User talk:Chromancer/Archive 2

Criticism by User:Chiaroscurrilous

Dear Chromancer: If you're going to emblazon a bit of iambic pentameter as the motto for your activities as an editor and "reviewer," it would be better to observe correct lineation. Shakespeare didn't capitalize those words in the middle of the sentence by accident or at random... Sweet are the uses of adversity; Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, Wears yet a precious jewel in his head; And this our life, exempt from public haunt, Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones, and good in every thing. I would not change it. --Chiaroscurrilous (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Shakespeare didn't write entirely in prose? I'd no idea. Next you're going to tell me that when modern performances are put on, they cut lines. The horror.

I refer you to WP:USER#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. If you have a message for me, please refrain from editing my user page; you may leave it on my talk page only. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 20:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Jason Steed

Hi, could you please explain this comment, as I am genuinely puzzled. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Steed_(Young_adult_novels). Thanks.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, already done. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 23:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I ran the "review by an anonymous unpaid nonprofessional reviewer on a website that's not a critical authority" by Wikipedia's own RS page earlier today - and got the OK. So I think that your decision to take it out is questionable.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to this[1], that's the opinion of one person, not consensus. What that review states is that one reviewer, an anonymous, unpaid nonprofessional going by the pseudonym ReaderGirl, liked the book. It does not prove that the book was generally reviewed positively- which is what that citation was supposed to support. I cannot agree that removing misleading material is a questionable action.

I would advise you that you appear to have an extremely strong point of view regarding the importance of this author's work, and that Wikipedia discourages persons from editing articles they are personally involved in, so if you are associated with this author, I'd encourage you to take a step back from the process- it is not personal, simply a consensus-based matter of running a community-based online encyclopedia. If this author's contributions to his field begin to exceed WP:AUTHOR criteria or WP:NBOOK criteria, I will be happy to help you build the article; but until then, I am afraid sourcing the lack of serious critical coverage and editorial oversight amongst sources means this article is not up to the standard. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 22:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The only point of view I have is that it is a great book for young adults. I have no financial stake in this. I didn't write the book, I didn't finance or publish it. If it ends up winning the prize for the world's best book ever, it will make no difference to my boring, routine and ultimately pointless life. However, this is a book which has a huge following on the internet and, as such, qualifies as a WP article.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure you properly indent your remarks when answering; you should use at least one more colon than the last person involved. As far as your perspective, it doesn't matter if you're making money off the book, what matters is that you are maintaining a partisan attitude; remember, here the encyclopedia comes first and our personal feelings about its subjects second. Unfortunately, an internet following does not mean the book merits an article. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 22:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking the time to write your message re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult sexual interest in children, which I found both cogent and caring. Maybe I am taking it way to seriously, but it is (was, I am trying to retire) part of my usual set of task here, to be concerned about this stuff. To me, this is not about the origin of the Slovak language or whatever but something that affects the Wikipedia's position in the world and could lead astray people who come here to read up on the subject, so to my mind it's pretty important.

I'm not so sanguine that the entity will be deleted. I would say it depends on the closing admin, and "No consensus to delete" is quite likely. Count of !votes will enter into it either a lot or a whole lot, depending on the closing admin. Very few admins will delete an article that has -- even after discounting WP:SPAs, trolls, and complete idiots -- more than 50% Keep !votes, for instance, regardless of strength of argument. Strength of argument? James is the strongest debater I've yet run into on this subject, I think. The closing admin may not be able to properly weigh the arguments. You are confident. I hope you are right.

Incidentally and FWIW, I haven't been stewing about this or holding out or anything. Except for the bare fact of her name, I had no idea who Jokestress was until today, when I ran across Andrea James quite by accident somewhere else. It doesn't condemn the article, but it's a piece of information that I found germane and thought others also might.

You may be correct that I'm hurting my own nom, but I'm not at all sure this is true. I don't know. I do know, or think, that there are a lot of people might have difficulty assessing some of the scholarship but who understand politics, motivation, that sort of thing. I think its a good idea to approach this entity from both sides, scholarly and political. I may be wrong, but that's what my experience tells me. Naturally yours is the more important effort and I greatly appreciate and respect your contributions. And anyway I am not planning to get much involved anymore. Thanks again. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think, yeah, that anything personal will cloud the issue. I don't think Jokestress or any of her compatriots have made very strong arguments; their ideas essentially boil down to "not all people who like kids are pedophiles" and "there are a lot of references that agree with me". Neither one of these justifies creating a content fork like this when it's clear past consensus has been against articles of this kind. Beyond which, count the !votes again; I did a really quick nose count and got twelve or so deletes and four keeps. I think I may have fudged the count a little, I was doing it quickly, but in any case it's clear consensus is against retaining the article. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 03:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well, I intend to stay clear of it from now on. Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Chromancer, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Inspector Sledge Hammer

I have struck my keep vote after reading your obsevations. However, please read my suggestion of a compromise in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspector Sledge Hammer. —CodeHydro 13:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks :):)

I wished to thank you Chromancer for your vote; as well as for your lovely comments on my answer on GNG et al. I appreciated each word :):) Thanks again. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Babylon 5 stuff

Hi, I didn't mean to say that you were mass-AfDing B5 articles, just requesting that you didn't in the near future. Sorry if I sounded defensive. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I wasn't really taking offense. I'm not planning on it. I would like to get these articles merged together at least; Psi Corps et cetera don't deserve their own articles, in my opinion. But I have little hope to make headway, from the looks of things; it's me versus the Babylon 5 mailing list, ha. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well for starters I'm working on that list of B5 starships; I'm a B5 geek and some of them I don't even recognize. So I agree that some of them need to be redirected at least! --Fang Aili ^talk 20:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Q

Hi. A quick question. I have a strong feeling you have a lot more proficiency with editing here (thoughthat is not saying much) but when we talk about third-party notability for an author, ideally, aren't we looking for, say, reviews of work in literary magazines? I mean, it doesn't have to be that, but that's a good example. right? That being said, I can't find one for this guy [2] I nominated. Predictably--as with the last author I nominated--his fans are coming out in drones. As you said, being nominated doesn't mean being notable. I think it fell on deaf ears. It's nothing personal for me, because I have been called far worse than what they say, but they can't seem to grasp it. I think I've created far more articles than I have nominated for deletion, but this AfD process is for the birds. Thanks again for the help.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, Jim. Frankly, I agree that the sources that are being used fall far short of what would give someone notability as an author. Unfortunately, that's largely determined by consensus, and it looks like the author you're talking about has a lot of fans. When an AfD nomination gets a number of "keep" votes shortly after it goes up, it creates a sort of snowball effect, that can often drown out other arguments before they begin. In the meantime, don't take it personally. Sometimes, right or wrong, you can get talked down. Maybe later on someone else will nominate it, and consensus will swing the other way. In the meantime, keep creating articles! That's an extremely useful service, and much less frustrating than the AfD process, which can definitely be loopy. If you ever want my help again, don't hesitate to ask. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 06:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I really do appreciate it. You can see on the AfD page, though you stated "being nominated for an award does not necessarily make you notable" many people have since repeated their reasoning over and over. Quite frustrating indeed!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Gasoline

Thanks for the cleanup on that. Managed to find the cites, but didnt have time to move everything to a better place and finish cleaning up. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was looking for cites for that info earlier and didn't have time to find them, so nice teamwork. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 04:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Canada - Imperial - Fahrenheit

Before dismissing my thought provoking altercations to the Fahrenheit article as vandalism, see my discussion on Canada in the discussion section of the actual Fahrenheit article. Please and thank you. 173.180.193.139 (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

When you convert citations into external links, and label multiple of those external links as "x for sale," you appear to be adding promotional material. Now that I understand what you're trying to do, I see that you are not vandalizing the encyclopedia. My mistake. However, there are some concerns with what you are doing. Recipes and advertisements are not appropriate references to make claims about the adoption of a temperature scale. I would advise you to find better references—such as an article, report or poll on the use of different temperature scales in Canada—before making these changes. Also, you may want to see the Wikipedia guidelines on formatting citations so no one else mistakes what you're doing for vandalism. We do not format references as external links in that way. — chro • man • cer  09:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I referenced the sources in a similar fashion to how others have referenced their sources on the same exact page. Also, recipes and advertisements are a good indicator of the use of the Fahrenheit scale in Canada because they are marketed in such a way that enables the general public to understand them. Think about it, nobody would list 350F on a recipe if Canada ONLY used Celsius. Also, if you look at the discussion section, you'll see that I have provided a link to Environment Canada -- a government agency/source that officially makes use of the Fahrenheit scale. 173.180.193.139 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the discussion in the Fahrenheit section. The Celsius "system" is NOT the "sole" official system. Both scales are perfectly legal for use within Canada. I'm going to have to escalate this if you don't read the Canadian Weights and Measures Act plus the discussion on the use of Fahrenheit in Canada. 173.180.193.139 (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's good reasoning. And ordinarily, if Wikipedia operated in a common-sense way, I'd agree with you. However, and here's the big however, because of the potential for original research, Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources to make a larger assumption. The basic rule of thumb is, if you want the article to say "A lot of Canadian ovens use Fahrenheit," you would have to find an article from a reputable source that itself says "A lot of Canadian ovens use Fahrenheit." As far as the gov't agency goes, that would be acceptable, but you would have to explicitly label it on the page: "While the official system is Celsius, Environment Canada, a government agency, still sometimes uses Fahrenheit," or something to that effect. I would be happy to help you find appropriate sources—I don't doubt what you're saying, it sounds like you know what you're talking about, but we can't cite in that way and have it be considered correct. — chro • man • cer  09:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, fair enough -- I see your point. You have to consider though, there are MANY primary sources used throughout Wikipedia (including in the Fahrenheit article). I think some admins are more tolerant of their use, you're clearly not. I don't necessarily appreciate being singled out (considering my information is extremely accurate). Great source from the Seattle Times: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000604&slug=4024917 173.180.193.139 (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm glad we agree. And yes, there are many primary sources used through Wikipedia. I do not think they should all be removed—they are quite useful. But the source you've provided can support what you're saying, whereas those primary sources could be accused of WP:SYNTHESIS. I have rewritten the paragraph, removing the unnecessary cites and reflecting what I believe to be the accurate information you've added. Take a look and see if you're satisfied it's accurate. (And let me add two things: one, I'm not a sysop—I've just been here a long, long time. And two, I'm not trying to single you out by any means—the "for sale" caught my eye, is all. False alarm.) — chro • man • cer  10:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Seattle Times source only corroborates some of what I am saying. You must also consult the Weights and Measures Act (which actually doesn't mention either Celsius or Fahrenheit, though their usage is assumed and implicit with regard to the Metric and Canadian/imperial systems). I think you (and many others, so don't worry) may be slightly confused in that Canada has passed legislation FAVOURING the use of the International System but in no way does this legally deny or prohibit the use of traditional Canadian/imperial units ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-6/page-19.html#h-17 ). This is unique among most countries and was done as a compromise to the fierce public resistance to the final metrication processes that were taking place in the early 1980s. As a result, Canadians are LEGALLY allowed to use feet, inches, yards, pounds, ounces, gallons, Fahrenheit, etc. This is in contrast to even the United Kingdom were continued usage of traditional measurements is largely done without legality -- it's done more or less out of tradition. Canadians use some imperial units out of tradition, but we also have a legal basis for our continued usage (the Seattle Times glosses over this).

How does this sound to you?

"Canada, in particular, has passed legislation favouring the International System of Units, while also maintaining legal definitions for traditional Canadian imperial units ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-6/page-19.html#h-17 ). In terms of temperature scale usage, Canadian weather reports are often conveyed using degrees Celsius (although thermometers, both analogue and digital, usually display both Celsius and Fahrenheit). Virtually all Canadian ovens still make use of the Fahrenheit scale ( http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000604&slug=4024917 ).

PS - Since you're being so adamant about how I cite (and I respect that), you might want to take a look a correcting citations 16 and 17 respectfully. 173.180.193.139 (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually did read the relevant sections/schedules of the Weights and Measures Act, which is why I included the language that I did. Note that I put "its official measurements," not "the sole official measurements," as I acknowledge that the latter would be incorrect. I didn't think it was necessary to mention that it is still legal to use imperial units, but if you think that needs clarification, I'll make the change. As far as your Seattle Times not mentioning Celsius/Fahrenheit—it actually does, though not in-depth, which is why I thought it was appropriate to support the weather/oven statement. As far as the "usually display Celsius and Fahrenheit," that's so nearly universal in the US that I thought it would be pedantic to include it. I see your point about it not being accepted at all in Europe, so I'll clarify that as well. — chro • man • cer  10:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's important to mention thermometers in Canada displaying BOTH scales because this is an anomaly largely confined to North America. In Europe and Asia, temperatures are ONLY given in degrees Celsius. We have to remember, not all of Wikipedia's readership is of North American origin. 173.180.193.139 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge that, but I have some issues with the way you've rewritten the paragraph. Neither source says anything about thermometers. The first sentence makes it clear that dual-use thermometers are legal, but it says nothing about how widespread they are or if they're used. Thus, no thermometer info until we have a clear source. Secondly, the way you've written out the first sentence makes it sound like there's an "Canadian Imperial" system of measurements. I've revised the paragraph accordingly. — chro • man • cer  11:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond which, I'm going to go ahead and say it's not really relevant to the article. Detailed information like that is best suited for articles like Metrication in Canada, which could probably use some of your information, as it looks to be in pretty badly unreferenced shape. — chro • man • cer  11:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just the thing, there IS a "Canadian-imperial" system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication -- scroll down to Canada (Canada uses different definitions for the hundredweight and ton, for example). Also, the units in Canada are legally defined as "Canadian units." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_units ) Trust me when I say I know this stuff. Also, you say "the first sentence makes it clear that dual unit thermometers are legal" (in my opinion it does not -- how is a European or Asian to know that Canada actually makes use of both systems in day-to-day living? It's one thing for something to be "legal" but entirely another for it to actually be used) but by virtue of the same logic, you're essentially also saying that reporting the weather in degrees Celsius is implicit -- so maybe that should be removed from the paragraph as well? Should I go out and take pictures of every outdoor thermometer in the Vancouver and Toronto regions? I can do it, and they'll all show Fahrenheit. Or would that "primary" source not be good enough for you (even though a huge percentage of Wikipedia--and indeed the Fahrenheit article--makes tremendous use of primary sources)? I'm getting a little annoyed now and am not afraid to escalate this if necessary. http://www.shopbot.ca/cdn-thermometers/price/canada/37097 173.180.193.139 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot revert a page this many times in a row back to your preferred version when someone is attempting to make good-faith edits to bring it to a consensus. Your annoyance is immaterial, and if you "escalate" this, what you're going to find is that I have been more than patient and accommodating with you, and that your constant use of the revert tool against my good-faith attempts to build a compromise has already entered into what most editors would consider unsafe territory. That being said, this is my final attempt to work out a compromise with you. This interaction has become toxic and I have more important things to work on. If you feel the need to revert my edit again to a pre-compromise revision, it will not be necessary to inform me; I'm moving on. — chro • man • cer  23:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one who has edited constantly. I don't think you understand what I'm saying (nor do you wish to find compromise). I find it interesting that after having watched this page for months -- you show up out of nowhere and take issue with what I feel is inconsequential considering there are COUNTLESS examples on Wikipedia where "primary sources" have been used as excellent and satisfactory proof that something is in fact reality and valid. I'm not letting this go because I believe in factual accuracy, and your current "revision" is only partially true with regard to your limited knowledge of the "Canadian imperial" system and the Fahrenheit scale's usage in Canada. 173.180.193.139 (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that someone else is ignorant for disagreeing with you, and the inability to acknowledge that a Wikipedia policy is valid (WP:PRIMARY), as well as your inability to reach a consensus even when your preferred revision is not cited by sources and your yourself consider the point you are fighting inconsequential, do not bode well for your future participation in this project. I made a hint before that I do not wish to further interact in this aggressive manner. Now I'm going to make it explicit: don't contact me again. — chro • man • cer  15:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your inability to read is most troublesome. "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Using data from Canadian Tire, the equivalent of Target in Canada, is indeed reliable. Also, I find your disdain for honest debate extremely troubling for the future of this project. Good day and don't even think about altering any of my valid changes in future. I'm not a fool. 173.180.193.139 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, in the next sentence: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You have not cited a secondary source for anything thermometer-related. Canadian Tire is a primary source, also, only for what is sold by Canadian Tire. Beyond which, it is not a critical authority that provides commentary. See WP:RS. Also, regards your comment that I can't read, see WP:No_personal_attacks. Regards your prohibition on my altering "your" edits, see WP:OWN. Regards your continued contact after I have firmly requested you to stop: I trust that it will not continue. Consider this my final request. — chro • man • cer  22:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

GWS Motorsport

Fair enough. Note I did not nominate for speedy delete, and I tried to give some helpful guidance on rescuing the article. It would appear the author has a COI, based on short edit history. If the article can be rescued, I'll do what I can to help. All the best, 78.26 (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you directly for your input at talk:Sigmund Freud; you handled things very well, and the edit warring issue is resolved as a result. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thanks for being open to compromise. If I can assist in any way with the article later on, please let me know. — chro • man • cer  17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we try to find a consensus on Mutant growth hormone ?

Why are you against a move to Mutant growth hormone (comics), an edit on Mutant growth hormone so it redirects to Growth hormone and a merge of Mutant growth hormone (comics) into List of comic book drugs ? Can we try to have a consensus on this solution ? Real word redirect to real word, fictional word redirect to fictional word and a merge can be performed to save information.--Crazy runner (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my new comment at the AfD discussion. — chro • man • cer  22:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you define "scholarly bent"?

Exquisite Corpse's contributors over the past quarter century include James Broughton, Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Edouard Roditi, Ted Berrigan, Anselm Hollo, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Tom Robbins, Paul Krassner, Kirby Olson, Mauricio Montiel, and Teresa Bergen. These are all major figures in American literature, poets, fiction writers and, yes, scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anathemariner (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the relevant talk page. — chro • man • cer  21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Nomination et al...

I don't understand why all my articles are being attacked, by you at once?

The whole purpose of adding content to Wikipedia, is to make useful, encyclopedia based, information more freely available to the world. There is little to no difference from my articles then others already on Wikipedia that have no problems, as I learned to ad pages, by following examples of existing entries. Of course, I added people that interested me, based on what I learned through google and others. Because these people were missing, I felt other people would find this useful. However; just because I'm not a Wiki editor I keep being criticized without any HELP from you the editors, on how to best advance the articles, instead of deleting them, try explaining how to better improve them. They contain MANY sources and references, what else can I add?

If you have a personal problem, with how I write them, then please attack my writing skills, and not the pages, in general, as these can be useful for MANY people. Westwood1984 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an attack, Westwood. It's an attempt to first identify, tag, categorize and then fix the many problems with the way these articles were written. I have referred you more than once to the problems with the articles. They are written with a promotional tone, they're not referenced with reliable secondary sources, and the notability of the articles' subjects is questioned.

Examples of reliable secondary sources would be newspaper articles and reviews in trade magazines. Personal web sites and press kits are not considered secondary sources. I note that you have removed templates from the articles in question again. Do not do this. It is not acceptable behavior to remove those without consensus that the problem has been solved. — chro • man • cer  20:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Content duplication in Colombian Military...

Hello, Chromancer. You have new messages at Iceman0108's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Chromancer/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cover of John Fowles Mantissa Plume Fiction.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

On your user page, I have asked you would be interested in offering a Wikipedia:Third opinion on the Teleological argument article. Myrvin (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coastal Grooves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)