This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Kate Bush is currently living in BallyVaughan in Co Clare Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.132.187 (talk)

Hi! I'm assuming you're telling me this because I recently edited her article and you'd like me to work that in? If you'd like me to do it, find a reliable source for her current residence in County Clare and I'll look into it, although it looks like you're confident doing it yourself. ;) However, if you didn't notice, your edit to her page was reverted per WP:BLPSOURCES because it was unsourced. Cheers! —  Rebbing  talk  03:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Barbie page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, ReferenceBot! —  Rebbing  talk  00:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

I just had to say that your user page is wonderful! I'm particularly fond of the two paintings of young ladies wearing beautiful dresses amid lovely flowers! I really should add images to my boring user page. Have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dontreader: Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. Perhaps you should add those two paintings to your own user page gallery.

My favorite is the Soviet painting with stylized pillars of society; I don't know what that style is called—I should pull out my old college art history textbook someday—but I find it profound (and also quite pretty with its rich blues and yellows).

Cheers! —  Rebbing  talk  17:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a great idea! I definitely should add them to my user page. Sadly, I'm very primitive, so for me it's a struggle to add pictures and to do cool things in general on Wikipedia! I just know how to add pictures to the left side, and to the right side. Oh well, I can always try to just steal your code... after all, the few nice things on my user page are stolen concepts from other users! And on Commons all I do is nominate pictures for deletion... it's so much easier to destroy than to build!

The Soviet painting is really nice! I do appreciate the rich blues and yellows, but don't expect me to understand the meaning of it! I'm a simple guy. I can't handle "profound" things! I just love to behold young women wearing beautiful long dresses, with flowers in the foreground, or the background, or somewhere in between! Thanks for your kindness, and have a wonderful day! Dontreader (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about not knowing things: Wikipedia didn't come naturally to me, and I'm a programmer. But I've spent a fair bit of time reading our documentation on technical things, style recommendations, and policy matters, and I've learned a ton in the last few months. Baby steps!

I especially thrill when I find out a new, simpler way to do something here. For example, I'm big on improving citations, and I recently discovered the ((r)) tag, a shorthand for <ref name=... />; it's especially nice for decluttering sentences with multiple citations: Foxes are cute.<ref name=Smith /><ref name=Jones /> simplifies to Foxes are cute.((r|Smith|Jones)).

Anyway, to make a gallery, there's the <gallery>...</gallery> tag: just list each image name on its own line like in a wikilink, except without the brackets, followed by an optional caption. If I wanted to make a gallery for flowery, whispy-looking women in long dresses, I might use something like:

== Young women with beautiful long dresses and flowers nearby ==
<gallery mode=packed-hover heights=350 style="font-size:30%">
File:Wilhelm Kotarbinski W ciszy wieczornej ok 1900.jpg|[[Wilhelm Kotarbiński]], Evening Silence (1900)
File:Wilhelm Kotarbinski Dziewczyna.jpg|[[Wilhelm Kotarbiński]], The Young Girl (c. 1900)
</gallery>

which would show up as:

Also, I'm skeptical there's such a thing as "simple" people: perhaps they haven't yet spent enough time lost in thought. Not that there's anything wrong with enjoying simple pleasures like human beauty. Cheers! —  Rebbing  talk  22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow! That is absolutely awesome! Thanks so much! First of all, I happen to be a WikiGnome, and I focus a lot on fixing refs, so that new trick is grand! Other Wikipedians will think I'm a genius! And I'm blown away by the gallery technique! I pasted your code into my sandbox for further experimentation. I also pasted the code from the Wilhelm Kotarbiński article where those pictures are shown. The gallery code is different there. In your case, for some reason you linked to his article and you wrote the names of the paintings, yet they mysteriously don't show up! Anyway, I will try to add your code right under my lone barnstar on my user page. Hopefully things won't get chaotic if I find another similar amazing painting that I want to add to the gallery!

I hope you won't mind my saying this, but I think it's so sexy when a woman is such a smart programmer... so uncommon in America! Many thanks again for your wonderfully generous help! Dontreader (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I did it! It's on my user page now, and oh my God, the link to the author and the names of the paintings show up when the cursor hovers over the lower portion of them! Totally amazing! Thanks again! I bow low!!! Dontreader (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Thank you. I'm glad I could help, and your revamped user page looks lovely.

Women everywhere—not just in America—shy away from programming. In school, my computer science senior class of sixty had only five—and it's not for lack of suitable girls and women. How ironic that I chose a profession that's mostly men, yet I prefer the company of other women! —  Rebbing  talk  20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that you tagged User talk:Megabytes360 for speedy deletion as a userspace page of a user who does not exist. However, the user does exist: "does not exist" does not mean "exists and is blocked". In fact, a talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor needs to be kept for possible future reference: there are various situations in which the record of messages to the editor may be needed, such as if the editor request an unblock, or if he or she comes back with sockpuppet accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! —  Rebbing  talk  15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This cyclist rode on a Professional Continental cycling team. All riders on this level of team meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as they can compete in world level events.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, but I must respectfully disagree. The information on the page (including this reference) appears to fall short of the criteria listed at WP:NCYC—which, contrary to your comment, does not provide a claim to notability merely for riding on a professional continental cycling team. —  Rebbing  talk  15:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 17:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm contacting you with regard to this page, BookNU, on which you recently placed a notice for deletion.

The topic has got multiple sources in regional languages, moreover it's also backed by a very famous Indian photography magazine as they have an article about BookNU. I agree that the number of sources on internet are less but whatsoever exists are from popular channels.

I'd be happy if you can review it again and arrive to a final decision.

Thank you :-) Getcharstar (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Getcharstar. The decision whether to delete BookNU is not up to me: it'll be decided by the consensus reached in the deletion discussion. As you asked, I took another look at the page, and it's clear to me that the subject of the article falls far short of our notability criteria outlined in WP:ORG and WP:GNG. That has nothing to do with BookNU's value; it's just a requirement for having an article on English Wikipedia. However, if there are reliable foreign-language sources covering BookNU, you're allowed to cite them in the article, and they'll be considered during the deletion process.

That said, I have some free advice for you about arguing around here:

• You overstate the value of BookNU's mention on Better Photography's website. First off, anyone who looks at the website can tell it's a third-rate blog with little editorial oversight, not a respected source. Even if the article were in the New York Times, it wouldn't save the article because notability requires significant media coverage; a single mention anywhere is not enough. Moreover, on its own terms, the Better Photography article undercuts, rather than supports, BookNU's notability: it states that BookNU only operates in only one city (Uttar Pradesh) and has distributed a thousand donated books. My local food pantry distributes more meals than that every month, yet it's not notable. Also, the article in no way establishes that Better Photography "backs" BookNU: an anonymous writer at Better Photography wrote a 300-word piece, nothing more.

• In the article's deletion discussion, it appears that 13.76.37.239 is associated with you and arguing on your behalf: he even advanced the same argument you did. That makes it look like you're trying to game the system, which won't make your case any more convincing: remember that consensus is about persuasiveness, not votes.

I wish you the best. —  Rebbing  talk  23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, first of all, I don't know 13.76.37.239 and neither I'm associated with it. I did a who.is lookup and that IP is in fact from a different country and by Microsoft, and by no way Microsoft would sell proxy or anything, afaik. Possibly he actually know about BookNU and is therefore extending my argument(?). BTW, talking about Better Photography, it's a very famous Photography Magazine which primarily come in print form, like an actual magazine and is not just an online website. They are from Network18 and is a lot popular with its variety of outlets. As I live in India, so I can comment that a source from BP is valuable.

Anyway, let's see what consensus we reach upon. Thank you for the tips tho. Getcharstar (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebbing sorry for my constant editing on several wikipages i know this must be annoying and i would like to improve my behaviour on wikipedia instead of getting blocked or reported. I wanted to add St Vincent to Cara Delevingnes infobox and now i know i should of done it in the proper channels like creating a talk page like this one. Please accept my apologies Dean1997 (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dean. Your apology is a little hard to believe: you've been repeatedly warned that your behavior at Cara Delevingne is unacceptable to no avail, yet a notice that you've been reported is enough to change your mind? That said, I hope you're telling the truth about wanting to be useful, and I wish you the best. In that spirit, I have a few specific pointers for you:

• Your desired changes at Cara Delevingne wouldn't have been accepted even if you'd made a talk page entry. They were bad changes for the reasons repeatedly explained to you in edit summaries.
• You're on a user's talk page—my talk page—not the article's. This is where people discuss things related specifically to me; it's not usually the place to discuss article changes, since I'm the only person guaranteed to see it.
• On talk pages, start a new section when starting a new topic unless your comments clearly fit within an existing section. On this talk page, you left your comments in a section about a page deletion—not the right place. Also, sign your comments once, at the bottom:

Some comment. ~~~~

Don't do this:

~~~~ Some comment. Thanks, Rebbing. (~~~~)

• The minor edit flag is to be used sparingly. If you're not sure if your edit counts as minor, or you haven't yet read WP:MINOR, leave it unchecked! Using it incorrectly makes it more likely, not less, that your edits will be reverted.
• I noticed that some of your edits took two or three edits to get correct. Always use the preview button before submitting your changes.  Rebbing  talk  14:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for truly going out of your way to help me understand galleries so much better! I hope to use this knowledge to eventually improve galleries in articles, but for now I can gladly say that what used to be my pathetic loser page is now an amazing user page! We need more people like you! Best wishes... Dontreader (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Dontreader, but, out of consideration for those actually deserve it, I must respectfully decline this award. But I'm glad to hear you're making use of your new knowledge; I'm always happy to help!

Speaking of new skills, since we last spoke, I've gotten involved with new pages patrol and AfD; I've even learned how to nominate files for deletion (or request speedy deletion) over at Commons, since an A7 article will often come with an improperly-licensed and out-of-scope image. It's frustrating how much blatant junk gets added to Wikipedia every day: humdrum, shamelessly promotional articles about uninteresting people, and when I talk to the authors, I invariably get, "Oh, no! I'm not paid to do this; I just happen to love all things related to Company X and I had an opportunity to photograph the founder the other day." Ugh! I'm getting better at quickly disposing of it.

The other day, a new editor accused me of racism, ignorance, and asked me if I "thought outta [my] butt"—his words—after I'd reviewed and reverted an undeniably bad edit he'd made. I was pretty amused by that.

And then there's the sneaky vandalism: people who alter things like basketball players' heights enough to make them incorrect but not enough to make them stand out as such. I realize now how much work others have been doing to keep our encyclopedia from being swallowed whole by vandals, bored middle-schoolers, and paid writers. —  Rebbing  talk  04:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Well, you know, the barnstars are a subjective award. For example, I found someone who had failed multiple times to get the draft that he created about a music band approved, so I spent dozens of hours improving the draft and then it was approved, and he was very grateful, but I didn't receive a barnstar because he didn't know that such things existed. Or look at everything I did for the article The Wakes to save it from deletion, yet no one even thanked me! I had never even heard of the band, yet I lost my temper in the AfD discussion and I spent tons of time saving that article. So, the barnstars are not really awarded fairly, in my opinion, at least not in many cases. Anyway, I certainly respect your decision! Congratulations on your new patrolling rights! And I totally understand what you mean when you talk about Commons. I have nominated hundreds of files for deletion there, with a success rate of around 95%, but it's a never-ending situation! We probably need at least ten times the amount of people that are currently monitoring newly uploaded files. When I began doing that, I had a tendency of getting sarcastic in my nomination rationales, but then I got wiser and politer. Besides, the nicer you are, the less witchcraft you are exposed to by those who are unhappy that their files got deleted! LOL Anyway, I can totally relate to your experiences. For example, once I nominated a picture for deletion, and the uploader wrote on my page on Commons basically saying that I was ignorant, but his file was deleted. Patience, dear fellow Wikipedian, and keep up the fantastic work! Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm totally focused on a different project, but I hope it will end soon. Best wishes, and thanks again for your kindness! Dontreader (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you have had your account for 7 years but made very few (less than 200) of your 1400 edits before Dec 2015. You have made over half of them in the last 30 days. You appear engaged in some rather egregious use of wiki lawyering when reverting other editors. If this account is a alternative account you should identify as such. If it is a sleeper sock you are not allowed to use multiple accounts. If you are simply inexperienced then it would be better to assume good faith on part of other editors. 172.56.13.253 (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC) https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Rebbing&project=en.wikipedia.org

I've never claimed to be an experienced editor; and I'm flattered that anyone would bother to examine my edits in such detail. You're quite right that most of my edits are recent: I've done a lot of anti-vandalism work, and, aside from relatively minor notes on form—e.g., user talk pages are not typically subject to speedy deletion—I haven't heard any complaints from respectable editors. As for your contention that I'm WikiLawyering, you may want to read that page: I often give policy rationales in my edit summaries as it's recommended by the community for somewhat obvious reasons.

As for you, your IP is a fairly obvious sock of:

• Kurdish Keith (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.12.251 (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.13.10 (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.13.253 (talk · contribs)
• 172.58.137.140 (talk · contribs)
• 172.58.152.204 (talk · contribs)
• 2607:FB90:288:BCB5:0:19:C09B:CE01 (talk · contribs)

Claiming, as seems to be your habit, that those who revert your trolling are themselves trolls, vandals, sock-puppets, uncivil, or insecure boys isn't going to work. I have no idea why you're obsessed with sausage, but you'll only succeed at getting your IPs range-blocked.

Take note: this reply is not an invitation to endless ranting.  Rebbing  talk  14:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha! You go, Rebbing! --Erick Shepherd (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! In retrospect, it was a fairly amusing exchange.  Rebbing  23:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur with your exemption to 3RR @ Katrina Pierson‎‎. Would you please add Amanda Carpenter‎ to your watchlist? I've added pending changes protection there as well, but it would not hurt to have more eyes on it; clearly a less traveled article. Kuru (talk)

Thank you for pointing out Amanda Carpenter: I'm flattered and happy to help out. I gave it a good brushing while I was over there, but it still needs love—a project for another day, perhaps.  Rebbing  05:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been wondering: is there a point at which it would be appropriate to mention the allegations in these women's biographies? If the scandal were to be covered extensively in reliable sources, yet without being confirmed, would that fact be something we might include? Clearly, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:UNDUE, and friends only extend so far. (I should point out that I'm not politically aligned with Mmes. Pierson and Carpenter—quite the opposite—but I believe very strongly in our neutrality principles.)  Rebbing  05:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at it. There's most certainly a point where it would be notable, but as of now it all just appears to be mud-slinging based on the investigative reporting of a publication that does not have a history of concern for fact checking. The original source does not even name these women. Words cannot describe how disappointed I am with our current election cycle and the potential results, but I'd really like Wikipedia to remain "above the fray" and stick to our core principles. Seems like it's only going to get muddier. Kuru (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

About Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine—do we really need an article on someone who died as a toddler? potential AfD? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't need anything, but that article appears meets WP:NPOL Point 1 ("Politicians . . . who have held . . . national . . . office"). It's not a deletion rationale, but I have a lot more sympathy for an article that's written, formatted, and referenced properly: you've been around "since the early days and [were] even an admin for a period," yet you're willing to create articles that look like this? You know better. Even my personal "to-do" list is better edited!

Anyway, like I hinted in the deletion discussion, please don't take the outcome personally. I also strongly caution you against "pointy" editing.

Best.  Rebbing  16:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to be snippy. I apologise if i upset you. I myself used Johanna as an example when an article on Winston Churchill's dead toddler Marigold Churchill was sent for deletion some years back. I got told Johanna was royalty and that's why one toddler could have an article while Marigold got oblivionised. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, we're cool. In retrospect, my reply was sharper than it should have been. Sorry about that.

I'm inclined to agree with that deletion discussion's rationale: however silly inherited power may be, Princess Johanna was royalty, thus meeting NPOL as politician (or so I understand), whereas Miss Churchill was merely the daughter of a politician. Without the specific guideline, I'm not sure Princess Johanna would merit an article, and the one we have is pretty much a stub. So perhaps you do have a point. I'm curious: did the deleted article have anything that isn't covered in Winston Churchill § Marriage and children?  Rebbing  17:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-helpful Wikipedian

I know this is not a appreciation of you. But I had no other way to talk to you. I don't know how to use the talk button in wikipedia. I am sorry. After you read this message, you can delete it. Please Read: Please do not recommend websites to be deleted without clear information. For example, I made 5-10 Wikipedia Pages about Malayalam movies and you requested all of them to be deleted. There is no point. Because all those wikipedia pages I made were supposed to be made and not deleted. I made those pages for a reason. I started that page into start developing that page and make it look more professional. Please understand that it is just a beginning and I am trying to improve the pages. Also, I see you also deleted 5-10 Movies in the "List of Malayalam Movies 2016" page. Why? There is a point we put those movies. Those are unreleased films in 2016 that is going to release in future before 2017. I undid what you did over there. Please mind your own business. I took a lot of time into making those pages. As I read your talk page, this is not your first time requesting deleted pages. People have complained about your speedy request for deletion. Please stop this behavior in the future. This is just a friendly reminder. Thank-You. :) R-360 (Creations) (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

First, have a look at H:TALK for a guide on how to use talk pages. But, to the point, I didn't nominate "your" articles for deletion to spite you: I nominated them because they do not belong on Wikipedia. Per WP:NOTABILITY, all articles must meet certain requirements. For films, one of those requirements is that a reliable source must be cited showing that principal photography has begun. Another is that unreleased films are generally not notable even once they've started filming.

As for your additions at List of Malayalam films of 2016, I reverted them because your films aren't notable (see above) and because several of your additions weren't properly sourced: if you click on the references for the films you've added, you'll see that some are broken or nonexistent. Most additions to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Use the preview button when editing to make sure that your edits work as you intended. Per WP:BRD § Discuss, you are not to re-add your changes once they've been reverted by another user; this is part of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Also, you do not own articles; no one is required to request your permission to revert or alter your work.

The fact that some people have complained about my requests for speedy deletion and deletion nominations is no matter: complaining doesn't make someone correct, and did you notice that the articles in question are gone? Go have a look. Rafael Serrano (cyclist)? Deleted. BookNU? Deleted. The user page I wrongly tagged for speedy deletion, User talk:Megabytes360, still exists, but the user has been permanently blocked.

In future, you'd be better off making policy-based arguments in the deletion discussions than with leaving patronizing comments on my talk page. Best.  Rebbing  20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up

Please give me some time to put the references in the pages I have made. I am working on it. Give me until April 9. I will have all the References and in perfect shape. Please do not delete the page before April 9. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuliMurugan (talk • contribs) 22:30, 31 March 2016‎ (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. There's no exception to the notability requirement: it must be met when an article is created. Wikipedia is not your personal scratch-pad. If you'd like to start working on an article before it's ready to go in the encyclopedia, you can work on it in your sandbox or save it on your own computer. (You can paste it into your sandbox's edit window and click Preview to see what it looks like without saving it.) I would strongly advise you to follow this course of action as what you're doing right now is only going to irritate others and waste your time.

Also, did you look at the reasons I gave in my deletion nominations? This isn't just about referencing: most of these films are in pre-production, so, even if the articles were perfectly written and referenced, they would not be eligible for Wikipedia. Waiting until April 9 wouldn't help with that.  Rebbing  22:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

April 9 won't be Neccessary... I will be done by April 2 or maybe today. And Yes, I did see your resons for deletion nominations. Yes, I know most of the movies are in pre-production stage. But I want to keep on improving the page as the movie progresses.. So at the end I don't have to waste a lot of time putting in the information and making a page.. Thats what I did. I will put references for all the websites and I will definetly improve all those pages. Some pages are about movies in the post-production. Which is the last stage of a movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuliMurugan (talk • contribs) 23:07, 31 March 2016‎ (UTC)

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but you're be wasting your time on these articles unless you can produce policy-based reasons for keeping them. I strongly recommend you read WP:NF before continuing. As WP:NF § Fut2ure films, incomplete films, and undistributed films explains, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." But, even once a film has been released, it's still not notable unless it's been extensively discussed in reliable sources that are independent of the film and people involved with it (so, not Facebook or IMDb). We won't know until the films have been released and reviewed, but, in my opinion, it doesn't look like you'll be able to meet that requirement for any of these.  Rebbing  00:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! User:Rebbing (talk)

20:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Musdan77 (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank-You so much for being a good editor to movie pages. Wishing you a good future. Thanks! :) R-360 (Creations) (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Aw, thanks, but I don't deserve a barnstar for this: MichaelQSchmidt pointed out that the article name was incorrect; I merely took his advice.  Rebbing  17:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Helen's case worthy of an article - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bad-blood-and-the-vile-death-of-little-960791#eTfmcGjW30oguiSc.97 - ? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: In my opinion, no. The coverage I was able to find (via Google, Google News, and Google News archives) would not come close to meeting GNG. The notability guideline for events sums it up perfectly:

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes . . .)—whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time—are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
— Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Inclusion criteria

Cheers.  Rebbing  05:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this article with you but not on the AfD page nor the article's talk page, if that's okay with you. I'd be okay with discussing it on your talk page or mine or some other venue that you might suggest if such is available. I'm assuming that your caution, "If you're going to continue in the same tenor, I would advise you against replying further," was not a threat meant to end discussion. When trying to make the discussion clearer (by eliminating a URL I'd left that inadvertently appeared as a reference at the end of the page) I just goofed on the AfD page and deleted the material at the bottom by accident. I reverted it when I realized what I'd done a few minutes later. Let me know what you think about the possibility of any discussion. Thanks. Activist (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You understood my advice correctly: I wasn't threatening, merely suggesting that a response similar to your first would be a waste of your time. Don't feel bad about your editing goof; I've made similar mistakes myself and, in all likelihood, have a few more in my future.

I'm not sure I'm interested in discussing the article or its subject's notability, but you're welcome to say what you'd like, and my talk page is the perfect venue. Please aim for a concise, well-ordered reply, and consider organizing your response into paragraphs. Also, bear in mind that I have my own areas of interest here: everything on this list is more meaningful to me than the Canova article. I have no hard feelings towards you, and I may be wrong about the subject's notability, but I'm not inclined to go out of my way to improve the article when my concerns with its content could be as effectively assuaged by deletion as by editing.  Rebbing  04:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

When I went to leave you a note on Sunday evening, I went to your USER page instead of your TALK page. I discovered that you were likely responsible for salvaging the important Marcia Hofmann article. I think it was very worthwhile expenditure of your time in a similar situation in which I found myself in Canova. Coincidentally, I had lunch on Saturday with a friend and we discussed at length the EFF which had successfully represented, pro bono, a friend of his, opposing a corporation with which EFF has often been allied. They've done a lot of great work for a long time. By the way, did you see the news on the Lavabit/Snowden case appeal this month? Activist (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Activist: Thank you! I'm delighted that you enjoyed my work. Between the two of us, I'm not sure Ms. Hofmann is notable. A couple weeks ago, I went back to that article to add more coverage—most of the sources are either primary sources or sources connected with her—and I couldn't find much. Even so, I suspect the article would survive AfD because it's decently written, unbiased, credibly (if not "reliably") referenced, and not a stub.

If you wouldn't mind sharing a little, I'm curious about your friend's friend's case. I know the EFF has done a lot of good work throughout the years. About the Lavabit appeal—is this the litigation over unsealing some of the earlier records where the United States forgot to redact Mr. Snowden's email address from one of the publicly-filed documents?  Rebbing  21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response on the AfD page and the time you devoted to this issue. I ran into another editorial conflict moments ago when I was editing the FBI/Apple encryption case. The DOJ dropped the case last night after they finally unlocked the recovered iPhone that belonged to San Bernardino county. Since both shooters had personal cell phones, I doubted whether there would be anything useful on it anyway. I wonder if the DOJ dropped it because they worried about a possible adverse ruling and/or the bad publicity they'd attracted? The Hofmann article led me to look a lot closer at some high profile government surveillance cases. A investigative reporter friend had shed light on Stingray technology in 2014 so it's been of interest to me for some time. Activist (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for prodding me into doing the right thing (and for your kind response at AfD). Although I'm not too keen on politics, I care very much about Wikipedia, especially its reputation and role in people's lives. I know I'm not the only one whose first stop for information is this encyclopedia. So, even though a subject might not matter much to me, I know it's important to the encyclopedia. I spent a bit of time earlier this winter cleaning up some serious neutrality issues (and defending my edits) on Mr. Trump's national spokeswoman's biography, and, believe me, I'm not keen on her politics.

I hadn't realized the shooters had their own phones; I wonder if the government was simply being thorough or if it had a reason to think the iPhone would have useful information. My guess is that the government dropped the case because it wouldn't make sense to spend money litigating when the investigators already had what they wanted. But I imagine PR concerns may have factored in as well. Also, the case was probably moot, so the court would have dismissed it had the government not asked.

It sounds like you have fairly interesting friends. I've read a little about Stingray technology, and, while I'm not thrilled, I'm also not surprised.  Rebbing  21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hello! I just came across this edit, which looks like a serious candidate for RD2. The IP's only edits—five since yesterday—all appear to be problematic vandalism, so a block may also be in order. Thank you!  Rebbing  17:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I hid it as RD3 rather than RD2. No further edits since last warning. If the activity resumes, please report the IP at WP:AIV. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I just noticed that you fixed up certificate of appealability. Thank you! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: It was my pleasure. Habeas is one of my favorite legal topics, so I was fairly amused to stumble across it at new pages: I was all, I got this!  Rebbing  19:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you for the help!!! I am SO new. I honestly, have no idea what I'm doing yet, so I am beyond grateful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelissBelle (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@MelissBelle: You're welcome! Thank you for your article: Wikipedia is better off for having it. If you stick around, feel free to ask me for help or advice. I remember what it felt like getting my footing as an editor: Wikipedia isn't easy.

Also, a couple tips: When you're participating in a discussion, you should sign your comments by inserting four tildes ("~") (it must be exactly four) at the end, like so:

Some comment. ~~~~

The tildes will automatically be expanded to your signature and the timestamp. If you want to get someone's attention, use the ((re)) template:

((re|MelissBelle)) Hey, there.

The named user gets a notification like you did for this message. You don't typically need to use ((re)) when replying in an ongoing discussion that the other person likely has on her watchlist, and you never need to ping someone on her own talk page (the system notifies uses about those already).

Cheers, and congratulations on your first article.  Rebbing  04:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sure I will have questions, so I appreciate your offer!

MelissBelle (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebbing, thanks for your thanks over my edit(s) at Talk:Gemma Booth. also, agree with the article not needing an infobox, sometimes(?), i just go into automode with my edits ie. "no infobox, tag it, next!"

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Aw, thanks for the kitten and the cheeriness. Wikipedia can feel awfully serious at times—usually in a good way—so it's nice to have a little levity. And no worries! I'm glad to see someone maintaining project tags. Also, Gemma Booth is my baby—I fixed it up from a doomed user draft I saw at MFD—so I was just happy to see it in my watchlist at all.  Rebbing  06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

On censoring people who don't agree with you instead of trying to argue your point. You are a great example of the fight for free speech. Worst kind of people. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not about agreement, and I think you know it. Your comment was inappropriate in that it discussed the topic rather than the article. Such comments are commonly removed regardless of tone. Additionally, your comment was clear trolling.  Rebbing  18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not trolling at all, and I'm really offended at you insulting me like that. The point I'm making is totally absent in the article while is obviously the real reason so you could say I'm talking about the article in itself. You know just as well as I do that no amount of blaming men or encouraging women will change the fact that there will never be more than 10-15% of female contributors to Wikipedia. They just have other priorities. So I'm just stating a fact.

Besides, you're obviously hiding behind a stupid policy to enforce your censorship. People talk about the subject of the page on virtually every talk page on Wikipedia. Even the talk page of talk page guidelines is full of it.88.174.108.198 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The point you're supposedly trying to make is mentioned explicitly in § Reaction:

Writing for Slate in 2011, Heather Mac Donald called Wikipedia's gender imbalance a "non-problem in search of a misguided solution." Mac Donald asserted, "The most straightforward explanation for the differing rates of participation in Wikipedia—and the one that conforms to everyday experience—is that, on average, males and females have different interests and preferred ways of spending their free time."

Your comment was clearly trolling: "[W]omen in general just don't care. They'll use the wiki but just won't contribute. We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves." Your remarks about other talk pages are unpersuasive: I regularly see TPO enforced to remove off-topic, "forum" threads, and I would have removed your comment if you'd been critical of Wikipedia's gender bias.  Rebbing  18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.

I fail to see where your quote of me is a troll. I'm just stating facts. Also, there is nowhere else for me to bring this up so you're effectively trying to censor my point of view. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the wrong template: on its face, ((uw-notcensored2)) (and WP:NOTCENSORED) is about articles, not talk pages. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a forum, and you don't have an inherent right to share your point of view here, especially not in the condescending manner you chose, so your protests about censorship and free speech are inapposite. This is an encyclopedia; Reddit is that way.  Rebbing  18:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is that the article is biased and subjective, which is not right for an encyclopedia. There is a clear misandrist bias there which offends me hence my strong reaction. Now, you using my lack of command of Wikipedia's tools to treat me as a lesser contributor is also disgusting. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't mocking your Wikipedia naïeveté: it says right there in the text you used that it's about articles. Did you even read that template before trying to give me a big, scary warning?

Anyway, if you want to fix the article—in line with our guidelines—rather than belly-aching about "the mens," go for it. Perhaps you could find other articles similar to Ms. Mac Donald's? Also, your assumption that I agree with all of Ms. Gardner's points is very much mistaken. I'm a woman Wikipedian, and I have yet to see misogyny or anti-woman prejudice in anything said or done by established members of the community. True, there's bias in the choice of topics: Wikipedia has far more articles about men than about women. But that's not an accusation against men (or anyone else): editors are free to choose their topics. However, Ms. Gardner's points 2, 3, and 4 seem reasonable to me (and have little to do with men). Best wishes.  Rebbing  19:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I obviously knew that this thing is used for articles not talk pages, it's just the best I could find in a limited time, trying to counter your Wikipedia proficiency.

I never assumed anything about you, I just pointed out your censorship of my comment.

Now if we're arguing Sue Gardner's points:

• 1, 4, 5, 9 imply that women are somehow more affected by the conditions offered by Wikipedia, which is derogatory towards women in my book.
• 2 implies that women are busier than men, which is misandrist.
• 3 is derogatory towards women.
• 6, 7 are gratuitous attacks on men.
• Not much to say about 8, it could be a factor, but at face value I wouldn't consider it a huge one.
• All the while ignoring the obvious main reason, which is that women probably are just a lot less interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Not everything has to always be 50/50. Different populations behave differently, nothing wrong with that.

So all in all, I see most of her reasons either trying to paint women as frail victims or men as sexist aggressors. Which is so common these days in the media, and I'm fed up of it. No wonder this grinds my gears. So yes, I reacted strongly in my comment only to be wiped out a few minutes later, hence my eagerness to "fight" it.

Last thing I will point out: Sue Gardner's article has almost the entire section "Causes [of the gender bias on Wikipedia]" dedicated to it when it is only a blog post, while Heather Mac Donald's article on Slate is only given a brief mention on the "Reaction [to the Causes]" section.

P.S.: I know my formatting is awful, if you want to change it, I have no objection.

P.S.2: Don't worry another editor will probably delete my comment on the talk page anyway. It's just very unfortunate that there would be no obvious place to discuss these things.88.174.108.198 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia as elsewhere, you'll find people are more likely to listen to you when you remain calm and polite. To recap: your initial post described the article as shit ("What a load of..."), disparaged the article as being motivated by "political correctness" that prevents people from facing the truth, and seemed to suggest that anyone looking for women on the Internet would be best sticking to porn sites ("We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves."). Even with less controversial topics, such antics are rarely effective. I accept now that you were sincere and that your comment was a misguided and inartful yet honest attempt to improve the encyclopedia.

You're right that Ms. Gardner's piece is covered rather extensively; the weight may be appropriate because of her involvement with the topic (Wikipedia) in the same way a "mere" blog post by an archaeologist might be given more weight than a news piece in an article about one of her findings. (Sorry for the crummy example.) But that's something that could be explored politely at the talk page.

As for your claims that several of Ms. Gardner's points are sexist, I must disagree: facts aren't sexist. If it's true that women are more easily discouraged from editing Wikipedia, have less self-confidence than men, or are busier than men, those points can't be derogatory or misandrist. Similarly, points 6 and 7 are not "attacks" on anyone. If you want to look at political correctness and hypersensitivity, you ought to find a mirror.

Your formatting is fine.  Rebbing  21:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your recap is accurate except for one thing: I did not meant porn sites at all, what I meant was social media (facebook, twitter, reddit, instagram, tumblr). I did not mention them by name because I knew people would brand me sexist for it (even if it is the truth, as soon as one categorizes people (s)he's the devil)... in the end, you filled in the blanks with something way worse... so I guess it's my fault.

I do believe facts aren't sexist, or racist, or anything but facts. In my opinion, the sensitive part is not the facts but what you do with them. The problem is, it's far from being the opinion of most in this day and age.

Saying Wikipedia is misogynistic and sexual is totally unfounded and stupid, and it's also an implied jab at men. As I said in my earlier answer, in this day and age men are always portrayed as either stupid, oppressors or creepy predators. I'm not offended in the sense that I can't handle it, I'm just fed up of being wrongly portrayed all the frigging time everywhere I look. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. All the "LOL stoopid womenz" trolling I've seen in my online life led me to assume "We all know . . . let's not fool ourselves" was insinuating something more offensive that what you meant, and I apologize.

I don't think anyone could reasonably brand you as sexist for saying that women, overall, spend more time on social media than men do. (The very premise of the article is that women spend less time editing Wikipedia than men.) Now, if you said, "All women care about is getting 'likes' on Instagram," yeah, that might be sexist—but it's also false.

I don't know your friends, peers, or community members, but, in my experience, reasonable people don't think facts themselves are sexist; I don't think anyone I know would object to someone saying that there are differences between women's and men's typical interests. More importantly, reasonable people don't regard most men as stupid, oppressive, or predators. I am by far both the most misandristic and the most cynical person I know, and even I don't believe that. It's also not the portrayal I see on television and in the media. I flip on the TV, who's presenting the news? A man. I flip to ESPN; who just knocked that too-sweet fastball out of the park? A man. I go to the theatre to watch a new release; who are the main characters? Men. Men—and nearly all of them portrayed as competent, decent, desirable, and not at all creepy.  Rebbing  01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just as people would be prompt to tell me that I can't understand their problems because I'm a white male, I think you and I might have a different reaction to how men are portrayed in the media. It is especially visible in domestic commercials (those with "typical" families). The mom is portrayed as the smart and responsible one while the dad is almost always the butt of the joke, and portrayed as stupid, goofy and immature. It's also totally OK to hit/hurt him, because it's... funny?

Here's a YouTube playlist of 20 commercials, but there are many, many others. I invite you to watch those, and then keep an eye out when you're watching TV... eye opening.

Here's the link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fwTtJZ6Db4&list=PLE8EBCB20AC614D6D

• You also cite an example about sports on TV which I disagree on. Men are simply the bigger, stronger, faster gender, that's biology not sexism. Since sports are about physical competition, people want to see the best and therefore male sports garner more interest than female sports. That's meritocracy, they're on TV simply because they're more entertaining to watch and thus generate more money.
• I will also refute your last example about male main characters in movies. That is simply wrong in regards to : the whole Hunger Games franchise, the whole Divergent franchise, the whole Alien franchise, the whole Twilight franchise, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Lucy, Mad Max: Fury Road, Frozen, Brave, Sucker Punch, Juno, Pretty Woman, Erin Brockovich, Silence Of The Lambs, Alice In Wonderland and its sequel Alice Through the Looking Glass, Pitch Perfect and Pitch Perfect 2, Bridesmaids, Charlie's Angels and its sequel Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, Million Dollar Baby, Thelma & Louise, Black Swan, Flashdance, Basic Instinct, the whole Underworld franchise, the whole Resident Evil franchise, Gravity, The Devil Wears Prada, Aeon Flux, Sex And The City and Sex and the City 2, Tomb Raider and its sequel Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2, Jackie Brown, The Help, Chicago, Fifty Shades of Grey, the upcoming Ghostbusters reboot with a full female cast, the upcoming Wonder Woman movie, the upcoming Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, etc, etc, etc...

88.174.108.198 (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that men are often made the butt of jokes in the domestic sphere, and my argument isn't that men are always shown in a positive light but merely that men aren't, as you put it, "always portrayed as either stupid, oppressors or creepy predators." If men were widely considered to be any of those things, they would have a hard time being taken seriously as news anchors, voice-over narrators, film protagonists. Advertising is not kind to either gender.

To clarify: I would agree that men are regarded as messier and less domestic than women. I would also agree that men, as a whole, are considered by both women and other men to be more violent, more criminal, and creepier than women. (My experiences and observations of women and men and the evidence from human history leaves me no room for doubting the veracity of this assumption.) However, I do not agree that society considers most men to violent, criminal, creepy, or stupid.

As for film presence, that's a side issue, but I think the ones you listed are not representative. Are you actually contending that mainstream Western films tend to be about women (not men) and more often portray their story from their women characters' perspectives than from men's? Rebbing 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "always" wasn't the appropriate word in the sentence you quoted, but for sure it is happening more and more. I could go into several examples, like how some universities have instated mandatory consent classes to teach men not to rape (as if by default we are rapists?), or how when people are depicted as racist or sexist in fiction, they're always white males...

Half the things shown in the commercials I linked would be totally unacceptable if it was women getting that treatment. Why is it OK or even "funny" when it's men? Have you seen the YouTube video about domestic violence in the streets? People laugh when it's the woman assaulting the man.

Also, you have less and less male teachers because of suspicion of being predators. Did you know that studies have shown that female teachers give lower grades to boy students? Adding to that minority quotas which essentially are active discrimination against better qualified white men, and also the very anti-male atmosphere in universities in general, the consequence is that a girl born today will be 75% more likely to go to college than a boy of the same age.

Now, what do people do when they realize that there's a proportionally larger population of men helping build this encyclopedia? They waste no time jumping to the unfounded conclusion that men are so "misogynistic" and "sexual" that they create an atmosphere so toxic that it explains such a gap in participation... an atmosphere, that, of course, is nowhere to be found. That pisses me off.

P.S.: I made that list of movies simply to refute your assertion "I go to the theatre to watch a new release; who are the main characters? Men." Not to say that females are the primary heroes of movies. I never said, or intended to say that. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to my comment. Please review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. --Elvey^(t•c) 20:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Your objection is noted. However, your reading of § Editing comments is mistaken: it explicitly allows other editors to fix formatting errors like yours under the point "Fixing format errors." You restarted the vote numbering by leaving a blank line above your comment, which is why I chose to fix your comment. (This can hardly be called an "unimportant" fix.) The guideline also permits wikifying formatting: it mentions replacing an HTML table in a comment with a wiki table. Replacing your external links with proper wikilinks is comparable, and having full URLs to access internal resources needlessly bloats the edit window. Cf. WP:SIGLENGTH.

While you're at it, you may wish to consider rewording your vote. Admitting to deliberately circumventing the blacklist, comparing reasonable disagreements on Wikipedia to "the worst authoritarians in history," and making snide comments about a major political candidate may not be the best approach. Rebbing 21:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions 120 new articles were created
	Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red May 2016 Our next events: Women in Entertainment and Women in Jewish History

--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Regarding this edit, the "issue" that it's supposed to prevent is moot because the talk page has WikiProject tags so it's already a blue link. Pretty much every talk page should have WikiProject tags anyway, though obviously it wouldn't make sense to place it on a talk page with absolutely nothing else, not even WikiProject tags. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7h: Sorry, but I don't follow. What issue is ((talk header)) supposed to prevent? what needs to be a blue link? I typically remove it from low-traffic pages because I think it's not worth the space it takes up, and, in my view, its overuse trains editors to overlook all talk page headers, even those that aren't boilerplate. My thinking is in line with the template's documentation:

This template should only be placed where it's needed. Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template.

Thanks. Rebbing 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This completed discussion has been hidden from view to promote compliance with the biographies of living persons policy. It is available here.

Aw, thanks, Coolabahapple! Really, you made my day brighter. By the way, what's the story behind your name? Rebbing 07:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, thats a secret:), there is a broad (very broad!) clue on my userpage which narrows it down a bit, but nothing really in my editing history (although you are more than welcome to have a look:)) ps. guesses are always welcome. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but your closing argument "There is consensus that the challenged paragraph should not be included, either because it constitutes undue weight or because it represents an impermissible synthesis of cited material" at Cary Grant displays an embarrassing misunderstanding of the situation and what the article actually documented. As it is the current article bares little resemblance to the original section anyway but you're badly mistaken if you thought I gave it undue weight or synthesis of cited material. All of the major biographies and books extensively discuss it and his sexuality, there's even chapters in books devoted it to it. To not cover that would be censorship, We're here to report what has been reported and assess what reputable authors decide to give weight to. So you're wrong on both accounts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that the article's content had changed substantially since the RFC took place, but a close was requested, so I obliged. My closure was based on the arguments made in the RFC, not on my own, independent examination of the facts. See Wikipedia:Closing discussions § How to determine the outcome. Your points here should have been made in the discussion below: you had more than a month to state your view, but you chose not to do so. Your only comment there reads as an admission of defeat; it's certainly not an argument. Furthermore, please note that my closure says nothing about the propriety of covering Mr. Grant's sexuality in the article; the RFC was about a specific paragraph, and my close is explicitly directed at the same and nothing more.

At this time, I respectfully decline your request to rescind my close, but I am willing to listen if you have anything else you wish to add or ask. Otherwise, I recommend you to Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging other closures. If you choose to go that route, I would admonish you to "understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute" as you have done here. Thank you. Rebbing 19:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Your points here should have been made in the discussion below: you had more than a month to state your view, but you chose not to do so. Your only comment there reads as an admission of defeat."

Not true at all, the real reason is that it was a non argument and I have better things to do than to waste time discussing a non issue with pointy editors. If any weight was placed on the issue it was perfectly reflective of what is actually written about it in the sourcing, books with whole chapters discussing it. I suggest you look at the current article, the content is perfectly satisfactory and nothing needs removing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read both my closure and my response above. To repeat myself:

1. Formal consensus is determined solely by the arguments made in the discussion; to take my own evaulation into consideration, as you suggest, would be an impermissile "supervote". My close is a correct assessment of the views actually voiced in the discussion.
2. The RFC was about the paragraph as a whole. My close is silent about how much of the paragraph has to be removed. I see that the article has been reworked a bit since that RFC was proposed; whether what's left must be removed is not a question answered by the RFC. In other words, it doesn't appear to me that my close demands that anything be removed.

Cheers. Rebbing 19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It should have been closed at moot though. The opinions of a couple of the usual trolls don't make for a justifiable argument..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In your initial request, it was not at all clear you were requesting a moot closure. No matter; I decline either way.

While I'm not familiar with any of the participants in the RFC, I see no evidence that the other editors were "trolling." They appear to be serious editors in good standing who advanced policy-based arguments. I cannot say the same about your sarcastic comment in the RFC or your remarks here. Rebbing 20:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Rebbing. I requested the close. Thank you for closing the discussion and taking the time to answer challenges to it on your talk page! Your hard work is very appreciated. I've reviewed the discussion and consider your close an accurate assessment of the consensus. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the feedback, Cunard; I appreciate it. Rebbing 06:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I need some help setting up a simple rfc on the talk page of Noel Neill

It only needs to ask if an editor prefers image one or image two to be used in the info box.

Thanks Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant: I'm flattered you asked, but you caught me just as I was signing off for the night. It looks like you've been helped already, but let me know if you need anything else. Rebbing 15:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

American women

Thank you for quality articles such as Hannah Pittard, for for being gender-aware early, for "copy-editing and reference-checking", for a neat user page, a gallery of art and purpose and a navbox for yourself, for well-founded support, - Rebecca, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! I'm very touched by this award, and I'm especially flattered you noticed and appreciated all those small things. Rebbing 16:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you check the history of the article? Its beyond bizarre that a group of random users are adding the same BLPVIO content and exact same way continuously. Either there is some serious socking going on or account misuse. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I think it's awfully suspicious that Galy02 and ChicaDanesa added nearly the exact same content as AkoAyMayLobo, but it's conceivable that Galy02 and ChicaDanesa simply copied AkoAyMayLobo's text instead of clicking "undo." Unfortunately, the very excellent editor interaction tool seems to have a very old copy of the database as it's showing no interaction between these three—not even on Taylor Swift.

However, the rest of the edits are different enough that I think it's just naïve editors adding the hot gossip of the day; it doesn't strike me as at all unusual for a celebrity BLP. Anyway, thanks for carrying the torch on this. Rebbing 15:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I may be able to shed some light on this, vandals are sharing images of the vandalism on reddit/imgur and bragging, brigading others into making the same edits when they are reverted. See: http://imgur.com/gallery/OYp8C Licourtrix (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Licourtrix: *Sigh*. I guess that would explain a bit. It's too bad they aren't clever enough to screenshot the preview instead (since it's not as if the "verification" is going to stay live for long). Any idea what subreddit this stuff is getting posted in? Rebbing 13:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebbing, I am wondering if you could help me with getting references formatted correctly. I am working on an article. I have a full book type citation. But I also need to add the URL of the website where others could click and go there too. Can you give me an idea on how to put all that in one citation. I want to use it as an online citation. Thank you for the time Rebbing. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Maybeparaphrased: Assuming you are using ((cite book)), you can simply use the |url= parameter for that. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with the result of an AfD, you don't simply over-ride it. First, you should talk to the closing admin; then, if you are not happy, there is DRV. I have listed this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21#Eden English School Btl. JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Thank you for the note. Please take a look at our verifiability policy, which clearly states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Yet that is precisely what you did. There is no exception to the verifiaiblity policy for articles that have survived AFD, and I urge you to comply with that policy either by reverting to the redirected version or by providing the required citations. Thank you. Rebbing 20:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I care so much about your ownership of all time.... The video may possibly be a copyright violation but I saw the interview live on Fox News television. It was July 20th, she is wished happy birthday, accepts the birthday wish saying there's no place she'd rather be, and then goes on to say she is a Cancer at the end, fuckin indicating that she is in fact born in July. The video was dated July 20th. At any rate, the Politico source confirms she is born in 1976. Obviously you professional Wikipediers with no better time on your hands won't accept the "Famous Birthdays"^[1][2] website as a source so I didn't even go there. Google "Katrina Pierson birthday" and July 20, 1976 shows up followed by the birthday of Donald Trump and people professionally or personally related to him.Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: Stop. It doesn't matter what you saw on television. What matters is what you can cite using reliable sources. The video you provided is unsuitable for several reasons: First, it's a copyright violation. Second, nowhere in the video does anyone say what day Ms. Pierson's birthday is; the video title includes the day, but anyone can upload a video to YouTube with whatever title he likes, so that's not useful. Third, the fact that Ms. Pierson confirms she's a Capricorn doesn't put her birthday on July 20. As for your other sources, Google is not a reliable source.

Now, before you respond or edit the article further, go look at the birthdate. I did your homework for you: I found a reliable source for her birthday (her Twitter page, citable per ABOUTSELF) and wrote an explanatory footnote that cites that along with a reliable source for her age as of a particular date. Leave it, please.

Your sarcasm misses the mark. Wikipedia may be open to editing by anyone, but that doesn't mean we have no standards. Rebbing 15:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I said she said she's a CANCER, duh. Capricorns are born in December and January. If she is wished happy birthday, accepts the wish, accepts that the day is her birthday on that day, not saying something such as "thanks in advance, my birthday is actually on another day", then it only makes sense that the day is her birthday. In the Politico source it says she was 39 at that time, which indicates she was born in 1976. You're not going to find a so-called reliable source on this, unless you accept a tweet from 2012 where she's talking about her birthday dinner. SMH.Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: Fine, I misspoke, but it doesn't matter: Cancer covers June 22 to July 22, so Ms. Pierson's saying that she's a Cancer does not establish which day in that range is her birthday. And, as I've explained, the title on the third-party YouTube video cannot be used to establish the day that the video was recorded. However, you're still missing what I'm telling you: I found a reliable source for her birthday, and I added it to the article along with her full birthdate and an explanatory footnote. The source is her Twitter page, which is a reliable source for her birthday per ABOUTSELF. Rebbing 18:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

please leave wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:62 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I volunteer as tribute. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done Rebbing 02:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebbibg. 'SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed an essay, not a guideline' - correct, but only in so far tat that 'essay' is the only available (or nearest} Wikipedia page type for classifying it. It does however not express any opinions and draws its content from clearly identifiable facts. It is a neutral documentation of the way the community has chosen to handle the notability of a few special kinds of topics. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, SCHOOLOUTCOMES only reports the typical outcomes from debates involving schools. It says nothing about what ought to occur in future debates. It is not appropriate to infer from SCHOOLOUTCOMES observation that "[m]ost independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept" a consensus that all schools are inherently notable. The more straightforward reading is that most schools are found to meet the appropriate notability guidelines. (Similarly, most porn star biographies are kept: not because the community believes porn stars are inherently notable but because most meet PORNBIO. It would be erroneous to cite a hypothetical PORNOUTCOMES to short-circuit AFD debates about them rather than continuing to look to PORNBIO and GNG in each case.)

Moreover, your reading of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as holding that schools are inherently notable qua schools is contradicted by the essay's plain text:

The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (WP:NGEO) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).

OUTCOMES § Citing this page in AfD drives this point home: "all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability . . . . All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as [V] and [NPOV]."

So, even on its own terms, your essay doesn't support your position. More importantly, were the community to decide to disregard our core guidelines and policies to create an affirmative action program for educational institutions, one would expect a clear statement to that effect in a guideline or policy. None exists. Similarly, current talks at WT:N merely to relax—not abrogate—the notability guideline for women and other minority subjects in an effort to compensate for systemic bias appear destined to fail. If we aren't going to give biographies about women a small concession in light of the well-documented systemic bias against women (both in external coverage as well as in terms of editor interest), there's no way we should be giving schools a total exception to notability. Rebbing 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think almost everyone who cites WP:OUTCOMES does so in a way that does the history of the page an injustice. Most demand it be treated as a set of subject-specific notability criteria, or argue that descriptions of the past are prescriptive for the future (or, sometimes, just dogmatically insist "it's how we do things"). Personally, I'm not a fan of the page, but I appreciate that there's some important history behind it. I would probably weakly support promoting the schools part of it (if care is taken in the wording) to a guideline, but until that happens it's problematic. You may or may not have a good handle on the background already, but I'll recommend reading User_talk:DGG#WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES_compromise, a section from a few months ago, during one of the more recent flare ups about this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And that's not al, Rhododendrites. There us also this from DGG from over 7 years ago, not to mention his many consistent comments in between times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. And I'm sure there have been others who have articulated it along similar lines. I just wanted to point to the particular thread that I personally found helpful, as explaining the historical context in a way that I had not seen (or, at least, which had not resonated). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung: Thank you for the background. However, that doesn't answer my objection. DGG asserts that SCHOOLOUTCOMES represents a compromise that high schools will be kept, and you seem to believe that SCHOOLOUTCOMES establishes that high schools are per se notable, but SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not support either view:

1. The introduction to the essay says: "Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as . . . 'We always keep these articles.'"
2. The introduction to SCHOOLOUTCOMES affirms that "all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability," and SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that N, NGEO, and ORG are the relevant notability guidelines.
3. These notability guidelines all require (1) significant coverage (2) in multiple reliable sources (3) that are independent of the subject.
4. NORG, a consensus-based guideline, states: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." It further stresses that "[a]ll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both."
5. Additionally, SCHOOLOUTCOMES only says what typically happens; if doesn't say what should happen. If DGG's view were correct, one would expect it to say something like: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools should be kept." But it doesn't. Instead, it refers the reader to the notability guidelines as outlined above.

If you, DGG, and the other proponents of this supposed compromise want it to be respected, you ought to start an RFC at ORG to modify NSCHOOL to say that high schools are notable if they can be shown to exist and to be independently-accredited. My suspicion is that the community would not go along with that, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. However, what's currently being done is dishonest and undermines both SCHOOLOUTCOMES' clear text and the broader community's consensus as expressed in our guidelines. Rebbing 19:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

and with respect to women, less-developed areas, etc., how strictly to apply the standards is a matter of judgement in individual articles--I would certainly not want to make a formal guideline of it, but many thousand afds have been closed as keep on that basis--some with my support, some against my opposition, most where I was uncertain. But, fundamentally, variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia--which is exactly why we have these debates, because there can be more than one valid opinion in many cases. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) .

My read of the current discussion is that the community is firmly opposed to relaxing the guidelines not because there shouldn't be a formal guideline about it but because it would undermine our editorial policies. It's difficult, if not impossible, to write a balanced, verifiable, useful article without multiple independent RSes, and Wikipedia is not an affirmative action program. What's happening with SCHOOLOUTCOMES goes much further than a little leniency. Rebbing 19:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What we actually do is the effective guideline, and the community has the right to interpret each AfD as the consensus may have it. In the last year, when such a stretching has been proposed at AfD, the article has been kept about half the time. As I said, for some of these I think it's stretching too far, and I opposed, or even proposed the deletion, but they were kept nonetheless. In some fields I've stopped even nominating them, because they all get kept. Whatever rule get's passed or not passed, IAR supersedes it; the community makes the rules, and can make the exceptions . But yes, this is different from SCHOOLOUTCOMES, where it is not variable from AfD to AfD, but a matter of consistent decisions. Personally, I'd rather we kept elementary schools also, but I'd rather have a rule than argue each one of them. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how the community is firmly opposed to anything. As we have repeatedly pointed out, every single one of the many RfC and less formal discussions on the subject over the last 10 years has ended in 'no consensus'. THe actual consensus is the tacit one evidenced by the way literally 1,000s of school AfD have been closed. That's a concrete fact - stats like tat don't lie and no in dividual opinion can change the numbers. We need to stop criticising the OUTCOMES page -or should we be pasting a list of 4,000 AfD closures to every AfD to substantiate our 'keep' votes? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Three things, Kudpung:

1. Have a look at WT:N § Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability; it now stands at 7 and 21, which I think is a clear opposition to the rather modest suggestion that the notability guidelines be "relax[ed] . . . in cases of subjects affected by systemic bias."
2. Past closures tell us nothing. You infer from them that the community believes schools are per se notable. It's also possible that most challenged schools have actually received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. The essay doesn't say which it is, it doesn't say what should happen in future debates, and it explicitly rejects your use of SCHOOLOUTCOMES to mean that all high schools are kept ("Avoid . . . illogical arguments, such as . . . 'We always keep these articles.'"). "No consensus" RFCs notwithstanding, the formal, explicit consensus of the community laid out in ORG—that every school should be considered by ORG's standard—trumps what you are reading into past outcomes, and I am disappointed that you refuse to show any respect for it—or even acknowledge what it says.
3. You still haven't answered my objection that SCHOOLOUTCOMES undermines what you say it does: it points to ORG, and ORG—again, actual evidence of the formal consensus of the broader community—clearly states that schools are kept only if they have received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.

Thank you. Rebbing 00:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat: I fail to see how the community is firmly opposed to anything. As we have repeatedly pointed out, every single one of the many RfC and less formal discussions on the subject over the last 10 years has ended in 'no consensus'. The vast majority of school article AfD are apparently concluded in a manner contrary to the way you appear to prefer to see them closed. The initiative therefore to start an RfC should not come from me at all, but from someone who would like the current practice to be changed (or confirmed). And I do mean an RfC - not the manner in which some users simply use AfC as a vehicle for their own deletionist campaigns. I'm sorry but that is my last comment here. I'll happily discuss the matter elsewhere in a venue where the broader community will participate.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're still not hearing me, Kudpung. The existing guideline says very clearly: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools . . . must satisfy either [WP:ORG] or the general notability guideline, or both." You're suggesting I start an RFC asking if our guidelines need to be followed? If I did start an RFC, and if it closed affirming that all schools must meet the normal notability criteria, would you actually respect that outcome when you've clearly chosen to disregard the guideline in its current state? Rebbing 03:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that was my last comment here. I do not appreciate your tone. I'll happily discuss the matter elsewhere in a venue where the broader community will participate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. You came to me, and yet you have failed to engage with anything I've said to you; you've refused even to acknowledge that your stance appears to be in direct conflict with the text of our guidelines. Respect for the broader consensus of the community embodied in policies and guidelines is an important part of how we do business here; we don't get to disregard it just because we disagree with it. I expect better than this from an established editor. Rebbing 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rebbing,

My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages.

1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me.
2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages?
3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me.
4. How would you describe your gender?
5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor?

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to!

Sincerely,

Stelba90 (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Replied via email. Rebbing 04:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I was bold and went ahead and redirected this stub that you had prodded. It's a likely search term. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Bearian: Even better! Why didn't I think of that? Thank you.

I notice the author has made many similar stubs, for example, Richmond and Westmoreland Street station, 34th Street station (SEPTA Route 15), 63rd Street station (SEPTA Route 15), 40th Street station (SEPTA Route 15), and Frankford and Delaware Avenue station. Do you think it would be appropriate to redirect these as well? I'm not looking to crush anyone's dreams, but these are not the sorts of things that ordinarily merit standalone articles. Rebbing 23:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Rebbing! Just saw this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UP Diliman Department of Geodetic Engineering. If I am not wrong, a nominator withdrawal (in favour of Speedy Keep) is valid only when all other !votes have advocated for keeping the article. Shouldn't this have been a "SNOW Redirect" instead of a "speedy keep" per WP:SK#NOT? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Lemongirl942! Thank you for your note. Funny story for you: I actually had closed this as "redirect." A few minutes later, I happened to double-check my work, and I noticed I'd closed it nearly three days early, not a few hours, as I'd thought. (Clearly, I hadn't had my coffee that morning. Ha ha.) Since the nominator had withdrawn and nobody had voted "delete," speedy keep seemed to be a good fit, so I changed my close.

Under a literal reading of Speedy Keep Criterion 1, I believe my close was correct. Criterion 1 applies when "[t]he nominator withdraws the nomination . . . and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." I relied on that in making my close, and I don't think SK#NOT undermines that rationale. That said, I'm skeptical that a literal reading is in keeping with the intent of the rule: a vote for redirect is essentially a vote for deletion with a convenience redirect left behind. The rule should probably be changed to say it applies only when no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Were I to do this over again, I would have left it to run its full seven days so it could have an ordinary "redirect" close.

Thoughts? Should I revert to my previous close? Overturn and relist? I have no personal hangups about overturning my close; I just want to make sure I'm complying with our rules and, more importantly, not causing any unnecessary hassle for the participants over such a straightforward discussion. Rebbing 07:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that was a perfectly appropriate close. It's what I would have done, and as an admin I would have more to lose by getting it wrong than a non-admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Kudpung. Rebbing 01:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't notice that previous close! Actually deletion and redirection are almost similar and in practice a redirect is more like deletion. The redirect is mentioned at WP:SKCRIT but not very clearly "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection as a reason for speedy keep." I added your suggestion here ;)

I think a revert to your previous close should be sufficient. This is a pretty uncontroversial close anyway and per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY your earlier close is fine. With so many AfD nominations floating around, I don't mind if we get rid of a few ones early ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to leave my close intact. At the time I made it, it was unassailable: the nominator had withdrawn, and no one else had advanced an argument for deletion, thus satisfying the explicit wording of Criterion 1. In addition to being technically correct, my close doesn't prejudice anyone: should the redirect be reverted, it would be no trouble to bring a second nomination.

On the other hand, a three-day-early non-speedy close with only two participants would be questionable at best. The only alternative I see is overturning and relisting, which seems like needless bureaucracy since the article is unlikely to be restored. Between a technically correct close, a dubious close, and a relist, I think the technically correct close is the best option in this particular situation.

That said, I strongly support your addition to Criterion 1, and I also appreciate your taking the time to question this. Rebbing 01:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the hatnote hatnote, here. Very meta, and helpful too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! I actually hadn't realize how funny that was! Rebbing 13:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebbing, sorry about the delay in responding at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb, but i was sleeping Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Aw, so cute! And no worries—I didn't expect an instant reply. Confession: I spent my entire afternoon napping on my couch, and now it's dark. Boo. Rebbing 01:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Now I understand what the note meant, it was confusing when I read it, so I tweaked it a bit, please take a look. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): No worries! It's fairly unusual to derive age that way, and, with the "as of" language, I can easily see how it looks like a case for ((age as of date)). Your added sentence clarifies all this for the reader, so thank you—I'll be using it next time I need a similar footnote.

With most subjects, I'd be concerned about BLPPRIVACY by piecing together a birth date in that way, but Ms. Pierson's is widely publicized (unfortunately, not in reliable sources). One very persistent new editor was intent on adding her full birth date (citing, among other things, a reposted YouTube clip of someone wishing her a happy birthday), so I figured an idiosyncratic construction that still used reliable sources was a serious improvement. Cheers. Rebbing 20:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution to the article Marlo Meekins. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. The reason is the subject does not demonstrate notability, please see the talk page for article Marlo Meekins. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.173.220 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2016‎ (UTC)

Ahhh! the pungent smell of rank condescension served with a greasy dressing of overconfidence and ignorance. No, thank you. Rebbing 03:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the IP running some sort of an automated script? After looking at some other edits, this doesn't seem like a real person and more like a templated message placed automatically. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you! It looks to me less like a script and more like someone pretending to be using a script. The headings are unconventional; the capitalization is off; the boilerplate components of the messages are poorly written; the suggestions lack links where most user templates would have them; and they all lack signatures. The earlier messages appear to have been placed simply as new sections, but, for this one, the edit summary was altered to claim to be a notification from "Pyscript.50." The comment demanding that I not remove CSD tags without proving notability is more of the same half-cocked pretentiousness. I smell socks, but I'm confident the laundry will get washed when the hamper's full enough. Rebbing 04:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I now realise had overlooked this. :D --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

*LOL* That image does date me a little, doesn't it? Ok, so we can say rather frankly that it has "historic significance". ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha—yes!! I was sad to read recently that Brittanica stopped printing, but it makes sense. I was visiting law schools earlier this month, and a tour guide showing me through a massive library joked that the books are only there to absorb sound because their content is all available much faster and with current cross-references through digital subscription services.

Also, I love your hair. Rebbing 08:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebbing, I've noticed that you performed round-robin page moves at some point. Thought I'd share a new script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience, if you ever encounter the scenario. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway, just an FYI, feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the note; I'll give it a try next time I do one. It looks like a significant improvement over manual round-robin moves, especially with all the pre-flight checks you put in. Nicely done, sir. Rebbing 00:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You provide no proper justification for reverting my extensively explained edit (on talk page). Explain yourself. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69: Your edit was disruptive, in violation of WP:3RR (you're now at five reverts in less than five hours). Also, filibustering—what you're doing on the talk page—is widely considered to be gaming the system. I don't need to file a twenty-page reply brief before I'm allowed to revert you. Rebbing 13:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This is absurd. One is supposed to explain one's edits, including on the talk page when not feasible in an edit summary, as here. And I did so before making the edit, not after. Now, seriously, are you telling me that you can look at my edit, the talk page explanation of it, and honestly declare it is proper to revert the whole entire thing? So, now you actually like OR, improper sourcing, and mischaracterization of secondary sources? I don't think you're being very objective here. You certainly don't seem concerned about the state of the article in question. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69: Whoosh! My explanation was that you edit was disruptive. I see you've declined my invitation to revert yourself; I have no idea why you insist on sabotaging yourself like this, but my money says you'll be blocked for at least a week, probably more. Enjoy your vacation. Rebbing 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What "invitation to revert" myself? Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't have done it, but I know of no such "invitation." Antinoos69 (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69: It's this message. You've got nerve; I'll give you that much. Cheers. Rebbing 14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't read that comment until just now, after your post. I decline, of course. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69 No problem; thanks for humoring me. I see you've made another revert after being taken to ANEW. If you don't mind my asking: What is your strategy here? Surely, you can't imagine the administration will overlook this and let your edit stand? Do you simply not care? I'm not trying to be rude; I'm just curious why someone like you who is clearly passionate about his editing would choose a course of action that's guaranteed to get his changes undone and his ability to edit revoked. Rebbing 14:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that I may not wish to be part of a "community" that puts petty legalism above actual article content, reason and rationality, and petty obstructionist editors working said legalism (if for no other reason that they have more experience and stomach for it)? Antinoos69 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69: It has occurred to me that you have no interest in the community. You don't have to participate, but you do have to make some pretense at following our rules in order to continue editing. You're clearly intelligent; you cared enough to make the change, to argue about it on the talk page and elsewhere; yet you did the one thing that's certain to keep you from seeing your changes through. That's what I don't understand. You know your last edit will be reverted as soon as your block comes through, and, the way you've made friends here, it's not as if anyone's going to champion your cause while you're gone. Rebbing 14:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course I have no interest in the "community" or making internet friends, whatever nonsense those are. I am interested in correcting much of the nonsense that passes for information and scholarship (minus the OR) on Wikipedia. If editors coming upon my edit and edit explanation (talk page) nevertheless decide to ignore the important issues raised therein due to some Wiki version of HS cliques, then Wiki editors are pseudointellectual buffoons who should be ignored, just as the "encyclopedia" they have produced is very rightly ignored by academia. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Antinoos69, one of our core policies is WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia is built by multiple users who contribute and collaborate. Accordingly, you need to demonstrate consensus for your edits. Calling other editors as "pseudointellectual buffoons" is not going to help. If you are interested in correcting and positively contributing, try collaborating. If multiple editors have opposed a bold edit of yours, starting an RfC is the next step. In addition, try editing in increments instead of one large edits. It helps other editors to see why your are making the change. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I like to think of Wikipedia like an office: if you're here to socialize, you're going to be disappointed. Still, you'll be more successful in your endeavors and have a better time to boot if you play nicely with others. As for consensus and the community, they've worked pretty well for us so far. I can't even imagine the mess we'd have if brute force were an accepted form of dispute resolution. Rebbing 06:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:SwisterTwister. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

stop misrepresenting wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This from the editor who insists blogs count as reliable sources as long as they're not "written in a personalized way" (diff) and that ABOUTSELF can apply to a food product (diff)? Rebbing 16:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you're back for more. No worries. The more you tag, the more people will see how silly you and your friends are acting. Seriously, I can't believe that guy saying buckwheat honey's medicinal uses would only be found in "glossy magazines". [1] Pretty out of touch if you ask me. Here's a pic for decoration. Sole Flounder (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely picture. It's delightful! Are bees' pollen sacks ordinarily that orange?

I'm glad you're willing to live with the merge tags: they ensure a wider audience, including those who visit the affected articles, will be aware of and able to participate in the discussion. I took a look at the Google Scholar results, and I also didn't see anything that would be appropriate for us to include, especially keeping in mind MEDRS's mandate that "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." Fashion magazines—which I will freely admit to reading—are often much looser about evidentiary support for such claims. Rebbing 21:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool, glad you like it! I don't know about those pollen sacks. Sole Flounder (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Writer's Barnstar

Hi Rebecca, this is Mariano (Mpaniello). Thanks so much for your welcome message and for the advice on the nuances of posting -- I hope this is the right medium for sending thanks! I'll certainly keep your advice in mind. I chose a writer's barnstar because I noticed your mention of having worked on the Flannery O'Connor article -- she's been one of my favorites since my freshman year of college back in the 80s (Sewanee, a real bastion of Southern lit -- Eudora Welty was the writer in residence when I was there). I'll be sure to check out the O'Connor page so I can behold your handiwork! I'm a graphic designer, and though my Wiki skills might be a bit sloppy due to my unfamiliarity with the rules, I'm also a huge fan of meticulous formatting, having done much document layout work in my time. Have a great long weekend, and please don't hesitate to give me any more pointers if ever I stray from the righteous path! Mpaniello (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mpaniello! Sewanee is right in the heart of Southern literature, from what I've heard, so I'm not surprised you got to read her. I only came across Miss O'Connor's writing this past winter, but I am sold.

Wikipedia's not easy to pick up, but you're already off to a great start. You're a fine writer, meticulous, agreeable, and willing to learn: the most important things here.

Also, I work from home, and I am embarrassed to say I hadn't realized this was Labor Day weekend. I've decided to celebrate—thank you, and best wishes! Rebbing 04:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This time I saw a note by administrator Kudpung on his talk page asking him to slow down. User talk:SweetCanadianMullet.

1, 2. --Marvellous Spider-Man 02:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Marvellous Spider-Man: What do you see him doing wrong? His recent patrols (log) don't appear to be problematic. The single page that you unreviewed, The Voices (UKR), was patrolled nearly a month ago (log)—before either of Kudpung's messages. With all due respect, I'm unclear what you would like me to do. Do you want me to talk to him for you? Are you asking me to follow up with Kudpung about this? Rebbing 11:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you about his page patrols, and as you have mentioned above that his recent patrols are not problematic, there is nothing more to do. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Marvellous Spider-Man: Well, I'm glad I could be of service.

For future reference, you can view an editor's patrols by using Special:Log and selecting "Patrol log" for the log type. For each blue-linked article, find the last edit by the patroller in the page history (subsequent edits may have fixed things); if the page appears insufficiently patrolled at that point, make note of the article and the problem. When you've assessed a few recent patrols and identified any recurring problems, leave the reviewer a note about it:

Hello! I noticed you recently patrolled Albert Einstein. It doesn't appear to me that the subject is notable, so I've requested the article be speedy deleted. The notability standard for people is specified at WP:BIO. Please check closely for notability in the articles you patrol: if they're not notable, you should see to it that they're deleted (via CSD, BLPPROD, PROD, or AFD), or, at minimum, tagged with ((notability)).
It's very important that new page patrolling is done correctly. Please take some time to review the NPP checklist. The community expects that every issue covered in the list will be checked for during your patrols; do not mark a page as being patrolled unless you are able to follow the rubric completely and meticulously. Thank you!

I recommend using plain talk page messages for this instead of the "unreviewed" feature. If you get stuck, feel free to leave me a message about it or post on WP:NPP/N. Cheers! Rebbing 07:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Good! Thank you. I oppose the proposed change, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it passes. Either way, I'm glad to see old rules reexamined from time to time. Cheers! Rebbing 21:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I am notifying people that responded at Template talk:Infobox person that it is now a formal !vote on whether to include or exclude parents and spouses in infoboxes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for replying to queries on the talk of Taylor Swift and running the page on the existing consensus. It would've been exhausting for me to both improve it and do what you are doing. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Aw, thank you very much! You've done a real bang-up job improving the article, and I'm happy to pitch in with fielding the regular stream of unproductive edits and questions when I can. Rebbing 05:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Jewel's father is proud ;) Safehaven86 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yummo—thanks!

I'm used to seeing ridiculous vandalism on Wikipedia, but I'm honestly surprised anyone would accuse Jewel of hating men. Everything I've heard from and about her paints her as a highly compassionate person. Oh well. Rebbing 04:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to draw your attention to a discussion between Dontreader and Duffbeerforme on the latter's talk page, under the title Could you please take a look at Ivana Raymonda van der Veen?. Does this not imply a COI in the raising of the AFD? This is all in the public domain and leaves questions in my mind about the reason for this AFD. It does not reflect well in the appearance of Wiki to the outside world. I must apologise posting here but I don't know what else to do. Elek58 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Elek58: Thank you for your note. Having been emphatic in my opposition to the previous AFD, I am well aware of the history involved, including Dontreader's romantic falling out with the subject and his canvassing of the current nominator. To be frank, I am not pleased with the situation—I think Duffbeerforme should have slapped a ((notability)) tag on the article and left it for someone else to nominate. However, as there is no reason to suspect that Duffbeerforme has a personal conflict with the subject or is acting on Dontreader's instructions, I cannot oppose. It's true that Duffbeerforme was made aware of this by Dontreader, but that's not sufficient for me to attribute Dontreader's conflict to him; it's simply too attenuated at this point, and our normal processes must prevail. Rebbing 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)