Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Bishop Dabney Smith
- 2 Andrew Doyle Article
- 3 Yellow Corn Image
- 4 The Signpost: 22 April 2015
- 5 Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
- 6 The Signpost: 29 April 2015
- 7 The Signpost: 06 May 2015
- 8 New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
- 9 The Signpost: 13 May 2015
- 10 The Signpost: 20 May 2015
- 11 When to use pictures of people
- 12 3RR warning
- 13 The Signpost: 03 June 2015
- 14 The Signpost: 10 June 2015
- 15 The Signpost: 17 June 2015
- 16 Edit warring through full protection
- 17 The Signpost: 24 June 2015
- 18 Permission to use Mayowood image
- 19 The Signpost: 01 July 2015
- 20 The Wikipedia Library needs you!
- 21 Proposed deletion of David Reed (bishop)
- 22 The Signpost: 08 July 2015
- 23 The Signpost: 15 July 2015
- 24 The Signpost: 22 July 2015
- 25 The Signpost: 29 July 2015
- 26 The Signpost: 05 August 2015
- 27 America media would like to use your photo
- 28 The Signpost: 12 August 2015
- 29 The Signpost: 19 August 2015
- 30 The Signpost: 26 August 2015
- 31 The Signpost: 02 September 2015
- 32 The Signpost: 09 September 2015
- 33 Disambiguation link notification for September 16
- 34 DYK for William Sauntry House and Recreation Hall
- 35 The Signpost: 16 September 2015
- 36 Speedy deletion nomination of File:RAAC.jpg
- 37 The Signpost: 23 September 2015
- 38 Deletion discussion about Joseph Horsfall Johnson
- 39 The Signpost: 30 September 2015
- 40 The Signpost: 07 October 2015
- 41 The Signpost: 14 October 2015
- 42 Invite to the Minneapolis Institute of Art
- 43 Found in User:Jonathunder/doc
- 44 The Signpost: 21 October 2015
- 45 Minnesota Secretary of State
- 46 Halloween cheer!
- 47 The Signpost: 28 October 2015
- 48 Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:TswiftARTPOP
- 49 Talkback
- 50 NPA
- 51 The Signpost: 04 November 2015
- 52 The Signpost: 11 November 2015
- 53 Teitur Thordarson
- 54 The Signpost: 18 November 2015
- 55 Public domain images and lost NRHP properties
- 56 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 57 The Signpost: 25 November 2015
- 58 RevDel needed
- 59 DYK for Cokato Temperance Hall
- 60 Tracy Morgan page
- 61 The Signpost: 02 December 2015
- 62 File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg
- 63 Phase II RfC
- 64 The Signpost: 09 December 2015
- 65 The Signpost: 16 December 2015
- 66 Season's Greetings!
- 67 Common names
- 68 The Signpost: 30 December 2015
- 69 Hi, a year late
- 70 Precious anniversary
- 71 Psychology of eating meat
- 72 The Signpost: 06 January 2016
- 73 Ted Cruz
- 74 The Signpost: 13 January 2016
- 75 The Signpost: 20 January 2016
- 76 Edit Request for Planet Nine
- 77 The Signpost: 27 January 2016
- 78 St Charles I of England
- 79 Edit-a-thon in Madison
- 80 RfA
- 81 Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center
- 82 The Signpost: 03 February 2016
- 83 DYK nomination of psychology of eating meat
- 84 Reversion
- 85 The Signpost: 10 February 2016
- 86 Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016
- 87 Cibolo Creek Ranch
- 88 Unprotecting Planet Nine
- 89 DYK
- 90 Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016, Part II, epilogue
- 91 Evidence, please.
- 92 DYK for Psychology of eating meat
- 93 The Signpost: 17 February 2016
- 94 The Signpost: 24 February 2016
- 95 Art+Feminism
- 96 A More Usable Episcopal Church Calendar
- 97 File:SandersSmiles.jpg
- 98 DYK for Cibolo Creek Ranch
- 99 The Signpost: 02 March 2016
- 100 The Signpost: 09 March 2016
- 101 The Signpost: 16 March 2016
- 102 Discretionary sanctions
- 103 The Signpost: 23 March 2016
- 104 New photographs
- 105 The Signpost: 1 April 2016
- 106 Barnstar
- 107 The Signpost: 14 April 2016
Bishop Dabney Smith
I will be glad to upload a picture of Bishop Smith..thank you for the idea.. BrandlandUSA (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Doyle Article
On May 2, you asked if I object to moving Charles Andrew Doyle article to C. Andrew Doyle. No objection.
Thanks,
Yellow Corn Image
We are considering using part of this image for a sell sheet. We would show about half of one ear of the corn in your photo. The print run would be small 100-300 copies. Could you contact me to discuss?
Thank you for your time.
Mike
- Yes, will contact. Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 April 2015
- In the media: UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality
- Featured content: Vanguard on guard
- Traffic report: A harvest of couch potatoes
- Gallery: The bitter end
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,
This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.
Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 April 2015
- Recent research: Military history, cricket, and Australia targeted in Wikipedia articles' popularity vs. quality; how copyright damages economy
- Traffic report: Bruce, Nessie, and genocide
- Technology report: VisualEditor and MediaWiki updates
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 May 2015
- Special report: FDC candidates respond to key issues
- News and notes: "Inspire" grant-making campaign concludes, grantees announced
- Featured content: The amorous android and the horsebreeder; WikiCup round two concludes
- Traffic report: The grim ship reality
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 May 2015
- Foundation elections: WMF Board candidates share their views with the Signpost
- In the media: Grant Shapps story continues; Wikipedia's "leftist ties"
- Featured content: Four first-time featured article writers lead the way
- Traffic report: Round Two
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 May 2015
- News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Wikipedia volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes
- From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election
- In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize
- WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating molecular biology
- Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases
- Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls
- Traffic report: Inner Core
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
When to use pictures of people
Are there any guidelines/standards on when to use pictures of people in entries about that person? I have pictures of several bishops I have taken myself, so I have rights to them, but I don't see lots of pictures of people and I am wondering what the guidelines are. Johnma4567 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are legal standards, which are very broad, Wikimedia standards, which are somewhat more narrow, and ordinary politeness. In my view, the latter is simply considering how the subject of the photograph would feel to have it published. If you do that, you are unlikely to run into trouble. Jonathunder (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
3RR warning
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160423054959im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f7/Nuvola_apps_important.svg/30px-Nuvola_apps_important.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dennis Hastert. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 June 2015
- News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out
- Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia
- Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013
- Traffic report: A rather ordinary week
- Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings
- Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 June 2015
- News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief
- Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity
- Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am
- Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 June 2015
- Arbitration report: An election has consequences
- Discussion report: A quick way of becoming an admin
- Featured content: Great Dane hits 150
- News and notes: Labs outage kills tools, self; news in brief
- WikiProject report: We are back - Western Australia speaks
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring through full protection
My protection is an admin action from an ANI complaint. There will be no edit-warring advantage for admins. Blocked 72 hours and I will mention this in the ANI thread.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- That was a very hasty block. I was caught in an edit conflict and didn't see a warning that the page was fully protected. And you block me for 72 hours without even a warning? Jonathunder (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm open to unblocking provided that you don't intend to edit through the protection.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)- I've already removed the block. Getting caught in an edit conflict is not a blockable offense. bd2412 T 01:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Look, I didn't even know the page was protected. No, I'm not going to edit it now that it is, but I would like to participate on the talk page, as I did right before your quickdraw block. Jonathunder (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind that. BD2412 should have waited as we were about to have this worked out. Thanks for checking with the blocking admin there BD.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)- Maybe BD should of waited (and even not be involved per В²C below), but who should have really waited was you. No reason why this couldn't have reverted and brought up with Jona before implementing a block, and I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be an ounce of regret. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Things happen. I hold no grudges. I very much regret the last block I made and now that I am for the first time on the receiving end of a block, I will doubly learn my lesson not to block in haste. Administrators are not perfect, but we can learn and get better. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well said, well said...oddly I view blocks sensitively due to the community's overall stigma against having an imperfect block log, but ultimately it's not a big deal either. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize Jona for reading the circumstances incorrectly and blocking as well as for not apologizing before now. I should have done so last night. Please forgive me.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)- It's not easy to apologize. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Things happen. I hold no grudges. I very much regret the last block I made and now that I am for the first time on the receiving end of a block, I will doubly learn my lesson not to block in haste. Administrators are not perfect, but we can learn and get better. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe BD should of waited (and even not be involved per В²C below), but who should have really waited was you. No reason why this couldn't have reverted and brought up with Jona before implementing a block, and I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be an ounce of regret. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind that. BD2412 should have waited as we were about to have this worked out. Thanks for checking with the blocking admin there BD.
- For the record, BD2412 is and has been heavily involved in the HC/HRC dispute[1] and, IMHO, should abstain from administrative matters in this area. --В²C ☎ 02:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm open to unblocking provided that you don't intend to edit through the protection.
The Signpost: 24 June 2015
- From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative
- News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments
- Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done
- Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration
- Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Permission to use Mayowood image
We would like to use your photograph of the Mayowood residence in a temporary educational exhibit that presents the agricultural efforts of Dr. Mayo and his brother-in-law, Dr. Christopher Graham, in the context of the American Country Life movement of the early twentieth century.
If you allow us to use the image, may we convert it to black and white? And how would you like us to credit you?
Thank you for your consideration.
jane@blueplanet-consulting.com 97.114.60.81 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 July 2015
- News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF
- In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology
- WikiProject report: Able to make a stand
- Featured content: Viva V.E.R.D.I.
- Traffic report: We're Baaaaack
- Technology report: Technical updates and improvements
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of David Reed (bishop)
![Ambox warning yellow.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20160423054959im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article David Reed (bishop) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP
16:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 July 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation annual plan released, news in brief
- In the media: Wikimania warning; Wikipedia "mystery" easily solved
- Traffic report: The Empire lobs back
- Featured content: Pyrénées, Playmates, parliament and a prison...
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 July 2015
- Op-ed: On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
- News and notes: The Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania
- Traffic report: Belles of the ball
- WikiProject report: What happens when a country is no longer a country?
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Featured content: When angels and daemons interrupt the vicious and intemperate
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 July 2015
- From the editor: Change the world
- News and notes: Wikimanía 2015 in the books; Lightbreather ArbCom case
- Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015 report, part 1, the plenaries
- Traffic report: The Nerds, They Are A-Changin'
- WikiProject report: Some more politics
- Featured content: The sleep of reason produces monsters
- Gallery: "One small step..."
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 July 2015
- News and notes: BARC de-adminship proposal; Wikimania recordings debate
- Recent research: Wikipedia and collective intelligence; how Wikipedia is tweeted
- In the media: Is Wikipedia a battleground in the culture wars?
- Featured content: Even mammoths get the Blues
- Traffic report: Namaste again, Reddit
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 August 2015
- Op-ed: Je ne suis pas Google
- News and notes: VisualEditor, endowment, science, and news in brief
- WikiProject report: Meet the boilerplate makers
- Traffic report: Mrityorma amritam gamaya...
- Featured content: Maya, Michigan, Medici, Médée, and Moul n'ga
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
America media would like to use your photo
Hi there, America media, the national Catholic review, would like to use your image, Hasslerhouse.jpg to illustrate an article on John Hassler both in print and on the web. Please let us know about terms and compensation (we are a nonprofit), and how you'd like your credit to read. Thanks, Sonja
Sonja Kodiak Wilder Art Director America Media 106 West 56th Street, New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-515-0120 Email: wilder@americamedia.org Web: www.americamedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americamedia (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 August 2015
- News and notes: Superprotect, one year later; a contentious RfA
- In the media: Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
- Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015, part 2, a community event
- Traffic report: Fighting from top to bottom
- Featured content: Fused lizards, giant mice, and Scottish demons
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Blog: The Hunt for Tirpitz
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 August 2015
- Travelogue: Seeing is believing
- Traffic report: Straight Outta Connecticut
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 August 2015
- In focus: An increase in active Wikipedia editors
- News and notes: Re-imagining grants
- In the media: Russia temporarily blocks Wikipedia
- Recent research: OpenSym 2015 report; PageRank and wiki quality; news suggestions; the impact of open access
- Featured content: Out to stud, please call later
- Arbitration report: Reinforcing Arbitration
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 September 2015
- Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Flow placed on ice
- Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments
- Featured content: Brawny
- In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
- Traffic report: You didn't miss much
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 September 2015
- Gallery: Being Welsh
- News and notes: The Swedish Wikipedia's controversial two-millionth article
- In the media: Calling all scientists!; More Wikipedia editors in the Netherlands than all of Africa combined
- Featured content: Killed by flying debris
- Traffic report: Mass media production traffic
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warren Miller (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) 11:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
DYK for William Sauntry House and Recreation Hall
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 September 2015
- Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access
- Traffic report: Another week
- News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?
- In the media: Is there life on Mars?
- Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:RAAC.jpg
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160423054959im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Information_icon4.svg/48px-Information_icon4.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on File:RAAC.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 September 2015
- Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library
- In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda.
- WikiProject report: Dancing to the beat of a... wikiproject?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Joseph Horsfall Johnson
Hello, Jonathunder,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Joseph Horsfall Johnson should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Horsfall Johnson .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2015
- Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Wikipedia's search function inferior?
- Tech news: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 October 2015
- Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption
- In the media: Jailed Saudi blogger wins award; PR editing and Wiki-embarassment; Pakistan's third-richest person?
- Traffic report: Reality is for losers
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 October 2015
- Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death
- WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States
- News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate
- Featured content: A fistful of dollars
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Invite to the Minneapolis Institute of Art
Minneapolis Institute of Art edit-a-thon |
|
---|---|
|
Found in User:Jonathunder/doc
(I doubted you see this where it was placed, so I moved it here --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC))
For Jonathunder: you asked about my documentation for my edits on the Dr. William Worrall page. I am the author of the 2004 book which you already cite on that page: "I Started All This: the Life of Dr. William Worrall Mayo."Judith Hartzell (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 October 2015
- Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In the media: "Wikipedia's hostility to women"
- Special report: One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus
- Featured content: A more balanced week
- Arbitration report: Four ArbCom cases ongoing
- Traffic report: Hiding under the covers of the Internet
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Minnesota Secretary of State
Hey Jonathunder,
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon recently came across one of your photos and is interested in featuring it on our official redesigned website, which is launching in May 2016. Please see Secretary Simon’s note below and let us know if you’re interested:
Dear Jonathunder,
I’m reaching out today because my office is setting up a section on our website to promote Minnesota photographers shooting pictures of Minnesota and its people. These photos will be used on the highly frequented Office of Minnesota Secretary of State website after it is redesigned, launching May 2016.
While browsing Wikimeda, we found your photograph of the state apple, the Honey Crisp(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Honeycrisp.jpg) and thought it would be a great contribution to the initial launch. Would you be interested in having your photo featured on the redesigned website?
In exchange for the use of your photo on our website, we will include your photo in the Minnesota Photographer’s Gallery and link to a profile page of you with your contact information.
If you are interested, please reply to my colleague, Lizzie Wortham, at Lizzie.Wortham@state.mn.us with your regular email address so that we can send you the details.
Thanks for your great photography! Keep up the good work.
Steve Simon Minnesota Secretary of State — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.17.254 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Halloween cheer!
- Happy (belated) Halloween! North America1000 00:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 October 2015
- From the editor: The Signpost's reorganization plan—we need your help
- News and notes: English Wikipedia reaches five million articles
- In the media: The world's Wikipedia gaps; Google and Wikipedia accused of tying Ben Carson to NAMBLA
- Arbitration report: A second attempt at Arbitration enforcement
- Traffic report: Canada, the most popular nation on Earth
- Recent research: Student attitudes towards Wikipedia; Jesus, Napoleon and Obama top "Wikipedia social network"; featured article editing patterns in 12 languages
- Featured content: Birds, turtles, and other things
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Community letter: Five million articles
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:TswiftARTPOP
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160423054959im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:TswiftARTPOP, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Amortias (T)(C) 19:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Amortias (T)(C) 19:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
NPA
While I see you made a point of addressing the behaviour of "Cassianto" on his talk page, I have to wonder why you limited your response to a simple comment. Why no sanctions? (or an ANI even?) I've seen other editors punished for less. His behaviour is not limited to just that comment. After I asked him about a strange comment he made on Jimbo's talk page (see here), he for some reason felt the need to follow me to the Skyfall talk page where he made multiple baiting, off-topic comments. He then continued this behaviour on the yet another film's talk page. He obviously did not take your comment seriously as seen by the rather flippant edit summary he wrote when he deleted it. All of this taken as a whole, along with his lengthy history of disruptive behaviour indicates that more action is needed to protect the project, and it's editors, from further abuse and harassment. - theWOLFchild 03:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's a personal attack to falsely accuse another editor of stalking too. Cassianto first edited the Skyfall article (and its talk page) in October 2012, and has done so since. That is three years before you visited the page, so it's not at all likely that he followed you from one to the other. His visit to the HP page was because another editor mentioned the thread on the Skyfall talk thread (presumably the same reason you went to that page too?), so it's not difficult to see the connection. Trying to get an editor sanctioned by miscasting the truth to fit your argument really is harrassment in my book, especially given your lengthy history of disruptive behaviour... - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, here comes schrocat to throw more gas on flames. I was addressing Jonathunder, not you. Your comments here are purely antagonistic. - theWOLFchild 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I hate to see personal attacks, but I'm not here to "punish" people. That's not my job.
- @Cassianto: has told you to avoid him, and you have told him to avoid you. It's probably best for the project that you both do that. Jonathunder (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Call it "punishment", call it "moderating", call it "sanctioning"... call it whatever you like. It is your job to protect the project from disruptive editing. Cassianto was continuing to stalk and harass when I made the point of preemptively posting a request on his talk page to disengage. (let's get the order of events straight) He didn't stop, as you can see. Just as he did not abide your request to stop the NPA attacks. You were given these tools for a reason. I suggest you look more carefully at all the involved edits, and the timeline in which they occurred. I would like to see a more effective response, to prevent any more disruption. - theWOLFchild 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- If there is ongoing disruption that must be stopped, please take it to a noticeboard. Otherwise, my suggestion is to let it be and find something work on. Jonathunder (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is. Another editor template Cassianto's talk page with an NPA warning, which was immediately removed as "rubbish". Cassainto then posted a baiting comment on that editor's talk page. In other word's, he shows no signs of stopping his disruptive behaviour. (his lengthy block log shows this is nothing new for him). Now, my understanding was that the purpose of ANI was to get an admin to intervene. You're an admin and you have already begun to intervene. (an "intervention" that was rudely dismissed by the laugh, as you can see in the edit summary, he thinks this is a joke, and his behaviour is continuing). - theWOLFchild 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- If there is ongoing disruption that must be stopped, please take it to a noticeboard. Otherwise, my suggestion is to let it be and find something work on. Jonathunder (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Quite simply, I do not have the time to deal with that. If you think it's warranted, you do know where the various notice boards are. Jonathunder (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
The Signpost: 04 November 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation finances; Superprotect is gone
- In the media: Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: propaganda myth or history?
- Traffic report: Death, the Dead, and Spectres are abroad
- Featured content: Christianity, music, and cricket
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 November 2015
- Arbitration report: Elections, redirections, and a resignation from the Committee
- Discussion report: Compromise of two administrator accounts prompts security review
- Featured content: Texas, film, and cycling
- In the media: Sanger on Wikipedia; Silver on Vox; lawyers on monkeys
- Traffic report: Doodles of popularity
- Gallery: Paris
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Teitur Thordarson
So I take it that it's time to start Anglicising/Anglicizing (surely a debate for another day) all the other Icelandic and other articles as well? Goodo. So Þingvellir to "Thingvellir", Alþingishúsið to "Parliament House (Iceland)"? What do we do to Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, though? Call him "Olaf", or just remove those scary diacritics and keep the rest? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 November 2015
- Special report: ArbCom election—candidates’ opinions analysed
- In the media: Icelandic milestone; apolitical editing
- Discussion report: BASC disbanded; other developments in the discussion world
- Arbitration report: Ban Appeals Subcommittee goes up in smoke; 21 candidates running
- Featured content: Fantasia on a Theme by Jimbo Wales
- Traffic report: Darkness and light
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Public domain images and lost NRHP properties
I've been wanting to express my thanks and appreciation for the historical images you've been adding. There really ought to be a barnstar for uploading public domain content. Regarding your open question about the image you found of Delhi, Minnesota: I'm afraid it does not show the NRHP-listed Delhi Coronet Band Hall (there's a picture at [2]). By the way, I recently learned from a colleague that the Minnesota Historical Society secured a grant to hire her to travel around the state and photograph demolished properties according to NRHP standards to have them finally delisted. So hopefully that will go a long way toward cleaning up the county lists. Thank you again for your diligence in finding and uploading those pre-1923 photos! -McGhiever (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's been fun browsing old postcards, and sometimes you find unexpected things in doing so. With the last update on the NRHP/progress page, Minnesota is getting pretty red.
- Would you happen to know, by the way, if the Denmark Township District #34 School is still standing, and whether it might be visible from the road now that the leaves have dropped? Jonathunder (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's way back on the property but should still be there. I drove by and took a long shot of a building from the driveway opening in summer 2014, but convinced myself it was the wrong building and deleted the pic, and now think I was a self-doubting idiot who was right the first time. I am very much planning to try again this season. According to this website it has been purchased by the Denmark Township Historical Society, so hopefully it'll be readily accessible to the public one of these years. -McGhiever (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 November 2015
- Traffic report: J'en ai ras le bol
- News and notes: Fundraising update; FDC recommendations
- Featured content: Caves and stuff
- Arbitration report: Third Palestine-Israel case closes; Voting begins
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
RevDel needed
here Defamatory, uncivil, etc. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- And here. Thanks for blocking them quickly. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- It was an easy block as the throwaway accounts were obviously not here to build the encyclopedia, but do we really need to RevDel a naughty word and links to photographs of the middle finger? Jonathunder (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Cokato Temperance Hall
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Tracy Morgan page
I am new to Wikipedia and after much research noticed that there was missing info on the above page. Therefore today I made a number of edits to this page... sometimes I made edits and within minutes (seconds) before I added the sources, my edits were deleted. Thinking I did not save or edit them correctly or perhaps the required addition belonged to a separate section (family vs. early life), I kept re-adding them. Now the editor that doesn't want any of these negative details on this page actually accused me of war editing, a term I had never heard of prior to a few minutes ago. It has been commented on Morgan's talk page that there's been an effort to sanitize the information and that does appear to be the case. There are well documented sources of negative news for this celebrity that are no longer on Morgan's page (e.g. quotes that family members have made, specific homophobic comments made by Morgan, reasons for his first wife filing for divorce, etc.) that are cited in multiple prominent sources such as ABC and NY Daily News. Apparently on Wikipedia, any wealthy celebrity with the money to pay someone to monitor and edit his page is entitled to his version of the truth. I am looking for your help or advice as the I do not think the editor who made these changes is objective on the subject of Tracy Morgan and I hope that you could intervene...see the changes I made and determine if they are in fact relevant. Thanks! Hummer61 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 December 2015
- Op-ed: Whither Wikidata?
- Traffic report: Jonesing for episodes
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg
The image is nominated as possibly unfree. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Phase II RfC
Hi Jonathunder. I just wanted to let you know that I undid the oppose !vote you cast for the C4 proposal, since it has already been closed per WP:SNOW and there is no longer any need to oppose it. Thank you for your participation in the other proposals, however. Biblioworm 21:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. However, I could not let the incorrect definition of majority stand without comment. I'd invite you to review that article as you find time. Jonathunder (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 December 2015
- News and notes: ArbCom election results announced
- Traffic report: So do you laugh, or does it cry?
- Featured content: Sports, ships, arts... and some other things
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 winners
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 December 2015
- In the media: Wales in China; #Edit2015
- Arbitration report: GMO case decided
- WikiProject report: Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations
- Traffic report: A feast of Spam
- Featured content: An unusually slow week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings!
-
Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Common names
Compare Google Books searchs:
- [3] George Selway 11
- [4] George R. Selway 11
- [5] George Rhys Selway 6
- (Internet search: George Selway 44:George R, Selway 18)
So you can see why I made those moves. And maybe you might move them back? Thanks DBD 22:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm using the names given in the articles themselves and the sources I find in improving the articles. That's a better basis for establishing the title than running Google, which will pick up unrelated people as you use fewer elements of the name. You might also consider that in the United States we are more likely to use full names for bishops. The ones I've worked on are mostly American. We should respect the appropriate version of English. Jonathunder (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is I've been researching these bishops' common names (and I always include multiple possibilities — including full name, middle initial etc. as above) because we have a naming policy called WP:COMMONNAME. That's for a reason — for instance death notices, consecration announcements and obits will tend to use full names whether or not that is how they are/were generally called. DBD 11:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with COMMONNAME which does refer also to ENGVAR and ambiguous naming. You've been moving a lot of bishops around based on your Google searches, but I am focused on individual articles through improving them and adding sources. On these that you listed, I think they are properly named. Jonathunder (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hang on; if you think these are properly named, then doesn't that imply you trust my method? Why are reverts continuing? DBD 11:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with COMMONNAME which does refer also to ENGVAR and ambiguous naming. You've been moving a lot of bishops around based on your Google searches, but I am focused on individual articles through improving them and adding sources. On these that you listed, I think they are properly named. Jonathunder (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is I've been researching these bishops' common names (and I always include multiple possibilities — including full name, middle initial etc. as above) because we have a naming policy called WP:COMMONNAME. That's for a reason — for instance death notices, consecration announcements and obits will tend to use full names whether or not that is how they are/were generally called. DBD 11:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Those three are named correctly where they are right now. You have moved many pages, often as your only edit to the article, and I don't trust your "method" as you appear to be ignoring ENVAR. But I am not reverting all of your mass moves by any means. I've only undone a few of your moves on pages I am working on and know the sources. It's only by familiarity with the subject that you can know what the title should be. Jonathunder (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean by familiarity with the subject? How would you apply ENGVAR to such article names? Is there a consistent form by which they're all called? The sources would suggest otherwise. If the ENGVAR for TEC is non-consistency, then surely it is no VAR at all! DBD 16:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- You gain familiarity with subjects by reading the sources, not by running Google searches and moving pages en masse. I would encourage you to stop moving articles around and focus on improving them. Jonathunder (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 December 2015
- News and notes: WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee
- Year in review: The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015
- Arbitration report: Second Arbitration Enforcement case concludes as another case is suspended
- In the media: Wikipedia plagued by a "Basket of Deception"
- Traffic report: The Force we expected
- Featured content: The post-Christmas edition
- Gallery: It's that time of year again
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, a year late
Sorry i missed your message from a year ago!
I hope things are going well with you and your partner. I hope 2014 went well and 2015. Happy Winter Holidays and a great New Year! -- Ellenois
Precious anniversary
![]() |
|
images of Minnesota | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 712 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Psychology of eating meat
![]() ![]() |
Some cashews and/or beef jerky for you |
Your choice—but beware! The beef jerky is spiked with a neurochemical that will make you think cows are dumb. [13]
Many thanks for your support in the AFD, and for the DYK nomination! FourViolas (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 06 January 2016
- News and notes: The WMF's age of discontent
- In the media: Impenetrable science; Jimmy Wales back in the UAE
- Arbitration report: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case been decided
- Featured content: Featured menagerie
- WikiProject report: Try-ing to become informed - WikiProject Rugby League
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ted Cruz
I would suggest to you that when you revert a whole bunch of edits that another editor did (especially when that editor gave reasons for the edits) then you should try to give reasons why you reverted ALL of the edits instead of simply giving out a snarky little comment such as "Not an Improvement". First of all, my edits were an improvement so the comment is false because I moved the information into chronological order as the MOS requires AND I cleaned up the sloppy citation work and added a template for the citation, etc. But you reverted that work without giving an explanation and without attempting to work with me on my changes. Yes, I know you are an admin but your work was sloppy and it did not even attempt to work with the other editor, who was me. If your work on Ted Cruz is indicative of the way that you edit then I don't know how you became an admin. Yes, you may now follow me around and delete all of work, find anything you can to get me in trouble, etc. I don't mind because I got to tell you that your editing is a joke and shows what is wrong with Wikipedia: admins like you that throw around your weight and just immediately revert others work and don't put an ounce of thought into what they are doing. You can review your lousy editing here: Lousy Editing On Ted Cruz Article.ML (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ted Cruz is a fast moving page and you did a whole series of edits, some of which may have been an improvement, some of which I didn't see as one. I would suggest using a clear edit summary for each change so other editors can follow what you're doing. But I have no intention of following you around Wikipedia. Jonathunder (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- I did provide a "clear summary" for the edits that I did. Here is an example of a "clean summary" that you either ignored or you simply missed: Example of Jonathunder missing a clear summary. I would suggest that you read them, if you didn't. The edit that you made was sloppy and it needed improvement. I am not at fault for your sloppy editing. You are. Also, if you want to reply then leave this conversation here and please do not move back to my page since this discussion concerns your editing mistakes, not mine. I look forward to a your version of a Wikipedia Admin's Star Chamber, in response to my decision to confront your sloppy editing. You are the one that needs to improve, not me.ML (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
These edits of yours in the series had no meaningful edit summaries: [14], [15], [16], [17]. It would be helpful if you use them in the future. Jonathunder (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you were to read the edit summarizes are given in the future.--ML (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 January 2016
- News and notes: Community objections to new Board trustee
- In focus: The Crisis at New Montgomery Street
- Editorial: We need a culture of verification
- Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF
- Traffic report: Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report
- Special report: Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Interview: outgoing and incumbent arbitrators 2016
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 January 2016
- News and notes: Vote of no confidence; WMF trustee speaks out
- In the media: 15th anniversary news round-up
- Traffic report: Danse Macabre
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit Request for Planet Nine
I would like to correct a mistake (made by me earlier) in the article. Please see talk discussion on Orbital_Inclination
J mareeswaran (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 January 2016
- Traffic report: Death and taxes
- News and notes: Geshuri steps down from the Board
- In the media: Media coverage of the Arnnon Geshuri no-confidence vote
- Recent research: Bursty edits; how politics beat religion but then lost to sports; notability as a glass ceiling
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
St Charles I of England
What is wrong with specifying that St Charles I of England is celebrated in the Church of England? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because it is not only the Church of England where he is commemorated. See Society of King Charles the Martyr. Jonathunder (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The Society of King Charles the Martyr is an Anglican society, which is another word for Church of England. Do you know anyone other than the Church of England who venerates him? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many commemorations happening today all over the Anglican Communion, including North America. Jonathunder (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit-a-thon in Madison
Hey Jonathunder—I saw that you were listed or active near Madison. If indeed you are, you are invited to the upcoming edit-a-thon:
- Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon
- Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)
- Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare
RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. And if you want to be automatically contacted for future Madison-area events, be sure to add your name to the invite list. czar 23:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
RfA
I reverted you there because it had already been closed here. Several folks have already posted thoughts at: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat if you want to still voice a thought. — Ched : ? 06:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center
The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon |
|
---|---|
|
The Signpost: 03 February 2016
- From the editors: Help wanted
- Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost
- Traffic report: Bowled
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination of psychology of eating meat
Hello! Your submission of psychology of eating meat at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Reversion
This reversion and the edit summary you provided was not helpful at all. Why didn't you take it to talk instead of performing a drive-by reversion? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're the one who has repeatedly tried to add disputed material to a BLP. It's up to you to get consensus for your edit. Jonathunder (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't "disputed material" at all. One editor reverted it, and that editor suffers from some sort of behavioral issue where he/she reverts almost every edit I make on Wikipedia. The edit was uncontroversial and unchallenged until the first reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it's definitely disputed: take a look at the talk page where I agreed with the other commentators that it doesn't belong in the article. Let's discuss it there. Jonathunder (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am discussing the edit there. But I'm discussing your reversion here, because it is a behavioral problem and not a content issue. The edit was not disputed at all until an SPA reverted me and then you came along and contributed more instability. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Giving the impression that she won the delegate vote is BS and pointing to the (still not blocked?) sock is a lame excuse.--TMCk (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you are posting that here, but my edit did not give the impression Clinton "won" anything at all. If you want to discuss content, please move to Talk:Hillary Clinton as Jonathunder said. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Giving the impression that she won the delegate vote is BS and pointing to the (still not blocked?) sock is a lame excuse.--TMCk (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am discussing the edit there. But I'm discussing your reversion here, because it is a behavioral problem and not a content issue. The edit was not disputed at all until an SPA reverted me and then you came along and contributed more instability. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it's definitely disputed: take a look at the talk page where I agreed with the other commentators that it doesn't belong in the article. Let's discuss it there. Jonathunder (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't "disputed material" at all. One editor reverted it, and that editor suffers from some sort of behavioral issue where he/she reverts almost every edit I make on Wikipedia. The edit was uncontroversial and unchallenged until the first reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 February 2016
- News and notes: Another WMF departure
- In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: A river of revilement
Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016
Can you explain to me the logic of this edit: Jonathunder's edit to Cruz campaign article? I admit that confuse Judge Posner with his son. But I left Posner in the article--as you requested--then American In Brazil added Elhauge and Clinton, I removed Elhauge and Clinton, and then you used my confusion between Posner and his son as the reason for you to re-add Elhauge and Clinton to the article. What is the rationale behind this edit? Also, do you agree with American In Brazil that my removal of Elhauge and Clinton is vandalism? Inquiring minds want to know.--ML (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
For the fourth time today MaverickLittle has reverted the same edits. This violates the WP three revert rule. Can something be done about this belligerent editor who refuses to accept consensus and follow WP rules? American In Brazil (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not lie about my edits. I have not violated the 3RR. If you really believed that I have reverted the same edit four times today then you would go ahead and file a complaint in the correct place: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But you aren't because you know what you just wrote is not true. Just like you kept lying about my edits and calling them "vandalism" when they were clearly good faith edits that were NOT, in any way, vandalism. Stop lying about my edits. I would stop talking about lying when you stop doing it.--ML (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is hilarious that American In Brazil is calling me a "belligerent" editor when he was been lying about my edits, engaging in ad hominem, and reverting as many edits he can until 3RR kick-in and pounding his chest about his background, which is irrelevant and probably not true. I think the word "belligerent" applies to him.--ML (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think you reverted five times today, ML, but I don't have time to pursue it now. Why don't the two of you see if there's a compromise you can both live with? Jonathunder (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is hilarious that American In Brazil is calling me a "belligerent" editor when he was been lying about my edits, engaging in ad hominem, and reverting as many edits he can until 3RR kick-in and pounding his chest about his background, which is irrelevant and probably not true. I think the word "belligerent" applies to him.--ML (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to compromise. Leave the citations in. American In Brazil (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's hardly a compromise. If the article named only three legal opinions on each side, which would you pick? I'd say Eric Posner and Tribe on one side and Katyal and Clement on the other, to name a conservative or libertarian and a liberal on each. They are all notable lawyers or legal scholars who we have articles for. Who would you add? Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Both of you have broken the three-revert rule now. Any chance you'll stop and start working out a compromise? Jonathunder (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Six reverts by ML now. I have counted three on my side. American In Brazil (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- So let's stop reverting and keep talking. Which opinions are most important, which the article must mention? Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- ML can add as many additional citations as s/he wants. But the paragraph of four legal scholars is essential, as it states the original intent interpretation of the Constitution, the one that Cruz subscribes to. The solution is to leave it in full pending further discussion by other editors and consensus. American In Brazil (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Here it is: Natural-born-citizen clause, 5.3.3 Ted Cruz American In Brazil (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I've made an offer of compromise. The only thing that I have heard from American In Brazil is that we leave in all of the edits. That's it. No compromise whatsoever. The section is too long. It is turning into a law journal article on Ted Cruz's eligibility, when the article is about Ted Cruz's campaign.--ML (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)6
-
On 15 FEB 2017 I made 3 reverts, ML made 6. What's being done about ML's violation of WP:3RR? American In Brazil (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing prevents you from filing a complaint on the noticeboard. Do that if you want. But are you going to talk about a solution to the article? Jonathunder (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- I already talked about this above. Read my comments. American In Brazil (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's your initial position. Suppose you don't get everything you want, as occasionally happens in life. What can you live with? Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that the article Natural-born-citizen clause has a whole section dedicated to Ted Cruz and it is actually shorter that the section in Ted Cruz's campaign. That article is specifically dedicated to the citizenship issues and it does not go into the detail that the campaign article does and the campaign article is supposed to be outlining the ins and outs of the current campaign, not Cruz's eligibility. I'm willing to compromise and I am offering to assist in writing a in article dedicated to all of the various opinions (both for and against). A separate article could be totally focused on this topic and we could go into greater detail about the written opinion of both well-known law professors, well-known attorneys, and other people whose opinion is not as respected (both for and against). So I just upped the ante. I'm offering to help make that new article.--ML (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's your initial position. Suppose you don't get everything you want, as occasionally happens in life. What can you live with? Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I already talked about this above. Read my comments. American In Brazil (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- As I stated above, the paragraph with four academic scholars of the "originalist" school (of which the leading proponent was the late Justice Antonin Scalia), interpreting the Constitution regarding Presidential eligibility, is essential to understanding the issue. Original intent of the Framers is also the philosophical position of Cruz. This is a widely accepted and valid viewpoint in legal circles. ML's statement that the section on Cruz (section 4.3.3) in the Natural-born-citizen clause article is shorter than the "Eligibility" section of this article is misleading; section 4.3.3.1 of the "Natural born" article, about American citizens born on foreign soil, is far longer. If ML wishes to shorten the section by removing other material, go ahead. But do not excise the essential "originalist" theory. Further, ML has been reverted by three editors (including you) but refuses to accept that this is consensus. He has reverted them all (including you, with abusive and insulting language) with six edit wars in 24 hours (15 FEB 2016) in violation of WP:3RR. I made only three reverts, within 3RR. What is being done to enforce WP rules? American In Brazil (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I never removed Tribe's comments about Cruz's inconsistency (Tribe's criticism that if a judge was to follow Cruz's interpretation method then he would not be eligible.) So that is a red herring. But the main issue still remains and you continue to ignore it: the article section is too long, it is not the main topic of the main article and it goes into way more detail than it should by listing opinions and comments of more of the people who believe that Cruz is not eligible (the minority POV) and listing fewer of people who say he is eligible (the majority POV). Once again, this new proposal by you does not respond to that main issue. Moreover, it is NOT "essential" that we list FOUR scholars to get the point across. The article is about Cruz's campaign, not about Cruz's eligibility. You need to write an article just about Cruz's eligibility if you believe that Wikipedia must have all four scholar's opinions. Also, you aren't fooling anyone by your complaining about edit wars when you were engaging in the edit war yourself. Also, you violated the 3RR rules with four reverts in 24 hrs and fifth one right outside the 24 hour period. Also, your silly complaints about "abusive and insulting language" since you have engaged in that behavior more than anyone. It is embarrassing for you to act like this is a one-way street, in which you are an innocent bystander. Once again, you have refused to respond to the new article option or to the two and two compromise. And finally, by the nature of this discussion there is no consensus so drop that issue. And if you are going to talk consensus please note that you are editor who is attempting to add disputed material, not me, and as such you have the burden to prove that your material needs to be added, not me.--ML (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- As I stated above, the paragraph with four academic scholars of the "originalist" school (of which the leading proponent was the late Justice Antonin Scalia), interpreting the Constitution regarding Presidential eligibility, is essential to understanding the issue. Original intent of the Framers is also the philosophical position of Cruz. This is a widely accepted and valid viewpoint in legal circles. ML's statement that the section on Cruz (section 4.3.3) in the Natural-born-citizen clause article is shorter than the "Eligibility" section of this article is misleading; section 4.3.3.1 of the "Natural born" article, about American citizens born on foreign soil, is far longer. If ML wishes to shorten the section by removing other material, go ahead. But do not excise the essential "originalist" theory. Further, ML has been reverted by three editors (including you) but refuses to accept that this is consensus. He has reverted them all (including you, with abusive and insulting language) with six edit wars in 24 hours (15 FEB 2016) in violation of WP:3RR. I made only three reverts, within 3RR. What is being done to enforce WP rules? American In Brazil (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
-
I don't think this is going to be solved here and I don't have time to edit Wikipedia today. So please use the article talk page and perhaps other editors will chime in. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have already continued the discussion on the Talk page of the article. Please join in. American In Brazil (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Cibolo Creek Ranch
This article is what I love about Wikipedia. It was nominated for deletion a few days ago, and with the efforts of a few editors it has become an very interesting article about a little-known place. Thanks for your great edits today, and sorry for my seemingly harsh revert. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm happy to work on articles about historic places, which this is. They are typically much calmer and saner places to edit than articles about political campaigns. Jonathunder (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Unprotecting Planet Nine
Hey there! On January 26, you semiprotected Planet Nine, noting in the protection log "Hopefully semiprotection can be lifted once no longer on Main Page". Planet Nine has now been off the main page for some time, and its views have dropped significantly since it was protected. The page also has 172 watchers, so vandalism should be reverted quickly. Planet Nine is a hot, developing topic where input from the scientific community, many of whom do not have accounts, is to be expected. For example, Mike Brown himself has commented on the talk page as an IP. So, I was wondering if you might be persuaded to unprotect Planet Nine for now? A2soup (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. I didn't know it was still semiprotected. Thank you for the reminder. Jonathunder (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK
Good idea. Perhaps you could add "Supreme Justice" before Antonin?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is a wiki, so you could do that, but DYK regulars like brevity. Jonathunder (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Magnolia677: What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- I added your suggestion as an alternate hook. Jonathunder (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Magnolia677: What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016, Part II, epilogue
I have been discussing one of your edits on the Ted Cruz campaign article. You can review my comments here: Jonathunder's edit to Cruz article that created two footnotes for the exact same editorial and how it was obvious that this admin editor did not actually read the citations before adding them into the article, but yet admin editor Jonathunder was critical of my edit and immediately reverted my edit while sitting back and watching American In Brazil beat me over the head with insults and lies about vandalism. -- ML (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Jonathunder: I realize that you are an admin and I also realize that admins do not like to have their work to be reviewed or edited or criticized. So if you are going to find a reason to block then I would ask that you just go ahead and get it over with. Thank you in advance -- ML (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Jonathunder: You can review your original edit here: Jonathunder adding duplicate citations that he clearly did not even read before you put them in the article. And you can review my edit which fixes your obvious mistake here: ML coming in and cleaning up Jonathunder's glaring mistake. Not to put too fine a point on it: You reverted one of my edits and you made the comment in the edit summary that you believed that I did read ALL of the citations closely enough because I made an honest mistake of confusing Judge Posner with his son. You did not give my edit the good faith that it deserved. I made that mistake because I actually did go to law school from 1985 to 1988 and we were required to read Posner throughout my first year and we had to refer back to Posner over and over again throughout the remainder of my time there. Now, I find out that you not only were critical of me for making an honest mistake by confusing Judge Posner with his son YOU put three citations to support your inclusion of the Professor from Weidner Law but you did not read all three of the citations!!!!! Amazing. The only good thing that came out of my block for 3RR is the fact that whole bunch of more eyeballs took a gander at the Cruz's campaign article and it was almost unanimous that they agreed with the point I was making and they did not agree with American In Brazil. -- ML (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Evidence, please.
Regarding your claim that "Sanders has a religion, and it's cited",[18] Can you please provide a citation that where Sanders himself says that his religion is Judaism? Here are references where he says otherwise:
-
- Washington post: Why Bernie Sanders doesn’t participate in organized religion
- Chicago Tribune: Bernie Sanders not "involved with organized religion"
- CNN: Bernie Sanders not "actively involved with organized religion"
- Washington post: Bernie Sanders: Our first non-religious president?
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Psychology of eating meat
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 February 2016
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Super Bowling
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 February 2016
- Special report: [UPDATED] WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears
- Op-ed: Backward the Foundation
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Of dead pools and dead judges
- Arbitration report: Motion on CheckUser and Oversight inactivity
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Art+Feminism
![Mail-message-new.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20160423054959im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. — Phil wink (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
A More Usable Episcopal Church Calendar
I'm wondering why you insist on taking down the links to commemorations and collects from the Calendar of Saints (Episcopal Church) page. I think that links that go directly to the prayer for that particular saint makes the Calendar more usable to anyone using the Calendar as a calendar and not just a list. At the least, the links go to the BCP, Holy Men, Holy Women, and A Great Cloud of Witnesses and reinforce how the saints for commemoration were chosen and communicated. It had been many years since I last participated in editing on Wikipedia, but a desire to make the Calendar of Saints more functional is why I setup a new ID. I also started a thread on the Talk page for the calendar.
Dwsmith84 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
File:SandersSmiles.jpg
it says you took this last year... really? Can't be... 75.172.224.240 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. I fixed it. Perhaps in ten months or so, I'll get used to writing "2016" on things. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Cibolo Creek Ranch
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 March 2016
- News and notes: Tretikov resigns, WMF in transition
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Brawling
The Signpost: 09 March 2016
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- News and notes: Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted
- Technology report: Wikimedia wikis will temporarily go into read-only mode on several occasions in the coming weeks
- Traffic report: All business like show business
- WikiCup report: First round of the WikiCup finishes
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 March 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia
- In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing
- Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States
- Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov
Discretionary sanctions
Jonathunder, didn't get you get the warning to look out for previous ds alerts on Blue Salix's page? Your blp ds alert came one minute after mine. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
- I didn't, which is weird. I've placed it only once or twice before, and I got the warning then. Maybe it's because we were doing it at (almost) the same time. We were thinking alike, apparently. Jonathunder (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I see you have removed yours, and BS has put it back with a BS reason. Par for the course I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
- If he put it back, at least we know he saw it. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I hope that translates to "BlueSalix put it back with a BlueSalix reason" ... BlueSalix (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I see you have removed yours, and BS has put it back with a BS reason. Par for the course I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
The Signpost: 23 March 2016
- Interview: WMF interim executive director Katherine Maher says the org is at an "interesting moment of change"
- News and notes: Lila Tretikov a Young Global Leader; Wikipediocracy blog post sparks indefinite blocks
- In the media: Angolan file sharers cause trouble for Wikipedia Zero; the 3D printer edit war; a culture based on change and turmoil
- Editorial: "God damn it, you've got to be kind."
- Traffic report: Be weary on the Ides of March
- Featured content: Watch out! A slave trader, a live mascot, and a crested serpent await!
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #120—the status of Wikimania 2016
New photographs
MaverickLittle, I've noticed you have found some new photographs, and cited them as your "own work". Are you a professional photographer? If not, these images cannot be your own work. Please specify further where these may have originated from. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I was at the fundraiser and I took the pictures. Just like I was at the opening for Cruz's headquarters where the picture of Heidi and Ted comes from. They are my own work, just like the Heidi's picture. Please explain yourself and your question.--ML (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just asking out of curiosity, MaverickLittle. If they were not your own work then this matter would be very different. However, that is not the case. Thank you for explaining. The uncivil tone in which you responded to me is another matter, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- There was nothing uncivil in my tone whatsoever. That is a flat out falsehood. Now, I will repeat my question, "Please explain yourself and your question."--ML (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Accusations of "falsehood" are out of line and you've been warned before. End it now. Jonathunder (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- What else am I supposed to say when he states that I was being "uncivil" when I was not being uncivil?--ML (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I really would like to know what I am supposed to say when he calls me "uncivil" when I was not being uncivil. I will not just ignore it when Ches and WV call me uncivil every five minutes when I am not being uncivil. Please let me know what I am supposed to say when they go down that road.--ML (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- What else am I supposed to say when he states that I was being "uncivil" when I was not being uncivil?--ML (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Accusations of "falsehood" are out of line and you've been warned before. End it now. Jonathunder (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- There was nothing uncivil in my tone whatsoever. That is a flat out falsehood. Now, I will repeat my question, "Please explain yourself and your question."--ML (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just asking out of curiosity, MaverickLittle. If they were not your own work then this matter would be very different. However, that is not the case. Thank you for explaining. The uncivil tone in which you responded to me is another matter, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
When several people consider your tone uncivil, it just might be that your writing comes across as abrasive, even if that's not your intention. Also, if people go down roads you don't like, you don't have to follow them. Jonathunder (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Please tell me what I said to editor Ches that was actually "abrasive"? I just asked him to explain himself and then he called me "uncivil". It does not make sense and what I said was NOT uncivil. I simply asked him to explain himself. There is nothing uncivil about that. That is a fact. Please tell me what I said that was uncivil? I cannot change what you call "abrasive" if I don't know what it is, right? What was "abrasive" that I said to editor Ches to make him make the claim that I was "uncivil"? I am asking an honest question here. How is asking him to explain uncivil? -- ML (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Please explain yourself and your question" may have seemed abrasive, although I would not have made an issue of it myself. Saying "That is a flat out falsehood" was what I reacted to. A better approach is to assume good faith. Ches asked about the provenance of the photo most likely because we get questionable uploads all the time, and probably not because he wanted to start a fight with you. Thank you, by the way, for uploading a couple of better photos. I upload a lot of images and I know how hard it is to take good ones of people in a crowd. It's also hard to have people criticize your work. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I understand what you reacted to. But I did just want to understand what he was driving at. I'm not real proud of the pictures but they are what I have. The close up is not good because Heidi was posing with two friends of mine and I had to crop them out of the picture. The one from the audience is distant and it is difficult to see her face.--ML (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Please explain yourself and your question" may have seemed abrasive, although I would not have made an issue of it myself. Saying "That is a flat out falsehood" was what I reacted to. A better approach is to assume good faith. Ches asked about the provenance of the photo most likely because we get questionable uploads all the time, and probably not because he wanted to start a fight with you. Thank you, by the way, for uploading a couple of better photos. I upload a lot of images and I know how hard it is to take good ones of people in a crowd. It's also hard to have people criticize your work. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please tell me what I said to editor Ches that was actually "abrasive"? I just asked him to explain himself and then he called me "uncivil". It does not make sense and what I said was NOT uncivil. I simply asked him to explain himself. There is nothing uncivil about that. That is a fact. Please tell me what I said that was uncivil? I cannot change what you call "abrasive" if I don't know what it is, right? What was "abrasive" that I said to editor Ches to make him make the claim that I was "uncivil"? I am asking an honest question here. How is asking him to explain uncivil? -- ML (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
The Signpost: 1 April 2016
- News and notes: Trump/Wales 2016
- WikiProject report: Why should the Devil have all the good music? An interview with WikiProject Christian music
- Traffic report: Donald v Daredevil
- Featured content: A slow, slow week
- Technology report: Browse Wikipedia in safety? Use Telnet!
- Recent research: "Employing Wikipedia for good not evil" in education, useing eyetracking to find out how readers read articles
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #121: How April fools went down
Barnstar
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For all your help on getting WP:NRHP 75% Illustrated Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 14 April 2016
- News and notes: Denny Vrandečić resigns from Wikimedia Foundation board
- In the media: Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case; Tex Watson; AI assistants; David Jolly biography
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: A welcome return to pop culture and death
- Arbitration report: The first case of 2016—Wikicology
- Gallery: A history lesson