom is not like actual judicial boides bound to follow a precedent it sets (That said, many Arbcom decisions have drawn on past ones.) . To borrow the (London) Times legal reporting style for an example " 'Where a long term vandalising account had previously used multiple accounts previously, it was reasonable practice on the part of Wikipedia admin, to request a check user for any new suspected accounts of the same account holder.' So ruled the Arbitration Committe of the English Wikipedia' in respect of ... The request for Arbitration had arisen because... In reaching this decison, Arbcom considered that... "

with the obvious expansions, of course. Arbitraion requests to some extent are the 'caselaw' of Wikipedia policy, compared to the 'written polices' (the 'book-law/legal code') and unwritten but generally followed customary practices.

Analysing the Arbcom 'process' itself would be something different entirly, but if you were wanting to write in that area as well, I can't really stop you. ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lagoa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

@ONUnicorn: Hi ONUnicorn, thanks so much for explaining about the articles I have been working on and special thanks because I'm new and figuring out how to use it Europetransparent (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Europetransparent: You're welcome. :) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC - progress

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

• en:Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC/To do
• en:Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling pages

Hi. Thank you for agreeing to mentor Adochar. I would just point out that he is already asking to be allowed to patrol new pages again, which of course in view of NPP and other aspects of his editing, I will not be able to grant any time soon. Do keep up the good work though and perhaps you could consider being one the trainers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

He didn't do terrible on the little quiz I put together, but then part of why I wanted him to take it was to test the effectiveness of the quiz just as much as testing his knowledge of policy and ability to patrol. What specific issues have people been pointing out with him? If I'm mentoring him it helps to know what to work with him on. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

A review of his still short talk page archive will tell you all that you need to know. He's clearly enthusiastic but possibly quite young and attracted by the notion of gaining user rights as well as wanting to become an admin already. I think i's mainly a maturity issue which will improve with time. NPP has now (since yesterday) become an official user right and under the new requirements he's unlikely to be granted the right any time soon. Do take a look at the completely new or rewritten pages at the WP:NPP tutorial , and please consider being a trainer at the school - we're gong to need you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi ONUnicorn,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello ONUnicorn.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ONUnicorn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi ONUnicorn. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already commented yesterday. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello ONUnicorn,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 808 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Hello!

Sorry to bother, but I think you forgot to sign off (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=cur&oldid=prev). --JustBerry (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that right away and already fixed it. Thanks though! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello ONUnicorn,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

DYK for Fashion History Museum

On 24 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fashion History Museum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Fashion History Museum in Cambridge, Ontario houses what may be the oldest existing European shoe worn in North America? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fashion History Museum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fashion History Museum), 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) 00:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)