User talk:PaleoNeonate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, PaleoNeonate! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! [[User:Stikkyy Stikkyy]] (talk) (contributions) 04:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

PaleoNeonate, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PaleoNeonate! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Horse teeth

Next time you notice a vandal you can report them at Wikipedia:AIV. With an IP or brand new account, an admin can protect the page to keep them from editing it. With an older account that won't work, but the user can be blocked. The Teahouse was fine for this time, though. I couldn't use rollback because of your intervening edit (rollback only works if nobody edits between the vandal and rollbacker) but as far as I can see you got it all. I'll watchlist the page so I can rollback if it gets vandalized again. Thanks for reporting, vandalism is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: I can undo my change, if that helps. Thanks for the information. Although I have AIV in my notes, I encounter so many cases that my impression was that most probably don't deserve mention. I'm I mistaken? PaleoNeonate (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If a person makes just one or two vandalism edits, I'd just give them a warning like {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, revert and forget it, but if they're making a lot or it's offensive in nature, AIV is the best bet. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks very much for your help on my A.M. Pattison piece. I greatly appreciate it. Ian.fraser1 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.fraser1: Well thank you, that's my first barnstar. And welcome PaleoNeonate (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please help to prevent deletion!

Hi, I appreciate the input and thought I put in enough sources to provide notability. I am open to suggestions and edits....especially so it does not sound like its "promotional". There are 15 different sources from 13 different authors, i thought that was enough. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. :( Im open ears!! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyngetal (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ladyngetal: Hello again, and sorry for the delay. I'm glad that you are participating to the debate. This already raises the chances for your article not to get deleted. When deletion debates are closed (which usually occurs after about seven days), the number of votes is not necessarily the most important factor, the arguments presented have more weight for the closer to decide if the article gets deleted or not. Note that another avenue to ask for help of more experienced editors is the tea house. And for sources specifically, we have services such as the reliable sources noticeboard and the resource exchange. PaleoNeonate (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hertz

This did make news in the city of Yuma, Arizona, and made it across southern Arizona. National news never heard of this, since the corporation was covering it up. This was something I dug through recently with some contacts I had in the company.

Thanks! -TAG — Preceding unsigned comment added by The American Gamer (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@The American Gamer: I see that you unfortunately ended up being blocked. Two complaints were filed about you by other editors, the first one was declined because it was not a case of vandalism and only a content dispute. When the second was filed, it was accepted, because there was evidence of disruptive/warring editing.

The block was most probably for edit warring more than about the controversial issue. When another editor reverts changes we make to an article, it is recommended to first discuss the issue on the article's talk page in order to form consensus (it is a content dispute at that point). When the others don't agree with our changes, this usually ends there, and we should let go; if they do, the change can be placed back in the agreed terms. I don't see evidence of a discussion there about this issue.

Note that an indefinite block is not necessarily forever, it may be possible after a reasonable delay to make an unblock request with a convincing-enough argument that the disruptive editing will not recur. Farewell, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your thoughtful response at my Noticeboard response at Jytdog's page. I'm afraid, with the steadily declining commitment, ground-up, at acknowledging shortcomings, and the lack of any top-down leadership design to stop this decline, this will spell an end for me. But I have studies coming out on the encyclopedia, and perhaps having peer-reviewed and other published work, about the encyclopedia, is what we need for things to change. This personal battle over tags is an important one; but my failure to persuade Wikiproject Medicine to stop first-publication of raw research data (unreviewed, editor-generated radiologic content) is—alongside the fact we have no HIPAA-compliant patient consent practice—a further couple of "bricks in the wall", so to speak. Cheers, all the best. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Hello again. If any of my comments are stating what is already obvious to you, my apologies, as I don't know you (although I have checked some of your edits and have read your user page), I do not know what has been attempted already to correct those issues.
Although articles on medicine interest me, I cannot say that I have heavily edited in the area, and it is only amateur interest (my speciality is computer science). However, when you mentioned that, it reminded me of the importance of selecting secondary or tiertiary sources in areas where there is a lot of ongoing research, for the information to be a summary of mainstream knowledge (while also allowing to not become overly technical or partisan in specific new research areas, or presenting new hypotheses which may be incorrect, or very obscure even to experts in the field).
It made me look again at the relevant guidelines. Unless I misunderstood, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) agrees with you: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". Of course, that is not equal to "Use of primary sources is forbidden"... I'm not the most experienced about this, but have seen that over time with effort some decisions improve the quality of content. It may have to go to arbitration, sometimes be supported by the development or enforcement of discretionary sanctions (i.e. we now have some about fringe science or pseudoscience, WP:ARBPS), policy discussion proposals and amendments (like is done here), etc. It seems that the tools for progress in policy and enforcement exist, although they can be tedious and slow processes.
One thing I recently noticed is that dynamics also change as students work on articles as part of course projects. In some cases it is clear that their teacher did not manage to properly instruct them (or supervise them if need be) on the importance of not writing essays or of selecting proper sources. If their articles survive (sometimes they get deleted), once their term is over, Wikipedia is left with articles which can be in a poor state.
It seems to be part of the cost of having an encyclopedia that everyone can edit, and where no formal process limits visible revisions (the article assessment states exist but all are visible). Some have proposed patches like flagged revisions (Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Flagged_Revisions) while others are against it.
The "spiritual predecessor" of Wikipedia, Nupedia, had much stricter processes, but failed to succeed. The openness of Wikipedia seems to have been a factor to its success. Maybe eventually some middle ground will be achieved, that allows more reliability and quality while not overly impeding public contributions. Over time, the number of articles increased and many have reached a mature, almost stable state. It may be possible to one day have more protection for those articles, after a rather formal curative review. That could even be made on another project, borrowing from Wikipedia what is worth it (I have seen some curated derivatives like [1]). Of course, any of this always means work...
"An end for you" would be unfortunate. Have a good day, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 11:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Creation through bots

Hello! I got bot status on Ta wiki. And I created this Bot account to create some articles, on a specific topic. See here, like this I want to do. I explored on mediawiki manuals on how to create articles using bot. But I didn't find anything. I have tested through paws. But I don't know how to create many articles through Paws or any other else. As like this article creation me too like to do this. Can you plaese tell me how to do this step by step.--ShriheeranBOT (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@ShriheeranBOT: I have never written a bot yet, although it is among the things I may eventually do someday. However, of interest may be: [2] and [3], [4] (the server-side part which can be useful if client-side parts are not completely documented), [5] (the code for the edit part of the server-side of the API), [6] (the documentation for the traditional index.php API, which is older and simpler than api.php, and was originally primarily for browsers). There also are various open source bots which can serve as example, as well as some libraries they use which exist for various scripting languages (i.e. those at [7]). Here are a few other links which I have accumulated on the topic when I started looking around a few weeks ago: [8], [9], [10], [11] (PHP, includes wikibot framework), [12], [13] (semi-bots), [14] (shell bot). As for creating pages, my impression is that it is the same operation as editing. The edit request obtains a form and/or token, which can be used to HTTP POST the content (providing the necessary cookies and token form var). If the page did not exist, it is created at the first edit, if I understand. The proposal you received at the Village Pump to use a Mediawiki extension ([15]) as an alternative may be a great idea if the goal is to provide default stubs with minimal autogenerated content for many unexisting articles at real time (rather than needing them to be pre-created, these import data from Wikidata to a readable format). Hopefully this helps a bit, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 06:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This was first posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Article Creation through bots, and also to another user talk page, contrary to WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The conversation has been moved/resumed at the Village Pump (technical). Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 12:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Explaining Jimbo Edit

Just to clarify, Jimbo's userpage actually says "You can edit this page! Wikipedia is yours. I trust you. Really, you can! If you would like to, please feel free to do so. Make an edit – or even several! After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about! I like to keep it a certain way (simple and free from anything that requires a div tag, style, or template), but the thing is, I trust you. Yes, really, I do! I trust that you will add something here that makes me really smile or that informs me or many others." I was just fulfilling the "add something to make me smile" request, so I figured no harm. Anyways, keep up the patrolling! TheThingy ^Talk 05:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I don't think it was anything major, as I also said in my message, it was even funny. Have a good day, — PaleoNeonate (write) — 05:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird

That's really weird. I didn't go anywhere near the lead paragraph... maybe a database error. Thanks for fixing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

No idea, I didn't understand it either — PaleoNeonate — 02:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi PaleoNeonate. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! — PaleoNeonate — 13:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiGnome

Underground gnomes.

Would you consider it WikiGnomish behaviour that I was bored so decided to clean out the backlog at Category:Pages using infobox video game series with unknown parameters, taking it from 158 or 168 (don't remember which) to a completely empty category in a series of over 150 minor edits in (basically) a row spread over a couple of hours and then, when done with that, moved on to image requests and adding info boxes to pages (did not clean those categories out though...yet lol)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: probably , I'm far from done with Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names and added the little topicon mushroom when I started working on that... But anyone can be any of the WP:WikiFauna, of course. — PaleoNeonate — 07:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Haha. That one category alone is larger than all of WP Video games' backlog...across all main categories. Literally all of them. Max we have is 6,189 articles requesting screenshots of games, 2,402 requesting cover art, 147 requesting info boxes, along with a couple others with only a hand full of entries. I shall continue with the image ones as well as info boxes in future. My only concern is that copyright law when it comes to images isn't my strongest so I tend to just avoid the more complicated ones (which I will inevitably end up probably doing at some point or another in some way shape or form haha). Most likely the place I shall focus next is info boxes - I like finding that they are just outdated talk page tags and they have both info boxes and images - saves me work . The info boxes category is a little easier to manage than multiple thousands haha. Only annoying bit is that sometimes the articles requesting them are so short I can't fill much in other than the page name (but still leave the params in - just blank - for others to fill in later should the article content expand and it becomes possible to). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor:Ah yes, another thing that can come easily as a habit when systematically visiting so many pages is to add relevant categories or tags (stub category tag if too small), missing lead tags, citation problem tags (i.e. cleanup link rot one for bare-urls, there are people working on cleaning that queue with refill), conflict of interest or advert tags, etc... I don't really do that at the moment but some add prod/csd tags where relevant, I'm still shy about using those, although I have filed a few AfDs and MfDs (misc for deletion) when I was fairly certain they'd work. — PaleoNeonate — 07:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: For copyright issues, it's not my forte yet either, although I liked reading question 15 at this RfA and its answers. If I remember there's an errata later about some answer that was wrong, but overall it was excellent. It's always nice to have this as a supplement to the official documentation. I'm leaving for the night, bbl. — PaleoNeonate — 07:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Blanking

People are allowed to blank most of their talk page: WP:BLANKING One can add {{ow}}. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I have just reread WP:BLANKING and the warning templates are not among the exceptions (contrary to what I believed; I considered logical that warnings in the last month should remain since they are very useful to patrollers and bots). I was also in a hurry and about to leave, I even hastily reported the IP address at AIV without success (it might have been my first or second failed AIV report only). I did not know about {{ow}} and that would have been very appropriate. Thank you very much, — PaleoNeonate — 04:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Unexplained section blanking"

Hi. I wrote "so what?" when asked to briefly describe my changes to the Antikythera mechanism article. A website pop culture nod to an arbitrary anniversary (115th) seems extremely trivial for an encyclopedia article. What do you think?

81.131.105.151 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@81.131.105.151: That edit summary did not seem like a proper explanation. You should also discuss this on the article's talk page, not on mine. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You left me a message saying "If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page." so that's what I did. --81.131.105.151 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@81.131.105.151: You are right, I'm only redirecting the discussion there because it is a content discussion (and each article has a talk page to discuss improvements to the article). My message may have been hasty, please forgive that. The pending changes for that article are now rapidly accumulating, most of it with vandalism, so reviewer actions may be done more hastily. If you also experience many edit conflicts, it may be a good idea to wait a few days to then improve the article again. It may actually soon be semi-protected b y an administrator, because of the Google Doodle feature. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 16:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --81.131.105.151 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

answer in genesis page

using the term pseudoscience is being used as a pejorative, meaning a personal attack. Wikipedia is not for this purpose. Wikipedia is to remain informative only. when personal attacks are allowed, this reduces Wikipedia to nothing more than a forum and members attacking others or each other. Wikipedia must remain neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cncyana (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cncyana: Thank you for discussing it rather than edit warring. Please see WP:ARBPS, about arbitration-committee ruled discretionary sanctions which apply to pseudoscience related subjects. Also of interest would be WP:ATTACK about attack pages, which are illegible for WP:CSD#G10 (speedy deletion criteria), I doubt that the article fits that definition. The main reason why Answers in Genesis promotes pseudoscience is that it pretends to be science (which it is not, and denies much of real science). Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOTCENSORED) and must summarize what reliable sources (WP:RS) say. The article has reliable sources which can be read on the subject, and are referenced where appropriate to justify the definition. For more information about what actual science discovered and how it works, please read:

• Talk:Evolution/FAQ
• scientific method
• scientific theory
• evolution as fact and theory
• evidence of common descent and finally, about sensitive articles on the subject:
• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Controversial_subjects.

Interestingly, Talkorigins explains in lay terms much of what is erroneous with the beliefs of Answers in Genesis and of Young Earth Creationism. Science is about knowledge, not belief, faith and fear. When experiments and evidence demonstrate that it is wrong, it must adapt. It cannot self-censor and restrict the areas it can study because of some modern interpretation of ancient myths. Wikipedia must report on what the experts in their respective field discovered. In the case of evolution, those are evolutionary biologists and related field experts. When discussing religious topics, it is normal that we should cover their beliefs, but we cannot claim that those are facts or consist of real science when it is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pamphlet collection.

Finally, Talk:Answers in Genesis is the relevant article's talk page, where you are encouraged to suggest specific improvements; it is where consensus must form for what should or should not be in the article. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 01:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thanks for your help on the aura article, and thank you for helping revive the wp:skeptic project! KarlPoppery (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Karlpoppery: that is most appreciated. Sometimes I wonder if my work is clumsy because of my lack of post-IP experience, this encourages me to keep going in that direction. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 04:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi Paleo,
I was wondering, if there have been any changes regarding maps inside the infoboxes, or if it is just my browser. As one can see on Parbhani (and many other articles wih this parameter), the two different maps are being shown at the same. Previously, the Parbhani's map used to show a checkbox options with "location of Parbhani in Maharashtra" and other in India. Would you please look into that? It will be appriciated a lot. :-)

In case if you dont remember, we communicated for the the first time on NeilN's talkpage, and then we came across on few other incidents. ;-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Usernamekiran, I do remember, of course . Hmm do you mean that if you click "Show all" under the map in the infobox of Parbhani you see two identical maps? I see two different maps in my case, one zoomed-in more than the other. I personally don't have experience with map editing on Wikipedia. However, maybe try flushing/clearing the cache of your browser and then trying this link to purge Wikipedia's side: [16] (note the extra ?action=purge at the end of the URL). If that still doesn't work, an editor who I noticed works with maps is Yug, who likely knows much more about them. Another idea might be asking at the village pump technical noticeboard (WP:VPT). It may be that some browser implementations or versions (or settings) cause them to not display the same for everyone. I hope this helps, — PaleoNeonate — 07:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply. :-) I tried it from different devices/browsers, still the same issue.

I mean, imagine Manhattan from NY state. There would be three checkboxes in total. One for "Manhattan in New York state", second for "Manhattan in United states", and the third one as "Show both". But now, by default, both the maps are being showed; with no any option/checkbox. Should we ping user Yug? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Just in case, I just checked if you used custom CSS, but it doesn't look like it. On the other hand I do see custom scripts, if you recall the maps showing properly before, just in case it may be a good idea to temporarily disable those and see if they show properly again. If you find out which script causes it (if any), then at least we'll have narrowed it down and could contact the script maintainer(s)... If none of that helps, the village pump (technical) (WP:VPN) or Wikiproject maps talk (WT:WPMAP) are probably the best places to ask. As for Yug, I don't know the person at all, I just happened to notice not too long ago that he/she had interesting map-related information on the user page. — PaleoNeonate — 08:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Metrology rewrite

Good afternoon! I noticed on the talk page of metrology that you had commented about the rewriting of the article. (Quite a while ago) I recent came across the article and have spent some time over the past month rewriting the article to be more comprehensive and better referenced. Since you had commented in the past about it I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look at the rewrite and providing any sort of feedback/suggestions for further improvement or areas that I might have overlooked. Cheers! --Imminent77 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Imminent77: The second comment on that thread was indeed mine. Thank you very much for working on this and letting me know, I'll definitely take a look. I might not be able to comment on it immediately however. If you like, we can start a new thread on the article's talk page, and I'll participate there after having reread the article. And, nice retro-green signature PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No rush on reading through the article, I have just been picking away at it when I have had some time. I have put it up for a copy edit by the GOCE to help with prose consistency throughout the article. If you do have any comments the idea of starting a new thread on the talk page is a great idea. Thanks! --Imminent77 (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Imminent77: The article has much improved since last then, thanks for your work. Another editor also significantly modified it since then it seems. I noticed that we also have Historical metrology as well as History of measurement and have a note about checking about redundancy or merging/moving sections as necessary, but it's something I've not yet done. — PaleoNeonate — 07:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

In my work on Metrology I did notice that about historical metrology and the history of measurement. I am fairly busy outside of wikipedia and therefore my editing has dropped off, however that is something that I wanted to work on some day. --Imminent77 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help by getting that annoying IP blocked, the editor has been using that IP address since March and never explain their edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. I only confirmed that WP:ENGAGE was a thing, afterall. Hopefully the editor realizes, files an unblock request then finally discusses. If not, oh well... — PaleoNeonate — 17:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it, because this editor has a history of using multiple accounts and continue the same disruptive editing without getting much a response, and nobody didn't notice that, this editor may return with another IP address in the future. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This then also explains why the administrator decided to block for longer than one week, despite no previous block log for that particular address. If the editor starts using other addresses, this isn't necessarily over, unfortunately, if that happens soon, keeping the ANI case open and adding new events there may be enough; if not, filing an WP:SPI case may become necessary to keep track of the various addresses and block them for evasion and socking... Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 18:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I keep a look out if this editor return with a new IP address. The editor seems like to goes around hip-hop related articles, and got a bad habit of returning back to the articles which they edit before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin closures at ANI

Thank you for helping out in administrative noticeboards, but please don't make unnecessary non-admin closures at WP:ANI. See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Closing - is it really always necessary?. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I will certainly read it, thank you for the notice. — PaleoNeonate — 08:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: So after reading it (even that one was hastily closed! :) if I understand the lesson:

• If already tagged with a resolved/done/off-topic marker, no need to close
• Closing may be required if off-topic discussion continues on the thread but that the case is over.
• A case that is obviously over but pending unarchived for weeks may be a good closing candidate, which will accelerate its archival and help keep the project page lighter.
• Various threads may require reopening if they're hastily closed, but will be archived anyway if forgotten.
• Even experienced closers sometimes close a thread too early, in any case it can be annoying for others.

My impression was that the noticeboard was so active that closers had trouble to keep up, so I of course felt like helping from time to time. Thanks again for your notice, — PaleoNeonate — 16:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that we have a bot that automatically archives discussions once they stop receiving replies. This happens whether they're closed or not. Some editors think closing discussions makes ANI look tidier, but it takes some experience to tell whether this is a good idea. It sounds like you've got the hang of it now, but remember that improper closures can cause a lot of drama. It's like saying to someone, "GO AWAY. THIS CONVERSATION IS NOW OVER. I DON'T CARE IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO SAY." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Grazie

Thanks to you i can now access UserBoxes again and added a few more to my page! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: Super, I'm glad I could help , you're most welcome. —PaleoNeonate - 21:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I read your user page and I wanted to know, what are the names of your books? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: I'm sorry to say, when creating my Wikipedia account I decided to not link my real identity with it. So I cannot mention titles, but they are related to computer science (programming). My main reason to not want to disclose my name is that I can also participate on controversial topics. One example: I have friends and family who are Jehovah's Witnesses for instance. Wikipedia has articles about that group which to them may be considered "apostate", or promoting "apostate" literature (which is basically anything written about them by non-members or ex-members). I am in good terms with the JWs I know, but this could change if those members were ordered to shun me by their organization. Another example is that many people try to use Wikipedia for promotion, some of those also resort to legal threats when they are discovered (and their articles improved for neutrality or deleted for lack of notability). So who knows, it may be safer to only use a pseudoname and it allows me to less worry about this. But thank you for the interest, —PaleoNeonate - 22:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's to bad I'm interested in computer programming and I love to read but no problem for the interest. I try to take an interest in everyone. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Got your message

I wanted to thank you for that message even though I don't know what to do... I wanted to say that the information I used was nothing to terrible. I did not use anything to help someone know my location I just accidentally told my age and some people thought my username was my real name. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And I have looked through my page history. After someone deleted it and told me to put less information the previous history could no longer be accessed. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: super, I'm glad that they already helped with that. —PaleoNeonate - 22:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hai (yes)I am to. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice

Hey I appreciate you adding explicit pre-approval to waste your comment along with the original post. That's some excellent housekeeping. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I was tempted to delete it myself, but then when deciding to answer instead (and let someone else do it), I also remembered that sometimes threads remain just because of such a comment... so, why not make both possible . Thanks for the support, —PaleoNeonate - 03:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

DS alert climate change

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I gave one to myself too, awhile back. They're FYI notices for people editing in DS topic areas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've not received one of these yet, but am familiar with them. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate - 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding; I've learned that if I give out one, everyone involved needs to get one or it feels icky to the singled out person. Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That's very understandable and I have no problem with that, it's not an accusatory template and we of course often have related information on article talk page headers... Have a good day, —PaleoNeonate - 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI in case you need the knowledge.... the banner at the top of article talk pages is probably insufficient to succeed at AE. Properly applied, the new DS system can only result in sanctions if an editor is "aware" that DS applies, as evidenced by a short list of specific methods. The talk page banner is not one of them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That is good to know. It makes sense, like for an AIV report about users not previously warned enough (manually or with UW templates). I'll add this to my notes, thank you very much. —PaleoNeonate - 23:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Updated. By the way, if you have any comment about that summary-essay, they're welcome. —PaleoNeonate - 00:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, though I don't know what you're talking about. But that's ok. If stuff happens at the article or talk page in the future we can deal with it then. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC) PS, if you have notes, here's the link for awareness/alerts NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive bot

Thanks for the 'do not archive' flag. I wasn't aware of that. It seems to be a relatively common tactic for editors who have made personal attacks or other breaches to just lay low for a while when their actions are called out until everything gets hidden away until next time, likely so they can just claim they've 'been away' and 'didn't see' the Talk page notice. I've been putting up with this kind of behaviour from Willietell since 2012, so I don't want another unresolved issue just getting shuffled off into archives.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: You're welcome, I also want to make sure that my message about COI gets read... I'm not sure if all archiving bots observe {{DNAU}}, but Cluebot III (used to archive his page) apparently does, according to Template:Do_not_archive_until#Tools_that_respect_the_code (and so does MiszaBot/Lowercase sigmabot III which I'm more familiar with). —PaleoNeonate - 09:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Direction on Correct Editorial Discussion

Dear Paleo-

I trust your objectivity and experience. I possess the former but not -with Wikipedia- the latter.

Is there a method or forum, absent direct email by which you may be contacted within Wikipedia but - which is only between Editors and not *yet* publicly visible to discuss Editorial correctness? I believe you may be able to assist this new Editor with proper direction and I don't want to publish anything that is improper. Thank you for any time you may be able to accord. Огнемет (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that I can do much, unless the AfD closes as keep or no-consensus. Then it may be possible, and worth it, to improve the article. That said, Biographies are not my forte, there are editors who focus much more on them than I do.
An ideal situation is when someone is notable enough and has extensive coverage, with uninvolved editors then writing and maintaining an article. Since the subject is already very notable, AfDs are almost certain to only confirm that with a clear keep consensus, and since the article was written by fans (and detractors, but they cannot include any material not in reliable sources by policy, see WP:RS and WP:BLP for details), it results in non-promotional, neutral articles which are less likely to raise red flags when read.
The other common, but less ideal scenario, is articles written by the subject (or company or organization), or closely affiliated people, usually because an article was not already written by others about them (unlikely if notability was great). When other readers notice that the article is promotional (see WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NPOV) and about someone they don't know, especially because they are unpaid volonteers, they are more likely to challenge it with a deletion discussion than to spend time rewriting it.
If the sources they find do not seem sufficiently reliable, or if the coverage is limited with few material from reliable sources (sometimes the language barrier is also present if a number of sources are in another language), the effort required is even greater: unless an article is deleted by consensus, it is not normally rewritten from scatch, the history should be preserved, meaning that a new draft needs to be merged into the existing article instead. This means that everything that is not sufficiently supported by reliable sources must be pruned out gradually as part of the process. This requires time, research and effort, as well as discussions on the article's talk page to reach consensus when another editor doesn't agree with a particular change. I hope this helps to understand the situation.
By the way, I am myself a programmer and author, but not notable, even if some software projects I work(ed) on are notable and have Wikipedia articles. Some open source software I participated on even found itself into millions of embedded devices (some libraries and kernel devices for instance). Wikipedia has no article about me. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Огнемет: I am not sure if you added this page to your watchlist and I forgot to mention your name in the previous post to ping you, so I'm doing it in this message. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Огнемет: Also adding: in case your request was not about the deletion discussion, I prefer to keep the conversations public, but you're welcome to ask me questions. We all start somewhere. The Teahouse and Help desk are also good places to ask questions, or the Village Pump Technical Noticeboard for support with technical issues. We also have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to ask if a source is considered reliable or if it can be used to support a particular claim. My user page also has many useful links. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 08:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details regarding my departure, if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272 and 73.210.155.96: I was glad that we could meet, farewell. —PaleoNeonate - 17:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. (Specifically, for your suggestion on using {{ow}} for notifying community editors of other editor's previously made concerns which have been deleted from a user's talk page, made in this discussion on user Bbb23's talk page. I appreciate your help!) SpintendoTalk 10:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you very much, I guess that I'll have to keep stalking . —PaleoNeonate - 11:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Haitian Creole

Please invite your girlfriend to edit. She will probably be happier starting in the visual editor, which works a lot like MS Office or Google Docs. If she prefers translating good content from other wikis instead of writing her own, then she might like working with the mw:Content translation tools. But she might prefer just looking around and adding whatever is obviously missing, because there is a lot that is obviously missing. The article on the human hand, for example, does not currently include the word "thumb". I am willing to answer any questions she has, via e-mail, on any of my talk pages, in messages relayed through you (you might not believe how complicated most new editors find our talk page system), or whatever works for her.

The pages are very simple and very under-developed. Anything that improves a page is a good, desirable, highly wanted thing. It is not necessary to get things perfect on the first try, or even on the second or third or fourth try. She's not going to find people reverting her work or yelling at her like some editors do here. We would be so happy to have another Haitian Creole speaker. Thank you for asking her to help us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello, PaleoNeonate,

I noticed that you want to offer an image of starfish for the Barnstar. It is interesting, that one year ago I also came to this idea, and started designing it, as you did. But then I found, that such Barnstar exists already and has been created... in 2006. It’s called The Bio-Star, and in its design the image of a starfish has been used. Here is the description: “The The Bio-Star is awarded in recognition of exceptional article contributions in the life sciences. This award was proposed by Francisco Valverde on April 1, 2006, and the design was created on May 4, 2006 by LiquidGhoul.”

You can find The Bio-Star here (in the Topical barnstars section): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars

Image of The Bio-Star: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bio_barnstar2.png

File contained this image has been extracted from another file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bio_barnstar2.png#/media/File:Haeckel_Asteridea.jpg

I know from my own experience, that it is not always easy business to create Barnstars and discuss it, for a number of reasons, but in any case - successful or not, the process itself rewards with joy, and I’m sure that you will find your own way, and that we will see (and of course - more than once) excellent and successful designs for the new barnstars created by you in future. All the best.

Regards, Chris OxfordChris Oxford (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's very nice to know, thank you very much Chris Oxford. What spawned this was this thread. Your comments are of course also welcome there. —PaleoNeonate - 22:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

jehovah's witnesses red links

Thanks for removing them. They were reminders for me to write articles for the authors - which I will do soon and replace the links. Thanks again. Edaham (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Edaham. This is a case where they can possibly be left, I wasn't sure if those articles were about to be written. If you think the red links will not linger a long time, feel free to replace them. Have a good day, —PaleoNeonate - 00:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD Canvassing

Dear PaleoNeonate,

Thank you for your useful note. I read the WP:CANVASS guideline. It appears to me that I made my requests appropriately and in a neutral tone since I tried to attract to the discussion editors, who have special expertise in music and participate in AfD discussions. The WP:CAN does not describe sending of AfD invitations to individuals in general as canvassing. I have no intentions of swaying the course of discussion to any direcrion. In fact, I'm quite sure in the outcome. I just hope for more editors to come forward and make some judgement on the matter. Happy editing to you as well! Fiddler11 08:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Fiddler11 08:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fiddler11: Super, I mostly wanted to make sure that you know about those public noticeboards. Thanks for the cordial response, —PaleoNeonate - 09:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: They were very helpful by the way! I posted the AfD discussion in the Deletion music noticeboard per your advice. Thanks so much! Fiddler11 02:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Nader El-Bizri"

Hello PaleoNeonate. Some issues have been highlighted with the presentation of the article "Nader El-Bizri" but it was not noted to other editors specific ways of improving them. Is there a chance any of the experienced editors can make some suggestions or steps as to how these issues would be resolved? There has been some lack of consensus lately, and there were worries that some arbitrary decisions on the part of come editors would result in some form of vandalizing the article, and it was hence locked for few months to protect it and not harm the biography of the living person concerned. How to make these improvements needs experienced Wikipedia editors to address them and not only to state them, or have lack of consensus over them with randomness and haste in decision and dismissiveness. Maybe experienced editors can flag this on noticeboards or via the article's talk page, and may know better what can be done to improve the article or entice other editors to do so. In any case, thanks for your editorial attention (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:352A:DF7E:4EE0:E04E (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC))

Hello 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:352A:DF7E:4EE0:E04E. My experience with BLPs is limited although I am more familiar with technical aspects like citation formatting, layout/markup and tags. I have not yet read the article to evaluate it, but it has now been added to my to-read list. However, the noticeboard will indeed gather the attention of more editors. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 08:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:352A:DF7E:4EE0:E04E: One of the issues (there also is a tag about it at the top) is that many links lack metadata information (are "bare-urls"). I cannot take the time tonight to correct more of these, but here is an example improving one link for reference 31: [17]. There also exist tools to help fill bare-urls semi-automatically but the result often still requires human intervention and fixes. I converted this one first as an example as it appears to be an important reference in relation to notability assessment. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 08:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

e/c

Just fyi, if you don't know, that's called an "edit coflict" aka e/c. Help:Edit conflict.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: in this case there was no edit conflict, we just both created a separate section, but I merged mine into yours in the next edit. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 16:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

sounds goodNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Nader El-Bizri"

Hello PaleoNeonate. EdwardX who placed the deletion request that you restored covers businessmen and billionaires. Check his Userpage. A request for deletion is a very serious matter and it cannot be done in an arbitrary fashion and with randomness, especially if it is not coming from someone who specializes in the content. The article exists since 2008 with hundreds of edits by multiple users and it has many references and links, and the person it reports has many entries in wikipedia that make reference to his wikipedia page. I am unsure why you felt ready to restore EdwardX's request for deletion? (AcademeEditorial (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

@AcademeEditorial: I first noticed this message on the article's talk page so I answered there; it's also good practice to keep article-related discussions on that article's talk page to avoid fragmented discussions. AfD does not always result in certain deletion, it depends on the consensus reached in its debate. If the article can survive AfD that's a good test too, confirming that the subject is notable enough to be covered in Wikipedia. If you know of more independent sources which can be used to demonstrate significant coverage, those should be added to the article; other improvements to the article can also continue during the AfD debate but the deletion tag must remain until the deletion discussion closes. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 11:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@AcademeEditorial: By the way, if you would like to preserve a copy of the current article's wikitext, in case it eventually gets deleted (consensus of the AFD will determine that), it can be done using this link. The same wikisource should work on other wikis using the Wikimedia-software, probably including Wikia. —PaleoNeonate - 16:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you PaleoNeonate. In fact as an academician I am seeing that figuring on Wikipedia is just not worth it. We normally caution our students not to have a look at its articles. I wish that El-Bizri manages to notice all this since it looks to me that it is damaging ... What is being said on the noticeboards, or the deletion discussion, the aggressiveness and unfairness makes it a liability for serious intellectuals to have their profile in such uncontrolled website and where there is minimal monitoring. You seem more responsible than some of the others and you take your time to make decisions. I joined to improve the intellectual content but I find these discussion spaces distasteful. I have a lifetime experience as a scholar and I feel repulsed from what I witnessed here when interacting with users who are technically knowledgeable of the wikipedia protocols and operations, but are almost clueless intellectually. Good luck to you all with the hope that what all the project entails one day will be improved (AcademeEditorial (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

I don't like your attitude of disdain for those of us who are not Academics, you really should stop that. You actually have little idea what you are talking about. As for the clueless, perhaps you should ask yourself just how much you know about wikipedia before you attack huge swathes of fellow editors. Us academics have no special place here, and those of us who behave like you ought to take a careful look at their behaviour. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Roxy, you have been dismissive of my contributions because I do not know technicalities, while wikipedia might in fact benefit from expertise knowledge in specialized academic fields. You have been aggressive throughout the day and seeking just to turn this into an exchange between you and me, which is not the purpose of this exercise (AcademeEditorial (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Jimbo is annoying

Well, only on my sort of obsolete BlackBerry lol. Other than that, I found it humorous. I had to remove him. Thanks a lot for adding him to my talkpage though. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 14:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I put it on my talk archive here, but also wouldn't really want it on my main talk page permanently. Have a nice day, —PaleoNeonate - 15:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Help... Again

I believe I asked you for help earlier and you seem to know a lot on usernames (since you tried to help with mine awhile back) and I wanted to ask if i were to make my name appear as Dinah In Wonderland? I do not want to change my username just make it like a nickname for when it shows up. Would that name be acceptable? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I got the wrong person AGAIN. I really need to stop putting so many people on my watch list-_-. It would still be helpful if you could tell me though... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Dinah Kirkland. It's still a pleasure to help when I can. I see that you have not completely retired yet , welcome back. We have the guideline WP:SIGPROB (quote: "Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username ... can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person"). But that is not policy, only guideline, and various experienced editors are using signatures which don't exactly match their username. I think that as long as you make sure that the links remain to your actual user/talk pages, there shouldn't be any real problem. In case you would like to really change the username (if you change your mind), that is also possible (details at WP:CHU for this). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate - 21:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And I'm never retiring ^-^ at least not yet. Despite being busy with school and work (and not completely understanding what everyone is telling me about my Draft) I'm going to stay on as long as possible! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I just say that I've read the Guidelines and I'm not sure if it'll work. I use the mobile version (since I have to choice) but if it doesn't will I be able to delete it and change it back to my regular name? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: I'm not sure for mobile, but usually in the preferences tab where the signature can be edited, we can see the result immediately after editing it, and if we want to go back we can even empty that signature field, so that it becomes the default again. So yes it's always possible to return back, except that every message you will have signed with your old signature will stay with the old signature, of course. —PaleoNeonate - 21:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: If I remember one of the concerns a reviewer expressed about the draft was that there exists an entry about the character at List of minor characters in the Alice series which could be improved instead (I assume that the reviewer also considered the character not important enough to have a separate article, but I'm not familiar enough with it to judge on this). Sometimes articles or drafts need to be merged into existing articles rather than remain on their own as separate articles. In case your draft can never become a main space article, don't let this discourage you, your next one might be more successful if so. Also, articles for creation (WP:AfC) can help to make sure that one's future article idea is a good choice, before spending much time again working on one that is unlikely to be accepted... —PaleoNeonate - 21:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: Oh, and make sure to also check WP:SIGTUT which has tips about making new signatures. —PaleoNeonate - 22:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hai I looked at all that... I wouldn't be discouraged if it didn't make it through and a lot of people are trying to help me! If this one doesn't work out I'll make a different article and now that I know about references I can come even more prepared! Just curious, how does one delete their draft? Just in case if I can't improve it. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And thanks! I'll take a look real quick Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If your draft was in your own user space (i.e. your sandbox or User:Dinah_Kirkland/draft) then you could request its deletion by putting {{Db-userreq}} at the top of that page. However this one is in Draft: space, so I think that the proper process would be to nominate it for deletion via the WP:MfD (miscellaneous for deletion) process. Because this process involves a few steps, in case you would like to delete it I suggest asking the help of the last editor who reviewed your draft. You're welcome, —PaleoNeonate - 22:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks! And I do believe the name worked! Dinah In Wonderland 22:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope... Dinah In Wonderland 22:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe now? [User:Dinah Kirkland|Dinah In Wonderland] 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay it doesn't work. Dinah Kirkland 22:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If you look closely at the tutorial's examples, you'll notice the double [[ and ]] to link to your user page. —PaleoNeonate - 22:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ya I just saw those. Dinah In Wonderland User_Talk:Dinah Kirkland 22:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And it's not working like i wanted but it works! Does it have to link to my Talk? Dinah In Wonderland User_Talk:Dinah Kirkland 22:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ideally to both user and talk, but one or the other is also acceptable. If you check my own signature, the first word points to my user page and the second to the talk page. —PaleoNeonate - 22:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Si i see... I'll give it a few tried to see if it'll work for me Dinah In Wonderland User_Talk:Dinah Kirkland 22:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally! Yay i did it! Dinah In Wonderland 22:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Super. Have fun, —PaleoNeonate - 22:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Will do! Right back at you as well ^-^ Dinah In Wonderland 22:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

sfn and ps

Hi, I find that the use of the ps parameter leads to me being unable to reuse the sfn template with the same page number again in the article. So I've conditioned myself to not use it at all :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again @Cpt.a.haddock:. You're right, although it's still possible to use {{r|tag}} or <ref name="tag" /> to make multiple references to the same entry. It is indeed unfortunate that we then don't take advantage of Sfn's convenient autocombining. The other alternative that'd be nice in this case may be something like: {{efn|1=some note here{{sfn|...}}}} which would result in a note with a standard Sfn reference at the end. If that note itself needs to be referred to elsewhere, {{efn|name=tag|...}} then also allows to reference using tag. This note would of course be in the {{notelist}} in this case so outside of the shortened footnotes (which would include this note's Sfn citation)... —PaleoNeonate - 21:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: I have applied the last example, feel free to contest/revert, because all of those are of course valid ways to cite. —PaleoNeonate - 21:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There really needs to be one consistent and flexible system that does it all. Thanks for the pointers :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories

I am having a little trouble with understanding what kind of categories I have to come-up with, for the bot. You will understand the problem in these discussions: User Talk:Usernamekiran#Categories for bot's task, and User talk:Usernamekiran/Archives/2017/July#WikiProject Organized crime.

Would you please tell me (if possible then in simple words) what type of categories are required for the task? I am thinking "bottom level" cats. Thanks a lot in advance.
PS: I copied some stuff from your userpage, to my userpage :-D
—usernamekiran(talk) 22:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'll try to take a look tomorrow at the categories, although it's something that I still have little experience with on Wikipedia myself. Glad that you liked some of my userpage gadgets , I borrowed those from Wikipedia: space. Less obvious custom stuff are also the top-icons on user/talk pages. —PaleoNeonate - 03:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		For excellent communication and artistic skills. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 23:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Noah Kastin: Wow, thanks, that's very appreciated. I personally consider those more technical than artistic skills, but I probably still have some of both, being a musician . For drawing, I'm better at vehicles (trains and boats) than natural objects. Looking forward to working again with you at the Awards Wikiproject, —PaleoNeonate - 00:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your warning at User_talk:Paulmaximus

You're 100% right, but would you mind reverting yourself? Doug Weller and I (yes, I know, we have similar names, confusing) are trying to get him to focus on the issue Doug's raising, which will otherwise get him blocked, which would be a shame. He's not the most engaging of newbies, but we all found this place tricky to understand once upon a time and while he's uncommunicative, his edits show promise that he could be a useful Wikipedian if we don't put him off right at the start. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: I didn't think that my polite notice would be biting. But since you requested it, I reverted it. —PaleoNeonate - 15:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it wasn't a BITE issue, you worded it fine. I just want him to have a chance to concentrate on Doug's message. Sorry if that was unclear. As I said, you did nothing at all wrong. Thanks so much for reverting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: You're welcome, —PaleoNeonate - 15:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Random Question

Hey, PaleoNeonate. I noticed you editing at the sandbox article of Jenhawk's and noticed you working on bare URLs. I think I heard somewhere that there's a tool where you can enter a URL andit tries to automatically create a citation out of it, but for the life of me I can't seem to find it -- if it exists. Any idea where it might be (if I'm not just imagining it). I use the Google Books reference tool all the time but I seem to remember there being a general one for URL's in general. Anyhow, thanks in advance, even if you don't know of it! Alephb (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: You're right, there are various such tools. One if I remember uses AWB bot; in my notes I have refill and reflinks (User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill). Since the results of those usually require manual fixes, and I can type as fast as I would refill the fields, I don't currently use any, but feel free to try it. I may also eventually use an equivalent custom script since I can now edit wikisource using ViM (which can also invoke external scripts on selected text regions)... —PaleoNeonate - 01:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I may try that a few times, but I think I type pretty quickly, so maybe I'll also wind up sticking to manual. Definitely the Google Books one saves me time though. Alephb (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I imagine that with sites which provide the needed metadata it can save a lot of time. Welcome, —PaleoNeonate - 01:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: I'm done for tonight, if you want to experiment on the page now, edit conflicts are less likely . Later, —PaleoNeonate - 01:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		While not quite an AFD rescue, I figured you earned this for efforts to kickstart the WikiProject Skepticism talk page Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dkriegls: Thank you very much; the pioneering work of Karlpoppery to revive the WikiProject was what initially encouraged me to help. Unfortunately he is too busy to participate lately and although the project is not necessarily dead it is less active than I would like. It's always nice to also receive news from other participants of this project such as yourself. —PaleoNeonate – 05:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I spent a lot more time there back in grad school. Now, as a working scientists...not as much time to play on Wikipedia. But I can use what little time I have to encourage others. Let them know their work is noticed.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral

I was neutral on the AIG form replacing psudeoscience with neutral terms.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.225.96 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Culperson (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@108.35.225.96 and Culperson: McSly and Telfordbuck appear to be the editors who reverted your changes (although I indeed sent the routine warning which the reverting editor forgot to post when reverting your changes on the 7th). However, I would also have reverted the edit in this case, because reliable sources properly describe the organization as promoting pseudoscience. Please see:

• Talk:Evolution/FAQ (some information on why describing evolution as "just a theory" is misleading)
• scientific method (how science works and adapts according to evidence and empirical data)
• scientific theory (best explanatory models yet, not hypotheses)
• evolution as fact and theory (why we can treat evolution as fact)
• evidence of common descent (some of the overwhelming evidence, very educational starting point)
• age of the earth (some information on how we came to know Earth's age)
• creation myth (general article on creation myths, they are part of various cultures but rarely have historical elements)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Controversial subjects (how we deal with such topics on Wikipedia; basically, what is considered neutral are summaries of what experts say on a topic, via peer-reviewed reliable sources; soapboxing is not acceptable).

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary in sleep paralysis.

Read the summary. Thank you, and please understand, next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.82.175 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@178.135.82.175: Please note that it is the responsibility of the one adding information to ensure that it is well sourced (WP:ONUS). How can we guess which was the reliable source? Also avoid uncivil language in edit summaries. This conversation should also happen at the article's talk page. Constantly reinstating your change without reaching consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) per WP:BRD could also be construed as edit warring (WP:WARRING) which should be avoided; this is a community effort which requires patience and communication. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 13:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah

It would be appreciated if when you do not agree with an added edition that you discuss it on the talk page before you delete it. The article has points that would be best to be included within the article. One short sentence is not much and balances the weight of the contra augmentations. Academia is not the authority but the scholar is. If you don't know him it may be beneficial to read the link that I submitted. Have a great day. Johanneum (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Johanneum: I could not access the source to verify the assertions, as I wrote in the edit summary (it appears to require registration or the like). Moreover, it's not that I don't agree which matters, but if the material is verifiable and is not a fringe view represented with undue weight (i.e. the opinion of a single author represented as fact). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You added dril to WikiProject Skepticism?

I'm not sure I see the connection. What dots did you connect for that? —BLZ · talk 17:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: The satire of conspiracy theorists, according to the article. Of interest to the project are not only pseudoscience topics but also notable skeptics, of course. If you think that he's not known enough for skepticism to be included, it's not a problem to dispute the tag. WP tags are generally not contentious though, they're mostly for maintenance categorization for those interested on a topic (helping for assessment, etc). Your input is welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ahh gotcha. If you judge that that alone is sufficient to cross the threshold for inclusion in the project, I suppose that may be the case. However, I think the nature of dril's satire of conspiracy theorists is more about mimicking their wild-eyed tone or bizarre interests, not advancing anything like a rigorous skeptical or empiricist worldview. It's more that conspiracy theory nutcases are a perennial element of online life so some of their absurdity is inevitably reflected in dril's conglomerate character, rather than that dril abides by a consistent satirical perspective that opposes conspiracies as pseudoscientific. —BLZ · talk 22:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Since I don't know the person/character, by your description alone I can sense that this indeed could be overzealous tagging. I'll remove the tag as there are many articles as part of the project and this one would be of very minimal importance in this case. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: I forgot to ping. —PaleoNeonate – 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiTiger

What if I made another page that had the list somewhere like Category:List of WikiTigers? ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 10:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: Hello again. That would be a good transparent and automatic way of tracking WikiTigers indeed; to do that, you can create the category page (let's call it for instance Category:Wikipedian WikiTigers) and add in it:

{{user category|are WikiTigers|User WikiTiger}}
{{categoryTOC}}

Assuming that {{User WikiTiger}} was the userbox. This userbox would also need to have the code at its bottom:

<noinclude>
[[Category:Wikipedian WikiTigers]]
</noinclude>

Then of course visiting that category would include users who added that userbox on their talk page. If wanting to do similar for a topic icon, an example of one which also puts users in a category is {{WikiGnome topicon}}. Have fun, —PaleoNeonate – 14:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure on how to do that would you mind explaining it more or doing it? ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: I have created the category and the user box, please try adding {{User WikiTiger}} to your user page and see if you get added to Category:Wikipedian WikiTigers. It may take a little while for users to appear there. —PaleoNeonate – 20:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: It seems to work, although there's somehow a bug with an extra {, I'm not sure where the bug is . —PaleoNeonate – 20:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix it or if it's just there... forever lerking ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well actually... I can't edit that page at all... takes forever to load... strange. ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dinah Kirkland: Which page? —PaleoNeonate – 20:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Category:Wikipedians WikiTigers

♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that the { was because of the userbox, I have modified it, will see if it fixes it. —PaleoNeonate – 20:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

👍 ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 20:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Also what are your rules on creating thinking like; I have different Userboxes for WikiTigers that have been on for so long and I wanted to make something like a newsletter for the WikiTigers of what pages they should edit and how many more edits/time on until they get a WikiTiger reward. Like Suggestbot but I'm not a robot ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 21:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question... what you want to do is similar to what WikiProjects do (they have article category/lists, members, project-specific awards, often use a bot to update article alerts and assessment log, etc). WikiProjects are related to a particular topic however. Another thing is "user cabals", humorously named so, which possibly could also work towards other particular goals like a WikiProject would do, but most are only humorous like WikiFauna (i.e. Wikipedia:List of cabals). By the way, I did not delete the extra user boxes at the WikiTiger page, I only commented them out in the page source. More or less official WikiProject specific awards like barnstars can also be created, usually by discussion at WikiProject Awards talk page (Wikipedia talk:Awards). —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh cool! I was thinking more of a thing sort of like

File:An Indian tiger in the wild. Royal, Bengal tiger (27466438332).jpg

WikiTiger edits award

File:An Indian tiger in the wild. Royal, Bengal tiger (27466438332).jpg

WikiTiger time being one award

File:An Indian tiger in the wild. Royal, Bengal tiger (27466438332).jpg

WikiTiger joining award

And something like a mix between the Wikimedia newsletter and Suggestbot ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 21:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Newsletters are usually distributed by bot from a list page or user category to avoid the work of manually publishing them, but nothing prevents someone to manually post them to a small group I think. Another idea is to have a common talk page in Wikipedia: space (i.e. create Wikipedia_talk:WikiTiger) for centralized discussion and post updates there. WikiProjects also have a talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 21:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay I will do that grazie ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 21:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

You removed my question to Bbb23

Hello. It looks from the edit history on Bbb23's page like you removed the question I had asked him, about why he had blocked my account and how to get unblocked. The edit did not give any explanation of why you deleted it. Please can you either replace my question to them on that page, or help me yourself. My account was Beth Holmes 1.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:1e01:5100:4c25:5b0a:70fd:bf67 (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2017‎

@2a02:c7f:1e01:5100:4c25:5b0a:70fd:bf67: I did not (and was not aware of your message), but Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi appears to have removed it with reason: WP:DENY which is valid in cases of block evasion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Substantiating Accusation

Got an accusation from you about disruptive editing and violation of NPVP, with a threat of blocking. Appreciate if you substantiate your claims, otherwise please guide me to moderators, if any, where I can raise concern regarding your behavior.

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by The scar face (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@The scar face: Per WP:BRD, it is important to first reach consensus on the relevant article's talk page (Talk:Intelligent design in this case) instead of restoring your changes when they are reverted. Reinstating your changes otherwise can be considered edit warring (WP:WARRING). I see that you have been invited to the Teahouse, which is a good place to ask other questions. If you would like to report me, WP:ANI would be the right place (that is also not a place to discuss article content but editor behavior). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

After the first change was made, a user reverted it back without giving any reason, which I saw as a violation of revert. I cite this and re-reverted for him not following BRD, and then he again re-reverted it, clearly not following the guideline, mentioned herewith. "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle" Because him reverting twice is a clear violation of BRD, I would be taking the issue at ANI.

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by The scar face (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

While I was not among the editors who reverted you, I did add standard warning templates about disruptive editing on your account's talk page (see WP:WARN and WP:WARN2 for more information about these). The various warning types have several levels, many patrollers starting with level 1 or 2, then progressing as the edits continue (level 3+ are the ones using the "disruptive" terminology). Maybe I should have warned with a level 2 template instead, however because edit warring was already ongoing (with more than two edits having taken place) it seemed appropriate to use level 3, an alternative would have been {{Uw-ew}}.
Another important aspect of editing is WP:ONUS where other editors can expect the new edits to be reference a reliable source (WP:RS) for verifiability (WP:V). But the main issue in this case was WP:CONSENSUS where the lead had been worked over time through multiple previous discussions.
When McSly initially reverted, he included in the summary: not a grammar correction, read the note which was short but also referred to the commented note about the consensus in the lead. Then in another revert, Johnuniq included the summary: rv: per WP:BRD an editor wanting a change needs to justify the change on the talk page; what reliable source asserts ID is not a religious argument?. In any case, we all make mistakes and learn from them. Thanks for participating in the discussion at Talk:Intelligent design.
It is recommended to thread discussions by prefixing new paragraphs with colons (:) for indentation, and to sign each post (using four tildes at the end of the message: ~~~~). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 16:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@The scar face: I forgot to ping you when typing the above post. If you want to also use this feature, this can be done using {{re|username}} or {{u|username}}. I'm using {{re}} in this message to generate an automatic notification. —PaleoNeonate – 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I need a Wikibreak. Please email if you want to bring me back. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I feel honored that you notified me. I'm unlikely to bother you via email, but I also hope that you'll be back soon enough after a well deserved break. Farewell, —PaleoNeonate – 21:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle SPI

Could you please move your comment to the section above where I've posted? Windows update has taken over me computer and I don't want to try it with my iPad. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: certainly, I did not notice that it was in the wrong section. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Abiogenesis

Thank you for fixing the latest reference format at Abiogenesis. You are the second user that tells me the link does not work. I wonder why as it works in my 2 laptops. If you have a minute, please search in Google: "NASA Astrobiology Strategy 2015 - NASA Astrobiology Institute". The PDF document I quote is at the top. Thank you! BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: strangely enough, the download worked using Wget but the server sends an empty page to my main browser. It seems to misbehave with some browser configurations or User-Agent strings (my Wget configuration doesn't send that field, my main browser does but does not disclose version details). So your link is correct, it is an issue with the website. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Yahweh discussion

I've not been following that but I've got a concern. I may act on it tonight or tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: hmm interesting... I didn't remember that Wittgenstein and Mooters were the same (but I just saw this here), we seem to have used Wittgenstein as master for various recent socks. What also strikes me as odd is the recent very childish behavior of some of those socks like the one which disrupted an SPI page... Should this new Hebrew-name sock be added to SPI as well, or is it unnecessary (especially if checkuser was already run)? There's also yet another user now listed at the Wittgenstein SPI page who made an edit on that talk page. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to reply. The new Hebrew named sock has different interests. And I've blocked the IP address. Doug Weller talk 04:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: and I forgot to answer: thanks! —PaleoNeonate – 07:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

RE: "Specified complexity"

Dear PaleoNeonate:

Hello. Please explain why you undid my edit of the above-titled page. I changed none of the facts; I just made the sentence as a whole objective rather than biased.99.245.89.128 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello 99.245.89.128, thanks for being responsive. The issue is that we usually state in Wikipedia's voice the scientific consensus, where giving attribution may cause WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also the Avoid presenting facts as opinion quote I included in my revert summary is from WP:NPOV (its WP:YESPOV section). But I recommend to use that article's talk page to discuss this if you disagree (also see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to your WP Skepticism

Hi PaleoNeonate,

Thank you for signing up our study! Just to let you know that I am preparing the recommendations for your project now, and will be sending them out to you in the next couple days. Please let me know if you have any question in the meanwhile. Bobo.03 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: Thank you! —PaleoNeonate – 15:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi PaleoNeonate,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members to on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.

Username	Why we recommend this editor	First Edit Date	Total Edits in ENWP	Recent Activity Level	Invite	Survey
Valexkjbdhsuyfkc (talk · contribs)	Valexkjbdhsuyfkc just joined Wikipedia and made the first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Oracle.	2017-9-14	1	New Editor	invite	survey
Mguzman3484 (talk · contribs)	Mguzman3484 just joined Wikipedia and made the first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Black hole.	2017-9-11	11	New Editor	invite	survey
HoratiaNelson (talk · contribs)	HoratiaNelson just joined Wikipedia and made the first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Ica stones.	2017-9-13	8	New Editor	invite	survey
RJ0053 (talk · contribs)	RJ0053 made 4 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project.	2017-3-28	168	Very Active	invite	survey
Deagol2 (talk · contribs)	Deagol2 made 75 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project.	2007-10-13	779	Active	invite	survey
Knox490 (talk · contribs)	Knox490 made 11 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project.	2011-4-14	824	Active	invite	survey
TAnthony (talk · contribs)	TAnthony made 3 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project.	2006-7-17	351489	Very Active	invite	survey
Pincrete (talk · contribs)	Pincrete edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Pincrete and you project member SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) edited 2 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.	2012-10-18	22365	Very Active	invite	survey
Fronticla (talk · contribs)	Fronticla edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Fronticla and you project member Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.	2016-3-28	1007	Very Active	invite	survey

Bobo.03 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: thanks again. As time allows I'll:

• Ready/update the tasks list
• Evaluate some of the editors' contributions and invite relevant ones
• Score each for your research.

Is there a time limit? —PaleoNeonate – 13:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @PaleoNeonate: Not really, but hope it can be done as soon as possible. Especially, for those Wikipedia newbies (listed on the top of the list, as you can tell), it is possible that they might leave Wikipedia very soon, if nobody reaches them. Even if somebody talks to them, they might not stay around for too long, which is part of the purpose of study - to see if our intervention would retain those Wikipedia newbies. Please let me know if you have any other question! (Sorry for my late response, I was out of town in the last couple days.) Bobo.03 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: Here are the survey results: User:PaleoNeonate/BoboSurvey. There are two editors which may soon receive an invitation. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I have transferred the info on your page into my database! Bobo.03 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi PaleoNeonate, Thank you for participating our study! It's about the time to send you another batch of recommendations, but I wonder if it is possible to postpone it? We are publicizing our study. There would be a new group of participants joining soon hopefully. I wonder do you mind receiving recommendations maybe one week later, so that I can send recommendations to you with the new participants together? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: There is nothing urgent and I did not know that I would receive other recommendations. They are welcome whenever is most convenient for you. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 23:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Middle East conflicts detailed map

Hi PaleoNeonate. You are the only one who commented at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#A related issue: Template:Middle East conflicts detailed map without then voting at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Middle East conflicts detailed map. Would you mind doing this? There is little participation thus far, so it would be good. As the inventor of war map templates/modules, I am upset that in this specific case, my invention has turned into a Frankenstein's monster. Tradedia^talk 04:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Tradedia. I'm sorry for my lack of participation but I felt too ambivalent (and still do) to vote there at this time. If necessary, I could make an ambivalent vote, but this would have no effect, of course. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot bug

I'm fine with your reverting my edit to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skepticism articles by quality log; I found this and similar articles on Special:LintErrors/multi-colon-escape and went straight to the editor without looking at the articles to see that they are bot-generated. When I realized they are bot-generated, I stopped editing them and posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Bot adding double colons, which might interest you. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: And I also posted at your page while you were posting here, thank you very much . —PaleoNeonate – 04:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Template Deletion

I'm sorry, but I included the templates you recently proposed for deletion entirely in good faith, as I made the same mistake and thought the warning I received was not entirely on the point. I should point out that since I have only just been autoconfirmed and these articles lasted less than a day, it could be considered biting the newcomers. Could you at least tag it for cleanup to start with, and delete it if I can't improve it? TomBarker23 (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello TomBarker23. I can nominate pages but cannot delete them. It was recommended to me that I nominate these at MfD such that more eyes could look at them. While I filed the nomination, consensus will determine if it can be deleted (my nomination only counts as one delete vote). Your vote there of course counts (so will the vote of others). The debate page should normally remain up for seven days, during which the templates can still be improved as necessary. I also suggest starting a thread at WT:UTM to suggest the addition of those templates to the list (there again, the final decision is not mine). It is possible that contesting these was my mistake and that other editors would also find them useful. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate the clarification. TomBarker23 (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks-

Many thanks for your comment about the WikiProject Catholicism template. I need add a comment to the WR Catholicism talk page about the possibility of WikiProject Catholicism becoming a subproject of WikiProject Christianity. A few years ago there was a discussion at the WikiProject Wisconsin talk page about whether WP Wisconsin should be a subproject of WikiProject United States. It was voted down; some of the WikiProjects involving the various states are subprojects of the WP United States like WP Ohio, WP Indiana, etc. but not all of the states like WP Michigan, WP Illinois, etc. are subprojects of WikiProject United States. This varies. Many thanks again-RFD (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@RFD: you're most welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 11:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Kali (demon)

In light of your recent revert, you don't really care whether that article is ever at all improved, do you? — Hinduresci (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hinduresci: this massive tagging did not appear to be constructive. I recommend to open specific and precise discussion threads at the article's talk page for issues which should be fixed. If the article's talk page is insufficient to gather enough input, I then suggest a relevant public noticeboard:

• WP:RSN - to assess the reliability of a source
• WP:ORN - to discuss original research/synthesis issues
• WP:NPOVN - to discuss WP:POV specific policy issues with the article
• WP:FTN - to discuss fringe material issues.

In all cases, please make sure to specify clearly the issue as well as provide a link to the relevant articles. Other venues would be:

• WP:3O - to request third opinion
• WP:DRN - for dispute resolution
• WP:MEDIATION - for formal mediation.

Not going through basic policies like WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS is unlikely to help. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Look who I found

Take a look at the editors at Texas Public Policy Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article that is just its FB page right now. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the notice, —PaleoNeonate – 03:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jupiter in Astrology

Nice catch on that one; I had to input the URL directly to get a match in copyvios (which is probably why the draft reviewer missed it). However, when it's a (pretty much) 100% match, you might as well G12 it rather than request revdel (also, revdel requests go on the page itself, not the talk page). Cheers, Primefac (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Good to know, thanks a lot, —PaleoNeonate – 15:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:ThinkNoodles

Hello PaleoNeonate. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:ThinkNoodles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied in Draft-space. Thank you. SoWhy 07:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: thank you, I was not aware and the tag did not complain (it sometimes does for wrong namespaces). This CSD thing is so complex, possibly/hopefully that it'll also require adaptations if WP:ACTRIAL is maintained... —PaleoNeonate – 15:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, A-tags are - as the abbrevation indicates - for articles. Sometimes an A7 might be justified in another namespace if it is clearly an article that was misplaced but since Draft-space was explicitly created to allow users to work on articles for a long period of time, A7 deletions are not really compatible with that goal. Regards SoWhy 16:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Good work at TPPF

See Talk:Claremont Institute. I'm surprised the article is so bland and inward-looking. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello PaleoNeonate:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 20:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

@Usernamekiran: Thanks a lot, happy halloween to you too (I won't repost the tag on your talk page as I see you already have one). —PaleoNeonate – 03:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Interview about WikiProject Recommendations for a Signpost report

Hi PaleoNeonate,

Hope you are doing well! Sorry for no update about project recommendations for a while. In the past couple weeks, we were preparing a WikiProject Report for the Signpost to publicize our system, and hope more WikiProjects could use it. As a part of our report, we'd like to include interviews to our participants. So it would be great if you could answer the questions below. Thank you for your help!

Interview Questions:

(1) How important it is for your project to recruit new members?

(2) What is your experience using our tool?

(3) Have any of the people you invited started contributing to your project?

(4) Have any existing members of your project commented on new people being invited or joining in?

(5) Would you like to receive recommendations from this tool occasionally in the future?

(6) What would you say to other WikiProject organizers who are considering signing up to get recommendations?

@Megalibrarygirl: who is an admin is helping me on this report. Bobo.03 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: And sorry for the delay when answering. Is there a time limit I should respect to submit my review? How about word count limit? Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 03:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi PaleoNeonate, thank you for your response! I don't have a time constrain for you, but hope it could be done soon. I was hoping to gather responses from you and other five participants and submit it as a WikiProject report for the next issue which is coming in one or two weeks. I don't have a work count limit for you either. It's totally up to you how you'd like to share your experience to other Wikipedians about our system:) Bobo.03 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ow!

Hey, I hadn't heard of the {{ow}} template, cool! Of course a savvy user knows they can remove whatever they like from their page... but I feel many may hesitate with an official-looking template like that. Bishonen | talk 00:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: maybe, let's see if it sticks, I don't think that an edit filter exists to prevent removing those; when I put it there it was mostly for other patrollers, but who knows, maybe it also sometimes has a more powerful effect. I first learned about it here. —PaleoNeonate – 01:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonateSineBot?

Are you edging out user:SineBot? Trying to surpass it's 2M edits? Thanks! The page that IP was editing Hagalavadi is a real mess. I reverted my edit as it didn't make much difference. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I really doubt that I could compete. Too often it doesn't sign posts (it avoids doing so for users who reached a certain number of edits, I don't remember how many). Since using {{xsign}} is simple and fast, I try to help a bit where I notice it (and when possible). When threads lack timestamps, they'll also never be archived by bots, of course... If I ever become an annoyance (i.e. causing edit conflicts), I'll also be glad to know. —PaleoNeonate – 10:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the one you signed had two edits. Maybe it just avoids my talk page? I periodically just manually archive the unsigned talk. To avoid going cross-eyed from the page history list jinking about, I have set my time prefs to 2017-10-30T10:09:02 Which none of the sign functions accept. Sigh... Or is it Sign... ? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of alien encounters. See this? Jim1138 (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: that was a nice read, thanks! —PaleoNeonate – 10:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Aegukka

I blocked this account and then noticed your warning. Feel free to contact me if you see any account doing edits like those. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And I blocked User talk:ValkizerGoldPremnuim both for their edits and their statement that the account was created to troll. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: While ValkizerGoldPremnuim was not yet reported, I reported Aegukka at AIV before leaving earlier (although it seems that the processing admin was waiting until more vandalism occurred after the final warning; but as is very typical, editing stopped at the crucial moment and the case slipped). Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 16:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ow

I'd say it's just better to leave him be...TJH2018talk 15:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@TJH2018: my rationale was that this is useful for patrollers in case disruptive editing pursues. But I won't restore it since it has been challenged. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@TJH2018: I realized that it's a school range so added the proper template. —PaleoNeonate – 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI EWN

wp:EWN#User:Oldstone James reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ) Jim1138 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks for the notice, —PaleoNeonate – 01:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Request other users to weigh in at Talk:Abortion

Hi, I wondered if you would be willing to weigh-in at the discussion that I am pursuing over at talk:Abortion. Note that I have been called "Berkeley" because of my other IP address. Thanks, -208.71.156.130 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@208.71.156.130: Thanks for the invitation. I will try to take a look soon. —PaleoNeonate – 23:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

page of creationists

you mentioned a page of notable creationists. where is it? --OtisDixon (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@OtisDixon: I didn't mean a list article (I'm not sure if there is one), but Ken Ham, Andrew A. Snelling, Carl Wieland are some that come to mind. —PaleoNeonate – 00:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Monosodium glutamate

I added a source for the previously unsourced claim, that "A popular belief is that large doses of MSG can cause headaches and other feelings of discomfort, known as "Chinese restaurant syndrome,"". You reversed it, and as reason you give "bare, better sources already available". I don't know what "bare" is a reference to. As for "better sources already available", where are they? And if they are somewhere, why are they not placed in the proper context. The claim should be sourced or removed. Carystus (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Carystus: I'm sorry for the delay, I'm leaving again but will take a look at this today when I'm back. —PaleoNeonate – 00:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Carystus: I have just listened to the video and checked the existing references. When I said bare, I was refering to WP:BAREURL (a bare URL rather than a proper citation). As for the existing sources, there are two good ones: . We have WP:OVERCITE, but it's only an essay. Since the other references are text and this one is video, it could probably be useful. I restored it while formatting it as a WP:CS1 citation and will let other editors review it. Sorry for the inconvenience, —PaleoNeonate – 06:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Neon Tetra

They're too pretty to use as slapping material!!! :( 2601:401:502:320A:BD38:3DAE:7DF4:C58B (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for being childish, disruptive, and disrespectful.141.213.172.73 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@141.213.172.73: If this was about the above message, I didn't feel offended, occasional humor on user talk pages is neither a crime nor forbidden (I participated myself with my neon tetra joke). One must of course be careful to stop if requested, with the main purpose of editing to improve the encyclopedia. Have a nice day, —PaleoNeonate – 03:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit

I apologize for reverting your edit. I must have hit the revert button by accident. TFD (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: that's no problem, another editor noticed it and restored it. It also appeared erroneous since if WP:DENY was the reason (in case the IP address editor was block-evading), the whole thread would probably have been erased, so I have no reason to think it's not a mistake, that happens. Have a nice day, —PaleoNeonate – 00:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

LTA

Is there in fact a WP:LTA case on this clown? I've been thinking about requesting a rangeblock and if he already has a rap sheet it would be easier to justify. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Hmm that's a good question, related appears to be Kay Uwe Böhm (one confirmed sock, 178.24.240.159, included the same spam and same for various of the suspected socks, some others including Kay-prefixed accounts doing the same, it seems that the email address confirms it's still the same this time). I see no entry about Kay in WP:LTA, unless it's listed as one of the others... Maybe we should check how far back it goes to consider if it should be there. There also was a separate LTA database project, which I currently can't find the link to (and I'm not sure if it really launched, was only planned or experimental). —PaleoNeonate – 06:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Appears to go back to at least 2011... —PaleoNeonate – 07:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Our rather strange IP

Amusing as I had lived on Bougainville Island at the Panguna_mine when I was 16-17 and befriended a guy from Papua New Guinea. I smuggled him lunch from the whites-only diner and talking my parents into having him over for dinner, and going on trips. Bright guy. I wish I had kept in touch. Our boss was rather bigoted and made him sit in the unfinished back of the jeep even though he was my senior - by age, intellect, and competence. We did trade off for awhile, but then the boss put an end to that. The photos on Panguna_mine were my dad's.
The IP geolocates to Manitoba? Strange. Jim1138 (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Hmm one local GeoIP database I have says US, whois(1) BSD command using the arin database says Manitoba; if not genuine, probably trolling... I never traveled there, but have a long-time early school friend who immigrated with his parents in Canada as a kid. His friends and family call him "Papou", which was funny when we learned of a poem in French class (part of it is used as example in this dictionary entry). I still know him to this day although we don't talk often. —PaleoNeonate – 09:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, PaleoNeonate. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thank you for the invitation. I understand that despite ACTRIAL more volunteers are always welcome to review new articles. Although a possible preparation may have been tracking User:InceptionBot/NewPageSearch/Skepticism/log (I also routinely delegate some of these new pages links to relevant noticeboards to get help/input), I often find that routine watchlist patrolling and WP:SKEPTIC management unfortunately take most of the time I can put on Wikipedia already. I admire new page reviewers and would like to eventually try it, but cannot tell when or at which rate. Wikipedia:New pages patrol has long been on my "to read" list. If I try, is there a noticeboard that I could initially also use for advice when learning? Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 03:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There are actually quite a lot of talk pages over at NPP, but the correct venue for general questions is the reviewers discussion noticeboard at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers. Or you can ask direct questions from myself or TonyBallioni. I'd definitely suggest reading the tutorial page, as there are some fantastic resources there, including several very powerful user scripts that, combined with the page curation tools, can make a tedious job of reviewing very easy instead. The new page patrol browser is another new tool that makes finding the sort of articles that you want to review really easy. Thanks for your consideration, and I hope to see you over there someday. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just make a PERM request and one of us will review it. I can't imagine a reason you wouldn't be granted the flag, but t really is much easier to review and grant from the PERM pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I always wondered why Paleo wouldnt join the cabal. If you are not sure about the time-management, then add Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist. It is not very busy page, but it is active. You will get information regarding current incidents, and similar stuff. ;) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, —PaleoNeonate – 03:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Maple syrup

Hi Paleo, FYI, this actually wasn't vandalism - I no longer have access to the source to double-check the wording, but you can see a partial preview via Amazon that confirms most of the list. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: thanks, I almost contacted you when I noticed the origin and realized that you were still an active editor (I then took a note instead as I wasn't done patrolling my watchlist yet). I'm sorry about this. I just found another source listing them (with parens which appear to make it clearer): I'll add back the material along with this source. —PaleoNeonate – 04:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

References

New page reviewer granted

Hello PaleoNeonate. 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.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, PaleoNeonate. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Joseph and Asenath

See my talk page. The Richard Bauckham source is good. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The two sources seem interesting, unfortunately I'm too interrupted today but if noone got to it yet, I'll try to expand the two articles a bit with material from those sources tomorrow, or at least this week... —PaleoNeonate – 18:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

How about a little help on anthropomorphic Yahweh

Dear PaleoNeonate, How about a little help on anthropomorphic Yahweh. Can you offer any suggestions? jewishvirtuallibrary/anthropomorphism. Perhaps this will work.Miistermagico (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: Normally per WP:BRD you should not restore the same edit by reverting when it is contested, but first discuss it to reach WP:CONSENSUS. But thanks for communicating, that's the most important part. The Jewish Virtual Library is indeed a secondary source, and has previously been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) (one of the discussions being this one). It seems to be usable, I recommend to use it along with the Biblical verse ({{Bibleverse}} can be used to cite the verse. We'll then see if other editors accept or contest it. If you want to pursue this discussion further, it should be done at the article's talk page for others to see and participate (consensus is not one or two editors, obviously). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion

What do you think of the discussion over at Talk:Parasitoid? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Sorry for not responding yet, reading that talk page is next on my list. Thanks for the invitation, —PaleoNeonate – 08:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. It seems to have cooled off but your opinion will still be welcome, on the talk and the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

WP:RS on Manises UFO incident

Hi PaleoNeonate. Año Cero is a reliable source for UFO's cases and sightings. I won't use that journal to reference the discover of Atlantis. What do you think? Tajotep (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tajotep: What brought my attention to this magazine was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Año/Cero. If you disagree and restore the citation, I won't edit war over it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello PaleoNeonate, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, PaleoNeonate! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

@Ozzie10aaaa: Many thanks! I'm incidentally and temporarily less active lately because of related events. I also left a message on your talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 23:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas PaleoNeonate!!


Hi PaleoNeonate, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thank you very much, best wishes to you too! —PaleoNeonate – 17:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year 2018 PaleoNeonate!
	To you and your family! Best wishes --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello PaleoNeonate, 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 2018. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@JudeccaXIII: Many thanks, same to you; I also posted a message on your talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 06:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Winter Solstice!

Trust you and yours had a merry Winter Solstice, around the time of this photo, and are going on to have a Happy New Year! A lot more snow now, wonder if it will last through Hogmanay? . . . dave souza, talk 15:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Teleological argument

Using the phrase "Intelligent design creationism" is like using the phrase "unmarried bachelors" What reason is there to use that phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.65.172.150 (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It just seems clear; if you would like to contest it I recommend to discuss it on the article's talk page to form consensus (which is of course more important than my opinion alone). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

So unmarried bachelors is a phrase we should be using then?185.65.172.150 (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That comparison seems irrelevant to me, but as I said, this should be discussed on the relevant article's talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 13:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but what's the purpose of it all? Or is the IP just here for an argument.... dave souza, talk 15:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

p.s. The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even? . . dave souza, talk 15:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Gabriel Deville

I see you rated this article "Start": provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. See Wikipedia:Assessing articles: it would be helpful if you could give advice on the article's talk page (not here) explaining what would be needed to bring it up to C: Useful to a casual reader. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Start is like a default assessment for new articles. My experience with quality assessment is limited, but it's even possible that it qualifies as B. It at least qualifies as C, so I'll update it, thanks for the note. For more official assessments like GA, a more formal review page is created and linked from the talk page. Thanks for your contributions and best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hogmanay, you say?

There is bound to be a just-so story about this one. In the meanwhile, happy New Year! Just plain Bill (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello PaleoNeonate, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Thanks for the well-wishes, and a Happy New Year to you too!--Paleolithic Brain (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Now seems to right time to wish you a happy new year.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Improving Draft:Phil A. Rea

Hi PaleoNeonate,

Wondering if you have any advice on improving the tone of the Rea page. My first thoughts were to flesh out the science in a more approachable way. Any other suggestions would be great.LSM17 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)LSM17

Hi PaleoNeonate, Just following up on this request for suggestions. Would like to get this draft approved but am new to Wikipedia and could use some direction. LSM17 (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Joseph and Asenath

Thanks. I was looking at the version you changed and it occurred to me also that "confirmed" was wrong, as was mainstream as there's no source for that. I very much like your wording. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: thanks! I still wasn't sure about the state of that sentence the way I left it. —PaleoNeonate – 16:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Page title

Hi, how do you get your Page Title to have a colour and shadow?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigginator1 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Pigginator1. That can be done using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} (click for its documentation). For instance, at this page I use: {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">User talk:<span style="color:#44a;">Paleo</span><span style="color:#272;">Neonate</span></span>}}. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 13:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks Pigginator1 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Jafar Dehghan

Hello, I'm sorry. Now I'll create Jafar Dehghan? --Williamaliallahyari (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@ویلیام علی اللهياری: The administrator who processed the CSD G4 request (Amortias) has access to previous deleted article versions (which I don't) and appears to have considered the article similar enough to previous versions that it should be deleted per WP:G4 (or he would likely have declined my nomination). This deletion criterion is for articles which have been recreated after being deleted as a result of a deletion discussion (in this case, here). Another complication is that this article was also deleted because it was created by a banned or blocked user (WP:G5), as seen here. Unless there are more sources to demonstrate the actor's notability, I would suggest writing an article about another topic, but that's up to you. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)