User talk:ONUnicorn/archived talk 9

Invitation to Attend the USA Wiki Conference in Washington DC in October 2015

Greetings:

I see that you are a member of WikiProject Haiti as I am. I would like to let you know that there will be a 3 day Wikipedia conference in Washington D.C in October 2015. Scholarships are being offered to help with travel. Please consider attending to help us learn together about increasing content about Haiti on the English WP. And how to increase content on the French and Kreyol WP. I look forward to seeing you there. http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/2015/Main_Page NegMawon (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I'll have to look into it and think about it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
21		Choluteca Bridge (talk)						Add sources
2,129		Haiti (talk)						Add sources
135		History of Haiti (talk)						Add sources
12		Planet Half-Life (talk)						Add sources
1,034		Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (talk)						Add sources
9		Than, Kandi Dholran (talk)						Add sources
38		Nikolai Fyodorovich Vatutin (talk)						Cleanup
2,481		Ashlee Simpson (talk)						Cleanup
94		Spectrum (arena) (talk)						Cleanup
4		Siege of Oudewater (1575) (talk)						Expand
634		Booz Allen Hamilton (talk)						Expand
15,479		Obergefell v. Hodges (talk)						Expand
170		Acid3 (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
66		Gravity gun (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
51		Muhammed Yusuf Khan (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
40		Indiana University School of Medicine (talk)						Merge
250		Video blog (talk)						Merge
40		University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (talk)						Merge
77		Cordova, Alaska (talk)						Wikify
58		Jean-Pierre Boyer (talk)						Wikify
36		Paddle ball (talk)						Wikify
1		Joel Orleans (talk)						Orphan
21		Autoreview (talk)						Orphan
0		Dunham Massey POW Camp (talk)						Orphan
153		J-Boog (talk)						Stub
3		Razar (talk)						Stub
15		Ruf Turbo R (talk)						Stub
10		Ruf RTurbo (talk)						Stub
3		Shewa Adda (talk)						Stub
59		Denis Ménochet (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Notable != Important

Hello, ONUnicorn. Please don't use the word "important" when talking about notability, as you did at WP:HD#Zeeshan haider. In this case it probably doesn't matter, because the issue is that the article doesn't make a claim of notability. But when an article is deleted (or rejected) because the subject is not notable, new users often come back with something like "How can you say X isn't important?!" The answer is that that isn't what we're saying: 'notable' has a technical meaning in Wikipedia, and does not mean 'important', 'influential', 'popular', or any of the other things that people might interpret it as being in the normal sense.

For an example where I made this point, and another editor took me to task for nitpicking, and then came back and apologised when he saw a new user make exactly that misinterpretation, see User talk:ColinFine/Archive 1#Your comment. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@ColinFine: But I wasn't discussing notability. The article was speedied under A7. A7 does not require a showing of notability, merely an "indication of importance". An indication of importance is a lower bar than notability. An indication of importance is "Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon". Notability is, "Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon." An article can be completely unsourced, unsourcable, and unnotable, yet still pass A7.

You'll notice I said that in order for it to be acceptable the editor not only had to show why the subject was important, but back it up with reliable sources, which at that point is the beginning indicators of notability. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

References

You're right: I take it back, and apologise. I had forgotten that wording. (I'm so glad I brought this up on your talk page, and not on the Help Desk!) --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally prefer to say wiki-notable, and (in the very rare cases it is needed), something like indication-of-wiki-importance. The jargon is interpreted 99% of the time as an insult, in my anecdotal experience. "What do you mean my band isn't notable?" That's just a synonym for non-important, to most humans. Ironically, the wiki-jargon was named to make it *easy* to understand... but since we decided to diverge from common-sense plain-english meanings, into bureaucracy-laden wiki-legalese with arcane counterintuitive meanings, the 'easy to remember' names for wiki-policies end up being primarily 'easy to cause offense' names for wiki-byzantinism. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Mwele Ntuli Malecela, ONUnicorn.

Unfortunately Sulfurboy has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Removing afc hook and unreviewing to allow one more set of eyes. Please also try to improve on the inline citations.

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Instabuggy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IOs. 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) 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Answer to Question in Teahouse

hello ONUnicorn, today I asked a question at the Teahouse but I don't quite know what it means. I would grateful if you would be able to elaborate on this message I receive back from Arjayay. also I don't feel I made myself very clear as what I question I actually wanted to ask was would it be okay to use a picture in my user page as a background? thanks for taking time to read this.-Dominoooo's (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Dominoooo's.

hello tearoom, please could you help me to understand the difference between images you can have on your user page to those you can't. I understand it's to do with free image, I just don't know how to differentiate between the two.- Thanks Dominoooo's (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dominoooo's, all 27 million files on commons are freely usable. However, most images on en.Wikipedia are used under a fair use rationale, which almost always means they can only be used on and article about that specific subject, not on other pages, unless a specific rationale can be presented, which would not be relevant to user pages. You need to look at the licence to be found on each image/file page, but do not try to add a rationale for using a fair-use image on your user-page. - Arjayay (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)--Dominoooo's (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dominooo's: It is perfectly acceptable to use a picture in your user page, though I'm not sure from a technical standpoint how to make it a background. What Arjayay is talking about is the difference between a free image and a fair use image, which has to do with a legal concept called copyright. Basically, if the image you want to use is a picture you took or drew yourself, it's fine as long as you agree to allow other people to use it too. If it's one you find on Commons it should be fine to use also. However, if it's something like this image, it's copyrighted and you shouldn't use it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant Idea Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		It's rare that I come across an idea in discussions here at WP that just stops me in my tracks with it's brilliance. Your C !vote at Talk:Miss Cleo did that today. Kudos for seeing the whole thing from a different angle that is far better for the encyclopedia than what was being proposed up until that point. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD votes

Am I supposed to strike out the entire vote or just the bold word at the beginning of it? Blackbombchu (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blackbombchu: Just the bold word at the beginning. That will make it easier for the closing admin to figure out what the consensus is. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

examiner.com != WP:RS

I noticed your bangvote at 16:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC) over on the Harry Braun AfD, and you mentioned that you found a hit at examiner.com -- that's an unselective anyone-can-edit non-editorially-controlled blogsite, which pretends to be a legit newspaper (in their styling & layout). They are no more wiki-reliable than wordpress.  :-)     But they try a lot harder to pretend that they are something they are not. After getting tricked briefly by them about a million wiki-years ago, I try to alert other wikipedians to their nature when I can. p.s. There is also washingtonexaminer.com , for insstance [1] , which is a legit WP:RS methinks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I know they aren't a RS. You'll notice I was arguing for deletion, pointing out that the only mention of him I could find was in that article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no problem then. If you have a moment, since your bangvote some additional sources (including offline 1980s ones you alluded to) have been added to the article in question, and the majority of the promotionalism expunged. Would be curious to see if you think the BLP-article still fails WP:42, though I agree the 2016-campaign-article is definitely WP:FAILN. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

p.s. When clicking the 'preview' button immediately before saving this note, at the top of the preview-window I saw something like the following:

• Editing User talk:ONUnicorn (section)
• Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table.
• Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table.
• Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.
• Preview
• This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved! → Go to editing area

And so on. Not sure if that is something custom on your usertalk, or if maybe the core wikipedia software itself is having a hiccup, but figured I would mention it to you just in case. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a problem on five talkpages I tried at random, so not specific to you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Great job improving the sourcing and promotional tone of the article! I've changed to keep, though I still have some concerns, but they aren't deletion level concerns at this point. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, 90% of the sourcing and 90% of the cleanup are thanks to Braun and Melanie, respectively. But yeah, the end result is a servicable start-class-article; thanks for reconsidering. Will reply on article-talk about the rest. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Stand down

Hi there. Being new to this, i am struggling to work out how to add my definition to the disambiguation page, any help greatfully received. FlanderseggbaronFlanderseggbaron (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flanderseggbaron, since there are three different definitions, you should first create a new article for your definition, and then add a link to it to the disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Article wizard is a useful tool for helping you create a new article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Treasure (redirect)

I had to do it to pass the last article "Grenade" to GA, a couple of months ago. An unnecessary dab link, I believe. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: If it's an unnecessary dab link, shouldn't you take it to WP:RFD to be deleted rather than just blanking the page? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

By blanking the page the dab link just ceases to exist. It's just easier MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Calvin999 to chime in on what the problem is with these redirects, because it doesn't make sense for them to hold up a GA. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Calvin999 doesn't seem to know why you found it necessary to blank the redirects either. They don't need to be blanked to pass GA. They are fine. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, my bad then, I'm sorry. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad we've figured it out! :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lee Tae-yong for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Tae-yong until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A related question:

The logs you posted for Ruth Archer seem to be a bit sparse given the activity that went on. If the page was copy&pasted from a draft in userspace, shouldnt there be a log entry for the page's creation (or previous deletion)? Also the log shows a page review in June, what was reviewed? The previous version? The copy from userspace? -edit- Rather, I am not looking for the specific info for that article, more about what is/isnt logged and where to find it. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: Creating a page doesn't leave a log entry. Things that leave a log entry include moves (but oddly enough, only on the original page, not the target), deletions, new page patrolling, and a few other things. More information on logs in general can be found at Help:Log. The review in June would be a new page patroller marking it as reviewed; meaning they didn't think it was eligible for deletion. It's basically just someone saying, "I've checked this article, there are no problems with it and if there are I've tagged them." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So what were they actually reviewing? If the article was deleted previously (as the log suggests) were they reviewing a draft in userspace? Or was the version in June they reviewed the one that had been copied from userspace? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: They were reviewing the one that had been copied from userspace. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah no wonder I was confused, since no date was originally part of it I assumed it was a recent action rather than 3 months old. That makes more sense now. Thanks for the help. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

TAS-Tas

Instead of adding the TAS thing at the tas article, I think it would be better to change the latter's name to "tas kebap", an act that I understand non-users can't do. Thank you. --176.239.113.238 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ketel One

Could you kindly comment here about how and why you came to be recently interested in the Ketel One article? (E.g., were you reading the blog of a <gasp!> permanently banned ex-Wikipedian?) - 2601:42:C100:9D83:24BB:4B5A:355E:12C1 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? Something needed to be done and somebody did it, which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Does it matter if I became aware of the problem via the fact that, 9 months after the fact someone finally bothered to put a request edit template on the article thereby adding the article to Category:Requested edits, which I do periodically check out to see if there's anything I feel like helping with? Or if instead I read about it on www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-s-ketel-of-conflict-of-interest (can't link to examiner because of site blacklist), and thought "oh good grief," and proceeded to fix it? Or if instead I read about it on the blog you alluded to and thought "oh good grief," and proceeded to fix it? Does it matter that a careful examination of the history of the article and various talk pages indicates that there are several misstatements and misrepresentations in said blog post? No. What matters is that a problem was brought to my attention, I could fix it, and I fixed it. As I said in this essay a number of years ago, Wikipedia's greatest strength and its greatest weakness are one and the same; anyone can edit. Sometimes that is awesome, other times that is a disaster. In this instance, it was awesome. It doesn't matter how this "wikignome" stumbled across that article. She did, and now it's fixed. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't sweat it ONUnicorn, the unvarnished truth is very much not this guy's specialty. I'm sure you know, but the sad fact is you're a mere pawn in his never-ending attempt to extract revenge against his white whale, or is that Wale? Suffice to say, below is a choice development that'll not see the light of day on Examiner.com, his WO blog, or in any post he makes to that supposed 'critic' forum he treats as a mere extension of his own dubious campaign.

Thank you so much for your efforts, it's very much appreciated. AdamF Grayling (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Knowing how rare such messages of thanks are on Wikipedia, I hope you personally found satisfaction in it, no matter what. I was too late to see it, but the 'f you' attitude you all seem to uniformly display towards this particular banned user is imho, entirely justified. He's a [rude word] of the highest order. Worse than the worst on this site. It's ironic that he seems to think it's OK for him extract far more by way of personal control and influence over the 'community' active at the web domain he owns, than Wales has ever seemingly done from this 'community'. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work here ONUnicorn; I really dropped the ball on this one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: What do you think about the whole issue of the article being at Ketel One rather than Nolet Distillery? Most of the history is about the family, which is really more interesting than the brand anyway. I think moving the article there could provide the opportunity for a fuller discussion of the topic. We could put a redirect at Ketel One pointing to a specific section of the Nolet article discussing the merger with Diageo. However, Collect apparently disagrees that a move is the best option. But your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirits#Ketel One Vodka - help required seem to indicate you feel it should be moved as well. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, as it stands, I think the best start is a Nolet Distillery article, which has sections for History, Ketel One vodka and Ketel 1 Jenever. Redirects can take care of searchability issues. A history section is definitely in its place there. I think there might be enough source material for and advertising section - Nolet has always had their own style with advertising to the re-seller rather than the consumer - as well, but I'm not sure of that. It's possible that the current distillery building can also have a section. The windmill that provides power for the distillery is a registered (municipal) monument for example, and has a small article on the Dutch Wikipedia: nl:Noletmolen. The old windmill nl:De Walvisch has one as well. If any of the sections, including Ketel One, grows too large there, it can always be spun out. The history of Nolet (pretty much anything up to the introduction of Ketel One, or a bit before that, the vodka production and distribution in Eastern Europe before the Ketel One brand was established is still rather "Ketel One-y") is really out of place in this article, as it's only tangentially related to Ketel One vodka. My "gut feeling" is that Ketel One is sufficiently notable for a stand alone article, but I just think the material is presented better in a section than a stand alone. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

thank you Unicorn, and your page is so fun! I am so relieved to find out I'm not a sock puppet. now I just have to get unblocked from commons by explaining I'm not advertising anything! I'm getting used to being accused of strange things here. glad to meet you, you made me believe in unicorns. swoons Asdiprizio (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Glad I could help. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Charles Augustus Rosenheimer Campbell

Why don't you migrate Charles Augustus Rosenheimer Campbell into mainspace. I am blocked from moving my articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was planning on expanding it first, but I guess I can move first and expand later. There is no copyvio in it (not that I thought there was), and someone else has already removed the quote= stuff. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for making all those links to Class A Wild Trout Waters. I was dreading having to track down all those pages myself, but now I don't have to! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, I just realized there are 829 articles that need to be linked, so, it'll take me a while. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? 829?! Perhaps I'd better help out a bit. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it seems there are only 77, not 829. Looks like we've done all of them now. Thanks again! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, towards the end I realized the search results were picking up way more than there actually were. At any rate, you're welcome. :)

Requesting edits on Marsy's Law

Hello, I see that you are active on WikiProject Law and I am hoping you can help with a request for the Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 article. Specifically, I'm asking for two proposed edits that would include a short overview of a similar Marsy's Law in Illinois. I have a financial conflict of interest (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) so I know that it's best that I not edit the article. Instead, I posted an edit request on the Talk page. Would you be willing to look at the request? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@JulieMSG: Thank you for contacting me. I've briefly taken a look at your request on the talk page, and at first glance it appears to be neutral, well-sourced, and well written, but I need to take a closer look before I can add it to the article.

My main concern is that the Marsy's Law article is about the California law. Is the Illinois law commonly called "Marsy's Law"? Or is it commonly referred to as the "Illinois Crime Victims' Bill of Rights"? If the Illinois law and the proposals in Hawaii, Montana, South Dakota, et al are inspired by the California law it's definitely worth a mention in the Marsy's Law article, but we need to be careful to avoid hanging irrelevant information on the article like coats on a coat rack.

Meanwhile, it's an amusing coincidence that you're approaching me about a victims' rights article right when I've been doing a lot of research about victims' rights for a project in my International Criminal Law Class, and considering improving Wikipedia's coverage of victims rights while I've got all the research in front of me.

I'll try to take a closer look at that article and your sources and proposed changes this weekend; but classwork comes first. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, ONUnicorn! And yes, that is quite a coincidence. As you go through the sources, you will see that the Illinois law is informally called Marsy's Law. It was modeled after the California law, which is why I feel it would be a good fit here. JulieMSG (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi ONUnicorn, I know you are busy with classwork, but I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the proposed edits outlined on the Talk page of the Marsy's Law article. I look forward to your feedback. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello ONUnicorn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hiten Mitsurugi Ryū, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kenshin. 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) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Bethany Decker review

Thanks for reviewing it and getting it in the queue. Just one followup ... I, too, would like to have known more about those messages but none of the sources I consulted (I was unable to watch the Disappeared episode, as I was with Disappearance of Leah Roberts; I think as the latter article shows the ability to do so made a difference, although it is true that the Roberts case was more open-ended) discussed the content of the Facebook posts. Perhaps the police are playing that close to their vests; they want to make sure that if someone tells them what those posts said, that's a person with (hopefully) genuinely valuable information. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I figured the reason it didn't say more about the messages was that the information was just not readily available from the sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your change is still OR

The text is OR. I could not verify the claim. The previous text is also OR.[2] QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, my change was a copy edit. I'm only trying to keep the text legible. I did not add or remove OR. I rephrased a poorly phrased sentence. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide verification for the rephrasing. If you think the text is sourced than you will have no problem providing verification for this change.[3] QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not looked at the sources used to support that sentence, and make no judgement as to if they support the sentence or not. I often copyedit text in Wikipedia that does not flow well, does not make sense, is poorly spelled, improperly punctuated, etc. I have noticed many changes to the lead of that article over the last few days, and have been consistently editing for readability after changes that introduce awkward phrasing. My interest in that article is primarily one of readability; I am not taking any position on the underlying content issues of pov, due weight, etc. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The source does not support "some...". Please refrain from adding OR to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying which part of my rephrasing you disapproved of. I have removed "some." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We are making progress. The part "mainstream sources" is also OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The source only mentions fad diet in general. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My objection was to the use of the word "authorities". If you dislike "sources", what would you suggest? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

See "“Fad diets” are often promoted as a method of improving health, however they should be subject to appropriate scientific investigation by well designed and conducted, preferably randomised and, at least, controlled studies."[4] The entire sentence must be rewritten if kept. We can revisit this later if you can't think of a rewrite. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That seems like something to take up with whomever added the sentence to begin with, rather than someone who copyedited it to improve readability. At any rate, as has been pointed out to you on your talk page, there are numerous discussions on the article talk page about the "fad diet" characterization. That seems like the appropriate place to raise concerns about the existence of the phrase "fad diet". Like I said, I'm not going to weigh in on that particular dispute. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no discussions on the talk page about the OR in the lede regarding fad diet. Your edits broke the easy undo for this edit. If OR does not matter to you then I don't understand why you are bothering to edit the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paleolithic diet#Fad diet label, Talk:Paleolithic diet#Latest revert. Those discuss the "fad diet" statement, which, unless I am misunderstanding you, is what you consider to be OR. If you do not believe those discussions adequately address your concerns, you can feel free to start another discussion on the talk page, rather than edit warring with Drbogdan and Only in death. I did not say OR did not matter to me. I said I was not at this time providing any opinion on the sources, or if the "fad diet" term is OR or not. I said my concerns with editing the page were to clarify a poorly worded sentence. That is a valid concern and a perfectly good reason for me to "bother to edit the page". Like I said, I make many copyedits. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pine Hill Cemetery. 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) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)